The Transport Action Network (TAN) has urged the Department for Transport (DfT) to cancel £15bn road schemes proposed by the previous Conservative government.
- TAN’s appeal is part of a submission to Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, calling the proposed roads programme outdated and unaffordable.
- Chancellor Rachel Reeves has already announced the discontinuation of several infrastructure projects to address a £22bn financial shortfall.
- TAN advocates redirecting funds from new roads to maintaining existing infrastructure and public transport initiatives.
- The submission argues that the road schemes would result in vast carbon emissions and have low Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs).
The Transport Action Network (TAN) has called on the Department for Transport (DfT) to halt £15bn worth of road schemes laid out by the preceding Conservative administration. Central to this appeal is the £9bn Lower Thames Crossing. This was formally presented as part of a submission to Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, who is reviewing the DfT’s infrastructure capital spending.
In July, Chancellor Rachel Reeves disclosed that various UK infrastructure projects, including the £1.7bn A303 Stonehenge Tunnel, were to be shelved. This measure aims to plug a £22bn deficit highlighted in the government’s fiscal audit. Further cost-cutting actions included the cessation of reopening disused railways, cancelling the A27 Arundel Bypass, trimming the New Hospital Programme, and reducing expenditure on external consultants.
TAN has urged the integration of the Conservative’s road programme into these cost-saving strategies, criticising it as a vestige of mid-twentieth-century thinking. TAN’s submission highlights the environmental repercussions, notably increased carbon emissions from construction and additional traffic. The document specifies 16 road projects, including A66 Northern TransPennine and M60 Simister Island, while mentioning that merely two exhibit a BCR greater than three, which TAN considers overly optimistic.
The £1.5bn A66 project, for instance, reveals an adjusted BCR of just 0.92, suggesting that its costs outweigh potential benefits. TAN proposes that the funds saved could be reinvested to resolve the existing road network’s issues, enhancing public transport, and promoting active travel networks. TAN strongly believes that reallocating resources towards modern integrated public transport systems would better serve public interests and align with environmental goals.
Moreover, TAN argues that cancelling these projects would alleviate planning uncertainty while enabling strategic financial planning ahead of the 2024-25 spending review and the next Road Investment Strategy (RIS3, 2025-2030). Further emphasised by TAN is their resolution that road building does not significantly boost the economy or mitigate congestion, a claim long contested by leading studies.
Within the broader dialogue on national transport strategy, there is a call for a vision akin to the Welsh Labour Government’s, as advocated by Juergen Maier’s Rail and Urban Transport Review. This entails prioritising rail freight and public transport over road expansion, thereby delivering greater environmental and health benefits. Support has also been echoed by various officials and bodies, including Aslef and Campaign for Better Transport, who stress the precedence of sustainable transport solutions.
The submission by TAN encourages a strategic shift towards sustainable transport solutions, challenging the current road expansion ethos.
