Top 16 road schemes in England should be scrapped or paused, TAN tells Haigh

The Government should cancel road projects that are unaffordable and pause the rest subject to the outcome of next year’s spending review, alongside a more in-depth assessment similar to that carried out by the Welsh Government’s 2021 Roads Review, believes Transport Action Network (TAN).

The campaign group highlights 16 road schemes that, it says, should either be scrapped or paused. The total cost of these schemes is £15bn, according to National Highways estimates, though TAN argues the figures are out of date and the “total cost is likely to be even higher”. It notes that with schemes such as the £9bn Lower Thames Crossing, National Highways has “tried to keep costs under control by jettisoning associated road projects needed to make it function, thus hiding the true cost of the scheme”.

In its submission to the DfT’s transport infrastructure review, TAN urges Transport Secretary Louise Haigh to finish the process begun by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who cancelled the A303 and A27 road schemes. Haigh should “cancel the rest of the Conservatives’ roads programme in England and pause any schemes that might have merit for further scrutiny”, says TAN.

In the report, it backs “sensible and proportionate road improvements” designed to drive modal shift, accelerate decarbonisation and protect nature. “However, the Conservatives’ roads programme brings none of those benefits. It was based on ideas debunked 30 years ago that all road building generates economic growth and eases congestion.”

Scrapping or pausing the top 16 road projects would relieve “planning blight” and create clarity ahead of the 2024-25 spending review and development of the next Road Investment Strategy (RIS3: 2025-2030).

Any available savings should be diverted into fixing the existing road network alongside delivering modern and integrated public transport and active travel networks, says TAN. “This would support modal shift to accelerate decarbonisation while growing the economy, protecting nature and improving both opportunity for all and productivity.”

The report criticises National Highways, the company owned by the UK Government, which TAN describes as “supposedly accountable” to the DfT.

National Highways is tasked with managing and improving England’s motorways and major ‘A’ roads. “Yet all too often National Highways is allowed to mark its own homework and has delegated authority to approve its own Full Business Cases for schemes up to £500m with no Departmental or ministerial oversight,” claims TAN.

The report says the company is “rarely held to account for its failings”, and  challenges National Highways’ claim that safety is its number one priority.

This is at odds with the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) annual assessment, which found National Highways was “not on course to achieve the RIS2 safety target... and that increasing traffic levels would make this harder to achieve”, the report says.

When considering road schemes, the Government should address the increasing challenges brought about by climate change, adds the report. “The increased stress on the road network due to extreme weather events could also lead to greater maintenance requirements, as will greater traffic levels, further exacerbating a situation of traditional underinvestment.”

Quite often, the answer to an issue - such as safety or congestion - on the road network is not to build a bigger road as that can cause wider problems, the report concludes. “Currently however, National Highways tries to solve the problem using a default position of building a bigger road, even when this intervention will only slow down the increase in congestion, rather than reduce it.”

In view of its roads based remit, National Highways is in “no position to consider and deliver a non-road alternative which might provide a better solution such as improved passenger and freight rail services”.

TAN is urging the Government to divert some of the savings from cancelling new roads into fixing the existing pothole-ridden network – a pledge from Labour’s General Election manifesto. The report also gives examples of sustainable transport investment schemes across England projected to generate far higher economic and environmental benefits at lower cost whilst increasing the share of passenger and freight conveyed by rail. 

Jen Craft, Labour MP for Thurrock commented that the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) will fail to deliver on its goals. “Rather than easing congestion on the existing crossing, research suggests that it will simply increase traffic and exacerbate already high pollution levels in Thurrock, which already has very poor air quality,” she said.

“In my view, investing billions in road expansion is not the answer.  Instead, we should focus on improving other forms of transport by expanding bus services, enhancing rail links including freight to take lorries off the road and delivering on cross river public transport solutions like the proposed KenEx tram service. These options collectively offer cleaner, longer-term solutions to congestion while benefiting local communities.

“Ecological concerns will remain unaddressed by this project and any relief it offers at the Dartford Crossing will be short-lived.  We must prioritise sustainable alternatives which would better serve our economy and environment without the detrimental local impact of the LTC and at a fraction of the cost.”

TAN Roads and Climate Campaigner Rebecca Lush said: “Some of the funding saved by cancelling the worst schemes should be put to work enacting the Labour Government’s vision for rail freight as well as public transport and active travel. It would make trains, buses, trams, cycling and walking far more attractive propositions and bring both environmental and health benefits.  This would be far better value than blowing billions on destructive road building.”

Cancel new roads to boost growth