About the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel

In October 2022 myself and Steve Gooding in our professorial capacities at the University of the West of England (UWE Bristol) secured a grant from the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund to establish a panel of senior professionals to critically examine road investment and spending. The impetus for this included the current development of the third Road Investment Strategy.

The Panel comprised:

• Professor Glenn Lyons (UWE Bristol - Chair) – member of the Wales Roads Review Panel
• Professor Steve Gooding (UWE Bristol - Co-convenor) – former Roads Director General at the Department for Transport (DfT)
• Professor Jillian Anable (University of Leeds) – Chair of the Research & Evidence Working Group for the National Transport Strategy for Scotland Review
• Professor Nicola Christie (University College London) – member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
• Professor Zoe Davies (University of Kent) – member of the Nature England Science Advisory Committee
• Professor Stephen Glaister (Imperial College London) – former Chair of the Office of Rail and Road
• Professor Phil Goodwin (UWE Bristol) – former member of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment
• Professor Karen Lucas (University of Manchester) – devising a new integrated methodology for the social assessment of road projects for National Highways

The Panel (supported by Panel Secretary Andrew Crudgington, former Director of External Affairs and Strategy at the Institution of Civil Engineers) has undertaken a short, intensive review of what, collectively, its members regard as principal issues of concern in relation to road investment and spending decisions, covering strategic and local roads, and what, if provided, would address those concerns. The work included, but was not confined to schemes generating additional capacity, and the Panel members did not attempt to address issues of engineering design, materials or construction efficiency as have been prompted by the recent dramatic spike is inflation impacting on National Highways scheme costs.

Seven key questions were identified:

1. What would make us feel confident that decisions on future road investment, at both the scheme and aggregate level, are consistent with the legal obligation to deliver a credible pathway to the decarbonisation of the UK economy by 2050?
2. What would make us feel confident that the policy imperative and opportunities to promote biodiversity enhancement are being recognised and pursued on their own merits, as opposed to biodiversity being ‘accommodated’ in pursuit of other goals?
3. How can we be persuaded that the health and social impacts of road spending experienced by individual people and communities are well understood and given sufficient weight at all stages of decision-making?
4. What would give us confidence that appropriate financial provision is being made for operating, maintaining and optimising the performance of the existing road network?
5. What would persuade us that options for investing in improving road safety are being identified and weighed appropriately?
6. What would persuade us that road investment and expenditure decisions - at the scheme and programme level - are the result of serious consideration of a genuinely broad range of options and their merits?
7. What would persuade us that road investment and expenditure decisions are likely to represent value for money over the long term?

The Panel published its report on 17 January 2023:

Road Investment Scrutiny Panel (2023). Key questions for road investment and spending. A report prepared with support from the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, University of the West of England, January. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/10295773/

This submission of evidence to the Inquiry is my own but draws upon this report in responding to the specific interests of the Inquiry.

How effectively the RIS2 enhancements portfolio has been managed to date

The National Audit Office November 2022 report highlights well how enhancements portfolio management has been confronted by the Covid-19 pandemic as well as by legal challenges to the pursuit of development consent.

The pandemic epitomises a society and transport system in a state of flux and with heightened uncertainty concerning the future. This brings into question analytical assumptions (where these are made available for scrutiny) regarding the potential consequences of enhancement schemes.

The DfT published an uncertainty toolkit in 2021 and has updated this in 2022 to reflect more emerging detail concerning its set of ‘Common Analytical Scenarios’ – what can be considered a series of ‘do nothing / do-minimum’ possible futures against which to assess ‘do something’ investments. In December 2022 the DfT then released its latest set of road traffic projections, reflective of these scenarios. DfT has repeatedly acknowledged the uncertainty associated with future demand for road traffic. The uncertainty currently faced demands more from the analysis and appraisal process if proposals for investment are to stand up to scrutiny and decisions are to be deemed robust.

Uncertainty then comes into tension with the Government’s legal obligations concerning a pathway of decarbonisation leading to a Net Zero economy in 2050. The 2022 High Court ruling that the Government’s Net Zero Strategy is unlawful is a stark reminder of the need for National Highways to be able to demonstrate how enhancement schemes are consistent with the part to be played by the transport sector, and in particular roads sector, in reaching Net Zero in an uncertain world.

Evidence is not synonymous with truth when looking to the future but when making an investment case, the underlying analysis needs to be robust, consistent and transparent if it is to stand up to scrutiny.

The series of legal challenges to attempts by National Highways to progress its enhancements portfolio brings into question how well managed the appraisal of schemes has been during RIS2 when taking account of the policy and legislative context and ongoing dynamics in transport and society as well as in appraisal guidance and expectations.

Whether risks to the enhancements portfolio for the remainder of the RIS2 period are being well managed

In the RISP report, a recurring expectation and concern was transparency of evidence, analysis and decision making. There are clear examples of where both National Highways and the DfT have been less than forthcoming in this regard.

Alongside concerns about the need for greater transparency, there is a growing and more vocal professional view that significant doubt is now cast over cases for enhancement schemes. DfT’s road traffic projections all point to road traffic growth and several of the projections point to the possibility of substantial carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic remaining by 2050. There are no projections for road traffic reduction. Yet from several quarters the prospect of needing road traffic reduction (to accompany decarbonisation of the vehicle fleet) has become apparent.

In the case of Scotland, Wales and now Ireland, road traffic reduction (not growth) is now an expectation or at least target. What makes England and its strategic roads so different that similar consideration is not called for? Whether road traffic reduction is advisable or unavoidable to remain within a legally compliant decarbonisation pathway may be considered by some debatable. It would be prudent for the Government to publish a clear position on what change in vehicle miles travelled by carbon-emitting vehicles would assure an acceptable carbon reduction trajectory. There should also be a convincing case set for how this can be achieved, with related analysis made available.

As things stand, National Highways needs to be able to manage the issues above and incorporate and account for them in making its case for investment. Making a case for capacity enhancement based upon an assumption of road traffic growth and upon an assumption that this would be consistent with an acceptable carbon reduction trajectory poses significant risk to pursuance of RIS2 because legal challenge as well as professional disquiet (that could in turn intensify public disquiet) are set to continue to be significant features of the remaining RIS2 period.

What the impacts of delays and cost overruns are on the overall programme, and whether the revised programme can be delivered to schedule and on budget

Concerns such as those outlined above are insufficiently addressed at present. There is a strong possibility that failure to address them may prove to be a false economy, particularly with the twin prospect of inflationary pressure and doubt cast over value for money of investment. In addressing these concerns, elements of the revised programme may see their case for progression weakened but this would at least help to establish a firmer foundation for robust decision making that can secure clearer passage through the Development Consent Order process.

What progress is being made on planning for the next Road Investment Strategy

Progress in relation to a legislative timetable is best understood by the DfT and National Highways. However, the nature of progress has importance alongside any timetable with a need for the next Road Investment Strategy to be suitable, acceptable and feasible in relation to future challenges and opportunities.

The legislative requirements associated with the investment programme for strategic roads, coupled with substantial challenges to progress with the current Road Investment Strategy could result in a failure to address the issues raised in this submission of evidence. As a consequence, problems may be carried forwards and even intensified for the third Road Investment Strategy and indeed opportunities for refocused investment may be missed.

Caution should be urged over any temptation for expediency precluding critical reflection and potential repositioning. The legislative wriggle room for this to be accommodated would need to be identified although, from reading of the 2015 Infrastructure Act and the associated Licence for (now) National Highways, it appears suitable provisions could be in place for this to happen.

What lessons from RIS2 need to be incorporated into RIS3 to ensure it is achievable and delivers on policy objectives

Challenges have arisen for RIS2 because of analysis, evidence and appraisal that are insufficiently consistent, or at least demonstrably and transparently so in relation to legal obligations – notably concerning decarbonisation. These are complex and difficult matters to address but matters that must be addressed nonetheless if RIS3 is to be achievable and deliverable.

Whether the Government’s current and forthcoming roads investment programme is meeting the current and future needs of consumers and business

Set out for the next Inquiry issue below are matters relating to wider societal concerns. Reference to ‘consumers and business’ is taken to point towards users of the strategic road network in terms of the level of service they (expect to) receive. Nevertheless it can be suggested that all five of the areas raised for the next point ultimately have a bearing on network users. While this may be most tangibly apparent in relation to maintenance/optimisation and safety, appropriately addressing decarbonisation, biodiversity, and health and social impacts have implications for the service provided for and expected by people where concerns about sustainability and social justice prevail and indeed may heighten over time.

Whether the Government’s roads investment programme aligns with other policy priorities, such as decarbonisation, levelling up, productivity and growth

The work of the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel considered decarbonisation, biodiversity, health and social impacts, maintenance and optimisation, and safety. These are all important territories for policy priority.

Decarbonisation obligations not only relate to achievement of a Net Zero economy by 2050 but to interim carbon budgets. While ‘Net’ may suggest flexibility in the intensity of effort to decarbonise road transport at pace, legally compliant decarbonisation will not be achieved if multiple parts of the economy are reliant upon ‘concessions’ that other parts of the economy are then expected to address – for example the Government’s Jet Zero strategy for aviation projects that with the strategy (and assumed aviation growth) around 50% of carbon dioxide emissions annually at present would still occur by 2050. To decarbonise road transport at a sufficient rate whereby the precautionary principle is in play is likely to require road traffic reduction, posing questions for capacity enhancement schemes.

Allied to decarbonisation is the important and increasingly visible and pressing issue of biodiversity. COP15 that took place at the end of 2022 has underlined a heightened commitment from governments around the world to protect biodiversity and an imperative for biodiversity enhancement. It is a concern that road investment primarily addresses biodiversity in terms of how to mitigate in the case of road schemes that will harm biodiversity. Seeking to achieve no net biodiversity loss is not sufficient. Road investment needs to encompass plans specifically targeted at achieving biodiversity gain – particularly bearing in mind the significant size of estate National Highways manages.

Levelling up has associated economic as well as social imperatives. While often considered at a macro level in terms of different parts of the UK, attention should also be drawn to the micro level implications of road investment in terms of social impacts and fairness. The local benefits and disbenefits of road investment tend to be averaged out in appraisal at an area level and yet are experienced – unevenly – by constituent individuals and neighbourhoods such that investment showing an overall net benefit may disproportionately blight the lives of some individuals and communities who may not be adequately recognised or compensated. There is also a concern that claimed Social Value benefits – such as increased employment opportunity – may not always be available to the intended beneficiaries. The investment case going forwards should be based upon sound consideration of health and social impacts.

In relation to the Inquiry, there is a need to consider maintenance and optimisation in terms of potential trade-offs involved within budgetary constraints between capacity enhancement and maintenance / optimisation, and between investment in strategic roads versus local roads. The strategic road network is a valuable national asset that must, into the future, be able to provide assured service to individuals and businesses for both economic and social wellbeing. Meanwhile, the vastly greater road network in terms of length that sits beyond the strategic road network also constitutes the crucial arteries of everyday economic and social life across the country.

Safety improvement is rightly an existing priority for road investment. Three matters of concern merit attention: (i) that we might not be spending the right amounts on safety improvement in the ways most likely to generate best effects; (ii) that much more attention needs to be given to ‘lead’ rather than ‘lag’ indicators; and (iii) that consideration should be given to all available options for best addressing a safety problem or enhancement opportunity.

In summary there are important policy-related considerations that merit closer attention in support of a rounded formulation of the next Road Investment Strategy.

How RIS3 should take account of technological developments, and evidence on ways of increasing capacity on the Strategic Road Network (such as smart motorways and potential alternatives to them)

The sixth key question in the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel’s report (as set out above) reflects the importance of consideration of alternatives when arriving at investment decisions. This is an expectation of current appraisal guidance issued by the DfT. However, in practice the selection of which projects to implement may not be based on a sufficiently wide-ranging review of alternative options (including no-build or low-build solutions such as demand management. Problem/opportunity definition and selection of options to be assessed risk being too constrained by organisational interests, siloed funding allocations, or simply adherence to established practice.

This suggests the need for a wider range of expertise, experience and perspectives to be drawn upon from inside and outside the sector in considering how technological developments may change or be used to change the purpose and/or level of service of the strategic road network. Consideration of technological development should not be confined to that which directly concerns transport itself but also encompass how non-transport technological developments (such as that concerning digital connectivity and accessibility) are affecting, and could in future affect, the nature and scale of demand for travel itself.

Closing remarks

We are facing a critical moment for road investment and spending in England and beyond. The Transport Committee’s decision to examine this is therefore welcomed – albeit with a particular interest in strategic road investment and enhancement schemes in particular. Alongside this submission of evidence, the Committee is invited to also consult the Road Investment Scrutiny Panel’s report.

February 2023