The Department for Transport (DfT) has suggested it will be less likely to invest in major road infrastructure projects in future years in response to a Transport Committee report.

The Government has instead indicated it wants to put more focus on maintenance of England’s Strategic Road Network. 

The suggestion is made in the DfT’s response to the Transport Committee’s report on Strategic Road Investment, an inquiry prompted by persistent delays and overspends on a catalogue of large-scale schemes. 

The committee’s inquiry examined the reasons behind issues that affected National Highways’ multi-billion-pound portfolios of projects to improve and grow the Strategic Road Network – 4,300 miles of motorways and A roads. 

As well as investigating ways to improve delivery of National Highways’ five-year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) portfolios, MPs also questioned how the Government’s drive to deliver major road projects could accord with its statutory net zero targets. 

Transport Committee chair Iain Stewart MP said: “We applaud the Government’s indication it will put more emphasis on renewal and maintenance of England’s ageing Strategic Road Network.

“This is a wiser course of action than pouring billions into major enhancements that have been beset by delays and soaring costs, and it better reflects motorists’ interests.

“However, we do not accept the Department’s excuse that risks to these schemes were somehow unforeseeable. The NAO (National Audit Office) and others have made clear this was not so. 

“Attempting to analyse the status of various schemes often felt like navigating a spaghetti junction, with key documents either not available or only from disparate sources. It was also positive to see the Department agree to look at publishing more frequent updates.”  

However, Stewart says it was disappointing that the Government seemed “unwilling to explore” that investing in alternative, less carbon-intensive transport projects could limit the increases in congestion on major roads that it “appears to believe are inevitable”. 

He added: “We also welcome the acknowledgement that regional transport bodies could be engaged with more during the planning and delivery of future schemes. After all, they are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and risks that could crop up.” 

Prioritising day-to-day maintenance 

The cross-party committee’s report argued that money for the next Road Investment Strategy should be prioritised on renewal and maintenance of the strategic road network, rather than costly enhancements that have been prone to delay and overspend.

Witnesses said that research showed road users would also prefer the day-to-day upkeep of existing roads to be prioritised. 

The DfT agreed in principle with this point and said almost half of funding for RIS2 (for 2020-2025), totalling £27.4 billion, was budgeted for maintenance work.  

It said: “Maintenance and renewals to keep the network in a safe and serviceable condition and minimise the need for more structural, intrusive repairs, are likely to be a growing and essential element of the roads programme.” 

It added: “The Government is currently developing its investment priorities for RIS3 (2025-30). More details will be set out in the draft RIS3 later in 2023.” 

Managing future congestion and demand 

During its inquiry the committee heard concerns that the population’s switch to electric vehicles may not happen quickly enough to offset the added carbon emissions that would result from increases in traffic on the SRN.

MPs therefore urged DfT to consider actions and model scenarios that could instead reduce or limit such increases. 

Ministers rejected this point and said the Government’s role is “not to stop people travelling”. 

The response added: “The current trajectory set out in the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (CBDP), published in March 2023, presents a credible pathway to net zero without restricting growth.” 

Engaging with regional transport bodies 

The report said the Government should codify a requirement in National Highways’ licence for it to formally engage with regional transport bodies when planning future RIS portfolios. 

This would enable National Highways to benefit from local knowledge and better identify risks to individual schemes. 

DfT said National Highways is already required to engage with regional bodies, but that it would “consider” including a provision for this when its licence next due for renewal. 

Boosting transparency 

Witnesses said it could be challenging to access and track National Highways’ progress in delivering schemes within the Road Investment Strategy portfolios.

This was because updates are published annually, and at different times of the year, by the Office for Rail and Road (ORR), DfT and National Highways. 

MPs said a “live” project dashboard should be published to provide up-to-date information on all projects in the RIS portfolios, including their costs, planning status and expected completion dates. 

The Government said a “genuinely live” dashboard would not be “practical”, but promised to “work closely with National Highways and the ORR, to explore the opportunity for more frequent public project reporting in one place”. 

New planning policies for major road and rail schemes need clarifying

Separately, the Transport Committee has published its analysis of the Government’s proposals to revamp planning policies for nationally significant road and rail infrastructure projects. 

The policies are contained in a draft revised National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS), published by the DfT earlier this year. 

In its report, the cross-party Committee urges ministers to redraft sections that would be used to determine whether major new projects are compatible with net zero legislation, based on the carbon emissions that would be produced during and after their construction.  

The Government said it wants to revise the NNNPS to avoid legal challenges that have delayed new projects by clarifying how planning policies would interact with climate legislation. But the committee warns that the draft NNNPS wouldn’t achieve this in its current form.  

MPs also make recommendations on the way DfT looks at different options for projects and road-traffic demand forecasts, and how to make its decision-making more transparent.

There are also recommendations on biodiversity, active travel, and restructuring the various national policy statements for transport. 

Stewart said: “Flaws in the current NNNPS are partly to blame for the perennial problem of why major infrastructure projects become delayed by legal challenges, so there is a lot riding on this work to produce a new set of planning policies. 

“But a number of witnesses, including some who themselves launched legal challenges against such projects, told us the current draft won’t provide the legal certainty that DfT needs.

“One of the Government’s objectives in revising the NNNPS is to balance the Net Zero goals with infrastructure projects that could increase greenhouse gas emissions.

“Given the concerns we heard, we urge the Government to amend the draft NNNPS to provide a definition of ‘residual’ emissions and to state explicitly its understanding of the legal precedent for permitting major infrastructure schemes which result in increases in emissions. 

“The draft NNNPS should also promote more scrutiny of the way the Government examines the options for building new road or rail schemes and shows the evidence behind its forecasts that more congestion is inevitable if we don’t build more motorways and A roads.” 

Aligning new infrastructure with net zero 

Campaigners and industry groups said the draft NNNPS fails to adequately set out how new infrastructure projects should be assessed on the carbon emissions they will produce.

They argued this could lead to legal challenges to development consent orders as the Government wouldn’t be able to explain how an order would align with legally binding net zero goals. 

The draft NNNPS does not take note of the Climate Change Committee’s recommended that new projects should only be permitted if they “meaningfully support cost-effective delivery of net zero and climate adaptation”. 

There was also criticism of the way that the draft NNNPS permits “residual” emissions – which result during construction of new infrastructure – while lacking a clear definition or criteria of what “residual” means. 

MPs say the Government should respond to the Climate Change Committee's recommendation on reviewing the roads programme and explain why this recommendation will or will not be taken forward.

Obtaining clarity on this issue is important for establishing whether legal challenges to new projects on climate grounds are likely to continue.

The draft NNNPS should also be amended to provide a definition of "residual" greenhouse gas emissions.