The Department for Transport (DfT) is consulting on cutting its road investment strategy (RIS3), to fund defence. They are currently consulting a small number of stakeholders but we want to make sure everyone has the chance to share their opinion. 

DfT is proposing reducing RIS3 by £428 million. This would be done by: 

1. Cancelling two road schemes - the A46 Newark Bypass and A38 Derby Junctions - saving £315m.
2. Making £113m of cuts in other capital funding 

Transport Action Network supports the cancellation of these two road schemes as they are environmentally-damaging and offer poor value for money. However, some people will argue that both schemes should go ahead, so we need your support to ensure that this does not happen. 

The government is also asking where the other £113 million of cuts should come from. Our concern is that funding for road safety, the environment and active travel may be reduced. We need to make sure that all three areas remain a priority. 

The letter from the Department for Transport announcing the RIS3 variation can be viewed here.

How you can support us 

There are two ways you can respond to this consultation. The quickest and easiest way is to use and edit our template here which we will send to DfT for you. Or you can respond directly to DfT’s survey, using this link and our template answers below as guidance. 

The deadline for responses is 14th September. Please respond ASAP.

Our guidance to responding to the RIS3 Variation Consultation

Questions and responses

Please note Questions 1-4 need to be completed with your own contact details. For the questions requiring a written response we have supplied some guidance below. However please rephrase this text as needed to form your own individual response.

5. Do you support or oppose the changes to RIS3 outlined in the letter, including the overall £428 million reduction proposed and the specific areas for savings proposed to achieve it?

Select ‘Supports proposed changes’ 

6. Please let us know the reasons for your response and any other comments you have on the proposal or any alternatives. 

I support the proposed changes to cancel the A38 Derby and A46 Newark schemes. Both offer poor value for money and will increase wider network congestion and carbon emissions, whilst causing biodiversity loss. Cancelling them would save at least £1.3 billion in the longer term.

I would support cuts to certain other capital budgets, such as the Growth and Housing Accelerator Fund, which could lead to car-based sprawl, and the 13 RIS4 pipeline road projects to be built in the 2030s. However it is vital that capital funding for road safety, the environment and active travel should be ring-fenced and, where possible, increased. 

In advance of Budget 2026, the DfT could save more funding if other expensive but poor value road projects like the A66 Northern Trans Pennine (saving £2bn), and the Lower Thames Crossing (£3.1bn public funding) were cancelled. Both schemes are in the DfT’s  'poor' and ‘low’ value for money categories. The privatised Lower Thames Crossing is also now facing an National Audit Office investigation, and will lose the exchequer money in perpetuity due to the loss of toll revenues at LTC and Dartford. At the very least, the government should seek the extra £174 million pledged for the Lower Thames Crossing in RIS3 (over and above its supposed ‘final’ allocation of cash in the Autumn Budget), in efficiency savings. That would avoid the need to make any cuts elsewhere.

Cancelling these two large road schemes would free up more capital for DfT to spend on many more, cheaper, higher value public transport projects that better deliver government and RIS3 objectives. This would more than cover the £113 million of cuts required.

7. Do you agree or disagree with the prioritisation of capital funding for maintenance and renewals?

Agree 

8. Please explain the reasons for your response to Question 7.

I strongly agree that repairing and renewing our roads must be a top priority and funding protected from cuts - fixing old roads now saves money later. Any renewals and maintenance should also enable higher uptake of active travel on the SRN, and deliver on RIS3’s improving safety for all objectives.

Funding for road safety, the environment, and active travel must be protected alongside maintenance. Failing to invest in these areas will lead to more road deaths, more harm to nature, toxic runoff continuing to pollute our waterways, and missed climate targets. National Highways’ active travel funding has been substantially reduced over years, and this trend must be reversed starting with increasing, not reducing, active travel funding. 

9. Do you have any views on how the RIS3 objectives may be prioritised in any capital funding reductions?

The RIS4 pipeline of 13 new road schemes does not deliver on the five relevant RIS3 objectives. Road projects usually have weak business cases and so do not grow the economy (unlike better value transport interventions such as public transport, rail freight, and active travel projects). The RIS4 pipeline would also increase traffic and congestion on the wider road network (especially during the construction period, where the economic impact of delays and disruption are often underestimated, see M25 Junction 10), undermining the network performance objective. The RIS4 pipeline would also not improve safety for all, as creating additional traffic makes cycling and walking more difficult and unsafe. The RIS4 pipeline would also not deliver the improved environment objective either, due to increased traffic, noise and air pollution, biodiversity loss, and carbon emissions. Creating more car-dependency will not create a resilient network, but will simply lead to increased traffic and congestion.

In contrast, investing in active travel and small safety schemes and maintenance and renewals have a much higher Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) and are much better at meeting the other RIS3 objectives. Increasing active travel funding in RIS3 supports five of the six objectives (grow the economy, improved safety, network performance, resilient network, and improved environment).  

10. Regarding the two enhancement schemes, is there any further information or evidence you can provide to supplement the assessment information provided in Annex A?

YES

11. If you ticked 'Yes' to Question 10, please provide any information or evidence here. Should you wish to attach any files, please email these to 'RIS3Variation@dft.gov.uk' along with your name and organisation so these can be linked to your response.

I am concerned about the reliability of the information provided in the original and amended Annex A.

A38 Derby - this locally unpopular road scheme would increase traffic, noise and air pollution (especially around the Royal School of the Deaf) and carbon emissions. It would also completely destroy Kingsway Local Wildlife Site and 11.8 hectares  of mature trees including a veteran oak with no biodiversity net gain requirements. Clearly the ‘slight beneficial’ assessment is wrong. It also risks worsening congestion on the local road network. The housing associated with the scheme risks entrenching further car dependency and increasing traffic, pollution and local road network congestion as there are no plans to improve public transport links for the new housing. The scheme is estimated to cost at least £600 million, has an extremely weak business case, and with no contractor and no full business case, it risks costing more to build than it will ever deliver in economic benefit.

A46 Newark Bypass - this controversial road-widening scheme would cost at least £700 million, and would lead to increased traffic, air and noise pollution and carbon emissions. The scale of this huge project is inappropriate for a historic market town. It would also cause significant harm to the Great North Road Grasslands Local Wildlife Site and destroy a rookery with up to 100 nests. The project would also increase traffic and congestion in Newark and do nothing for residents without a car. It is also very poor value for money with National Highways estimating it will only generate £1.20 of benefits for every £1 spent.