Transport Insights

The transport stories you won't see in the industry-friendly media

Author

Chris Ames

Tag: transport action network

  • ORR ties itself in loosely defined knots

    True to form, National Highways’ regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), has brushed off a complaint from campaigners about the company’s alleged misuse of designated funds.

    Transport Action Network (TAN) wrote to the ORR in August following publication of one of its National Highways Watch pieces on the issue, to which I contributed.

    Specifically, it alleged that the company was spending the “ring-fenced” funds on:

    Projects completely unrelated to roads (such as dance classes and school play equipment), acting as ‘sweeteners’ to buy local support on controversial schemes such as the Lower Thames Crossing

    Mitigation for new road projects, removing the cost of conservation projects from the project budget and artificially lowering the cost estimate.

    Designated Funds are a separate cash pot intended to make improvements on and around the strategic road network to address impacts such as community severance and environmental impacts, as well as delivering “additional” improvements to road schemes and improving safety across the network.

    The ORR’s response to TAN’s complaint was broadly that as the government had not prescribed what designated funds could or could not be spent on, National Highways can do what it likes with the cash, which totalled £870m under the 2020-25 road investment strategy (RIS 2) and £89m in the interim period (2025-26).

    It paraphrased RIS 2, which itself paraphrased its four named funds, as naming “some specific areas for investment – such as improving environmental performance, investigating innovative processes and improving facilities for those who walk and cycle” but also making clear that this is not an exhaustive list.

    (more…)

  • National Highways underpasses the buck

    Transport secretary Heidi Alexander’s request for more information about National Highways’ £340m M60/M62/M66 Simister Island project as she considers its planning application has generated some media coverage and an interesting snippet about how the company spends our money.

    At the heart of the issue is a dispute about what, if anything, the scheme will do to improve the Haweswater underpass, which goes under the motorway and provides a form of access for local people.

    Here’s the question that Alexander asked after ministers said they would throw money at the scheme.

    The Secretary of State is aware that, during the examination, the Applicant indicated that it was exploring designated funding to support some improvements to the Haweswater underpass.

    The Secretary of State requests an update from the Applicant on whether a bid has been made for that designated funding, and if so, any update as to whether that bid has been successful.

    Bear in mind that then the applicant (National Highways) talks about making a “bid” for designated funding, it is claiming to make a bid to itself.

    Anyway, here is its answer:

    The Applicant confirms that a bid for Designated Funding to carry out improvements to the Haweswater Underpass will be made to seek to secure its delivery in the financial year 2026/27 as all funds have now been allocated for the 2025/26 financial year. The Applicant would reiterate that there is no guarantee that funding will be made available, and the improvements are outside the scope of the Scheme.

    So National Highways is happy to spend £340m on a scheme to increase road capacity but is going to pass the begging bowl to itself to improve access for locals. And when it says there is no guarantee that funding will be made available, it is something of an understatement.

    (more…)

  • Throwing money down the utilities

    Transport Action Network has published the latest piece in its National Highways Watch series, which I researched and wrote, looking at how the government-owned company regularly overspends on enhancements projects.

    It is, I hope, a comprehensive account on past, current and future projects, as well as scrapped schemes like the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel.

    Among schemes that the Labour government has not yet admitted it can’t afford are the £10bn+ Lower Thames Crossing and the £1.5bn A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project, which is currently stuck in the Department for Transport’s value for money review.

    Both have very low benefit cost ratios and seem to be being driven by politics more than anything.

    Last month’s Spending Review did not mention the A66 scheme, something that the Northern Echo noticed, before reporting what it optimistically called an “update”, based on a Treasury Statement.

    A spokesperson for the Treasury said: “The Department for Transport will set out their long-term plan for the Strategic Road Network through the third Road Investment Strategy.

    “Further details on individual schemes like the A66 will be provided by the Department for Transport in due course.”

    Labour is rightly using a hiatus between five-year road investment strategies to rethink what it want to fund but the government has previously said the RIS would be aligned with the spending review and “in due course” is governments’ much-mocked way of refusing to give a firm date.

    So not much of an update.

    (more…)