PRESS RELEASE

Pause on unaffordable road schemes welcomed

Transport Action Network (TAN) [1] is welcoming the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves’ likely announcement this afternoon to pause a number of large road schemes due to a lack of funding [2]. Reeves is quite correct to seize control of spending on unaffordable major road projects with dubious benefits. However, TAN would like her to go further and to scrap the schemes altogether.

The costs of these schemes, such as A303 Stonehenge, Lower Thames Crossing and A66 Northern Trans-Pennine, have been systematically underestimated. The economic cases are also in doubt with some costing more than they will deliver in benefits. In effect they will lose the UK money [3].

Transport Action Network has long raised concerns about the lack of oversight of these white elephant schemes [4], where costs are not updated regularly, in line with inflation, and there is a culture of secrecy around them within Government and National Highways [5].

Chris Todd, Director of TAN said:

“The suggested pause to these white elephant road schemes is very welcome. However, we would like to see the Chancellor go further. Not only are these schemes highly damaging, but their business cases are rotten to the core. They are a bad investment for UK plc and would waste scarce public resources. Keeping these schemes in limbo leaves communities living with blight, and they should be scrapped for good.

“While we need to invest in infrastructure, we need to maintain what we have and adapt to climate change first and foremost. Any new infrastructure must be compatible with net-zero which expanding road capacity clearly isn’t.”

– ENDS –

Notes to editors:

[1] TAN was set up five years’ ago by director, Chris Todd to help local communities press for more sustainable transport in England and Wales. This often involves fighting cuts to bus and rail services and active travel provision, and opposing damaging road schemes and large unsustainable developments.

[2] The announcement is expected to be made by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, at 3.30pm this afternoon.

[3] The following are Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) for the three largest and most unaffordable road schemes. When planning for a road, National Highways produces an initial BCR. It then adds in, often unproven, wider economic benefits to boost its case, but never looks at wider economic costs. A BCR of less than one, shows the scheme will lose the country money (the benefits are less than the cost to build and maintain it).

Scheme	Cost (£bn)	‘Initial’ BCR	‘Adjusted’ BCR	Profit/Loss
A66 Northern Trans-Pennine	1.5	0.48	0.92	LOSS
A303 Stonehenge*	2.5	0.21	0.55	LOSS
Lower Thames Crossing**	9	0.48	1.22	SMALL PROFIT

 

* Does not include £1bn of fantasy ‘heritage benefits’ claimed by National Highways who are alone in claiming the scheme will benefit (and not harm) the World Heritage Site

** Does not include latest costs or the cost of road upgrades removed from the project but which will be needed to make it function as intended. Even small changes in traffic levels or carbon costs could see the project plunged into the red. In any case the relief it offers the Dartford Crossing will only last for 5 years. See our LTC Facts page for more details.

[4] TAN has written to the Treasury, the National Audit Office, and to the Infrastructure Projects Authority (IPA) voicing their concerns about the cost estimates and governance arrangement for major roads.

[5] TAN has discovered:

• Costs are not updated for many years and planning examinations are often denied access to the latest costs and impacts, making scrutiny difficult. An outline business case (OBC) is produced very early on, before a scheme enters the planning system. Only many years later, after planning consent is granted, is a full business case (FBC) produced. This has meant that spending on the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) has continued, based on the OBC produced in 2020, with no idea whether its economic case still stacks up.

• National Highways and the DfT have been progressing road schemes with a negative Benefit-Cost-Ratio (BCR), meaning that they would cost more to build than they would ever deliver in economic benefits.

• National Highways approve their own FBCs for their own schemes up to the value of £500 million, with no Department for Transport or Treasury oversight (see DfT’s response to our FOI request, 31 October 2023).

• The DfT, National Highways, the Cabinet Office, and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) have all refused to be transparent about the costs of schemes, and assurance arrangements for large road schemes. The Cabinet Office is appealing an Information Commission ruling ordering them to publish the IPA assurance reviews for the Lower Thames Crossing.

TAN has submitted a number of freedom of information requests to National Highways, DfT and Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA, which reports to Cabinet Office) regarding scheme costs and assurance arrangements.

• National Highways refused to publish the Full Business Cases for 18 road schemes, claiming this was “manifestly unreasonable”, 5 April 2024
• National Highways has refused to publish the minutes of their Investment Committee, 31 May 2024
• The Cabinet Office have refused to publish the IPA’s assurance reviews for the £1.5bn A66, 14 May 2024
• The DfT have refused to publish the minutes of their Investment, Portfolio and Delivery Committee (IPDC), 4 September 2023