Transport Insights

The transport stories you won't see in the industry-friendly media

Author

Chris Ames

  • Will the new station be same as the old station?

    Another day, another overblown announcement from the new-ish government – this time that a new rail station for Bradford “will improve connections, support economic growth and set the foundations for new homes, jobs and opportunities across the North”.

    The substantive announcement is that:

    the government has today confirmed a new station at Bradford Interchange

    Beyond that, it seems to be a lot of over-promising and wishful thinking. Claims that

    Bradford’s connections with some of the North’s largest cities, including Leeds, Manchester and York, will be transformed as passengers will be able to benefit from more frequent trains, improved journey times and reliability

    are undermined by the decision to rebuild an existing dead-end station, which might make the through trains that everyone agrees are needed more difficult than a new site.

    The BBC reports:

    It is understood that a decision has not yet been made on whether trains will be able to travel through the new railway station, or change direction and reverse out, as is currently the case.

    Note that the Department for Transport is using an image (below) that implies a through station.

    And what exactly has been announced? The BBC carries a comment from the (Reform) leader of Bradford Council that the funding will unlock the next stage of work, which appears to be engineering studies. Is the announcement just funding to plan a new station at some point

    in the 2030s

    as the announcement puts it?

    In addition:

    (more…)

  • Why all the noise?

    Could there be a stronger signal that Andy Burnham has run out of ideas and isn’t any different from Keir Starmer than the pathetic announcement that passengers have been “reminded of rules” about noise and antisocial behaviour on public transport?

    The actual news is that:

    Today, guidance was issued for local authorities to support their new powers to crackdown on loud music, littering, vaping and threatening behaviour on buses – including being able to issue fixed penalties of up to £100 for those who cause trouble.

    And there’s a big PR campaign for rail.

    But let’s look at the claim that:

    The powers for authorities on bus enforcement were made possible by the Bus Services Act 2025, meaning all local transport authorities across England are able to set and enforce their own local rules.

    You only have to read a few paragraphs further to find out that transport authorities across England are not able to set and enforce their own local rules:

    The legal power for all local transport authorities in England to crack down on nuisance behaviour on buses came into force on 5 August 2026. Today’s guidance will help them put these new local rules into practice, with each byelaw needing sign-off from the Secretary of State before it can be enforced.

    It’s part of Burnham’s agenda to devolve powers to the local level and where the power remains centralised, it seems the approach is to lie.

    The other part of Burnham’s agenda is to overstate the significance of a limited amount of nationalisation and the announcement tries rather too hard to pretend that what is happening on the railways – where enforcement powers have been around for years – is something to do with the consolidation of train operating companies under government control:

    The rail campaign will end the patchwork of current campaigns across different rail operators, helping create a clear, consistent message across the network. Most operators will feature messaging across websites, social media, in carriages and at stations, and will include posters and announcements. The campaign demonstrates how, under public ownership, train operators can push for a more joined-up operation to focus in on passenger experience to effectively tackle antisocial behaviour.

    Did you say “most operators”?

    A quote attributed to transport secretary Heidi Alexander carries the lie and the contradiction in a single sentence:

    … we’re empowering local leaders to shape bus services around the needs of their communities and taking advantage of publicly owned train operating companies

    So, not only are you not empowering local leaders, but you will still have a patchwork of rules on buses and on rail.

    Why all the noise?

  • Newport M4 congestion: the gaslighting continues

    I’ve written a couple of times about how the Welsh Government published a review of options to tackle congestion on the M4 at Newport that had ruled out demand management before it began; now Labour’s Welsh leader is pretending the option doesn’t exist.

    The BBC reports:

    Labour’s Welsh leader has called for the Plaid Cymru administration to start work on an M4 relief road – seven years after his party had axed it.

    Ken Skates told BBC Wales that there was “no other option on the table” to solve congestion in Newport, and has backed a version of the original plan with changes.

    The move will be seen by some as an attempt to distance Welsh Labour from part of the legacy of former First Minister Mark Drakeford.

    Labour will table a vote in the Senedd on Wednesday calling for an “appropriate relief road” to be built.

    It looks like cynical political manoeuvring to me, but what about that line “no other option on the table”?

    In a sense, Skates, who has previous been the Welsh Government’s transport minister, is right that demand management is not on the table. But then neither is the “amended version of the original black route” that he wants, so he is being disingenuous.

    The BBC’s reporting is by a political reporter, who might not understand the transport issues fully and prefers to stick to the political argy-bargy. But there are a couple of interesting hints that the options on the table might not be the only options:

    Skates’ announcement comes weeks after the Welsh government set out some options for tackling congestion…

    And:

    A report published earlier in October set out a number of alternatives …

    Let’s leave the last word to (I’m just) Ken, reflecting the old adage that politics is the art of what the politicians have the guts to put forward:

    Their need for congestion to be dealt with can only realistically be met through getting to work on a relief road.

  • There is still no money in the “Structures Fund”

    My piece about the Department for Transport (DfT) finally admitting that the zombie local road upgrade schemes are not coming back is the lead story on Local Transport Today, along with a comment piece on the issue of (lack of) transparency.

    As I report, the DfT is still refusing to say how much of the £1bn announced in June last year will be given to its notional Structures Fund and how much will go to local road upgrades, despite clearing the dead wood from the latter.

    In some ways, it doesn’t really matter as the Structures fund covers things that could just as easily have come under the major road network/large local majors (MRN/LLM) funding stream, which saw around 20 zombie schemes finally put out of their misery over the past week.

    But the lack of transparency is typical of a department that still likes to hold its cards very close to its chest, even under a government supposedly committed to candour.

    To recap, in June 2025 Treasury and DfT ministers announced “£1 billion to enhance and repair run down transport infrastructure and futureproof England’s road network”, which led a lot of people to think the Structures Fund that was part of the announcement would get a billion quid.

    But the penny has now dropped – with most people – that the billion was also to pay for MRN/LLM schemes over the next few years.

    The DfT has repeatedly refused to say how much was in each pot, but hinted that it needed to nail down which schemes were still in the MRN/LLM. This week, however, despite confirming that none of the schemes that were left in limbo will go forward, it will still not say what the split is between structures and upgrades.

    It has said that it will be announcing awards from the Structures Fund in the Autumn (don’t hold your breath) but I go back to my point that if you don’t have a pot of money in a fund and in fact retrofit your budget to what you decide to do, it isn’t really a fund.

    This also brings me back to the government’s ludicrous claim that it had to cull a lot of schemes from the MRN/LLM because the previous government didn’t fund it properly.

    Apart from anything else, it was the current government that chose to split the £1bn that it did manage to find (about of £92bn) between structures and upgrades. It appears to have been a sensible choice, but it was a choice and a choice that resulted in a cull of upgrade schemes.

    Leave a Reply

  • State broadcaster launders climate-wrecking propaganda

    Another BBC article about Heathrow expansion frames the issue in the terms chosen by the business promoting it, with the only mention of the climate, in true BBC style, being a reference to “climate campaigners”.

    The state broadcaster reports:

    Not building a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be a “huge missed opportunity” for the UK, the boss of the country’s busiest airport has warned.

    Thomas Woldbye told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it would be “good to know” the government’s position on the project, after Prime Minister Andy Burnham refused to say whether he backed expansion.

    The airport’s chief executive said if its owners could not invest in a third runway, the money “will be invested somewhere else in the world”, suggesting a decision would be made in the new year.

    It’s not clear why the BBC has given the CEO of a private business a platform to lobby the government in support of its business interests – except that it provides a good news story.

    The BBC then completely forgets any idea of balance, going into he said, she said mode instead and mentioning

    potential to deliver around £40 billion in economic benefits across the country

    from the Department for Transport, without mentioning that these are projected to be cancelled out by disbenefits.

    (more…)

  • Speed camera go-slow continues

    The shitshow that is the smart motorway speed camera “anomaly” continues, with ministers unable to say – more than a year on – when the problem will be fixed and speeding drivers escaping prosecution.

    It emerged last year that a technical problem with the way that speed cameras respond to changes in variable speed limits meant that evidence that they produced was unreliable.

    It’s worth quoting from transport minister Lord Hendy’s written statement last December to nail down the timing.

    On 10 September, National Highways informed the Department for Transport of an anomaly on the M5 following a challenge to a speeding offence. Ministers were informed of the anomaly and that National Highways was expanding its analysis to additional sites. On 13 October, Ministers were informed that National Highways had identified this was a national issue, whereby a technical anomaly with the way some variable speed cameras interact with signs was affecting some enforcement on parts of England’s Strategic Road Network.

    It’s 13 October today. Roads minister Justin Madders has just responded to a parliamentary question from Tory MP Alison Griffiths asking

    how many speed cameras on (a) motorways and (b) A-roads remain affected by the technical anomaly; and what proportion of affected cameras have had the Home Office-approved solution implemented.

    Madders did his best to obscure the fact that the fix is still not in place yet and that the problem affects the whole smart motorway network:

    The anomaly impacts 154 cameras on 10% (440 miles) of the Strategic Road Network (4500 miles), which accounts for ~0.2% of the whole road network in England. A solution to the technical anomaly has been developed and is undergoing thorough testing. The police continue to enforce speed offences on the network via a range of tactics.

    Leave a Reply

  • “We’ve ruled it out because we’ve ruled it out”

    It’s not often that you get a politician admitting to his own stupidity but the Welsh Government’s transport minister has now claimed that using tolls to reduce congestion on the M4 at Newport is “not something that’s even come up in conversations”.

    ITV news points out that:

    In social media posts in 2019 before he was a Senedd member, Mark Hooper MS suggested charging drivers for using the M4 in peak times and reducing the number of junctions around Newport in order to discourage short journeys and car use in general.

    I wrote last week that the report that the Plaid Cymru government has used to justify its inability to solve the congestion was entirely circular when it came to tolls, ruling them out on the basis that they were

    not currently being pursued by the Welsh Government

    Now Hooper has backed this circular reasoning, while justifying kicking the can down the road with an 18-month review:

    For too long this has been a problem that has been kicked down the road, but I’m not doing that.

    So there’s no plans to introduce tolls. That’s not something that’s even come up in conversations with ministers or anyone else.

    But what we’ve got to do is have the solutions in place that work.

    The ITV News report notes that:

    The Welsh Government plans to review ‘roads-based solutions’ to relieve congestion, including possible junction closures and widening the Brynglas tunnels.

    And that:

    The report released this week by the Welsh Government revives the idea of a ‘Blue Route’, which was discussed a decade ago.

    None of this would be enough by itself but any or all of it would be far more complicated and possibly less effective than the solution that Hooper is happy to say he didn’t even consider.

    One response to ““We’ve ruled it out because we’ve ruled it out””

    1. Newport M4 congestion: the gaslighting continues – Transport Insights

      […] Welsh Government published a review of options to tackle congestion on the M4 at Newport that had ruled out demand management before it began; now Labour’s Welsh leader is pretending the option doesn’t […]

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

  • Exclusive: DfT finally kills off all zombie schemes

    The Department for Transport (DfT) has confirmed that all the local road schemes that were not listed in March as continuing following a review launched last year have now been officially pulled.

    It has told me that it is progressing only the 16 major road network/large local major (MRN/LLM) schemes confirmed in March and that local authorities with schemes that are not among the 16 have been informed.

    Until this point, reporting has only been ad hoc and sporadic. Following my reporting last Friday, I have now seen several more local and specialist media reports of MPs and/or local authorities being told that their MRN/LLM schemes, which were apparently still under review, are no more.

    For example, the Gazette and Herald has confirmed the demise of the A350 Melksham Bypass.

    In a letter to local LibDem MP Brian Mathew, roads minister Justin Madders blamed the Tories for not funding the scheme, and the DfT told me that MRN/LLM programme launched by the previous government was “not properly funded”.

    But the current government boasted last July that it had found “over £92 billion from the Spending Review settlement” to deliver

    the biggest boost to England’s transport infrastructure in a generation

    Out of this £92bn, the government chose to allocate just £1bn for local roads, to be shared between the so-called structures fund and the MRN/LLM.

    Madders made no mention of climate change but Mathew wrote on Facebook:

    I will keep pushing for other ways to ease transport worries, particularly better public transport and improved rail and bus services to get more people out of their cars.

    Meanwhile, Highways magazine reported that:

    Cheshire East Council is ‘deeply disappointed’ that the Department for Transport (DfT) has removed the planned improvements to the A500 from the Government’s Major Road Network Programme

    And the BBC has reported (separately) that the Blyth Relief Road, the A509 Isham bypass and the M5 Junction 9 scheme have all been canned.

    Essex Live has reported:

    Major A127 improvement work plans completely scrapped in ‘extremely disappointing’ move

    Notts CC leader Mick Barton with East Midlands mayor Claire Ward

    I have also worked out why the DfT has referred to 25 schemes remaining under review following the March announcement that 16 of 42 schemes put under review in July 2025 would continue.

    (more…)

  • Zombie schemes finally being put out of their misery

    It looks like ministers have begun the task of officially putting the 26 zombie local road schemes out of their misery, more than six months after it became clear to anyone who was paying attention that they were all but dead.

    As I reported in LTT/TransportXtra in July:

    Confusion surrounds a raft of local road upgrades after a Government review announced last summer, with many councils still awaiting decisions on their bids amid huge funding pressures.

    The DfT said in March that of 42 schemes major road network (MRN) or large local major (LLM) schemes placed under review as part of the 2025 Spending Review, just 16 “will continue”.

    This left 26 schemes in limbo…

    There were supposed to be formal decisions on these “later in the summer”, but it never happened.

    Now, a couple of schemes have been officially killed off.

    The Alton Herald reports:

    The Government has scrapped plans for major improvements to the A31 through Farnham, according to the town’s MP.

    Gregory Stafford, the Conservative MP for Farnham and Bordon, has called the decision a “betrayal” and accused the Government of failing his constituents.

    Mr Stafford said Roads Minister Justin Madders telephoned him on Thursday evening (October 8) to confirm the scheme would not proceed.

    Given that it has been obvious for a while that the scheme was canned and that the minister phoned him personally, Stafford throwing his toys out of his pram seems a bit ungrateful.

    people standing in a field looking at a map

    Meanwhile, the Derbyshire Times reports:

    (more…)

  • Ames proves the DfT wrong…again

    The Department for Transport (DfT) has finally issued the review of its decision to bury the outline business case (OBC) for the Lower Thames Crossing, with its claim that the document is “in draft” collapsing but the document still being buried.

    And I would know, because the information tribunal case that provides the definitive authority that proves the DfT has got it wrong has my name on it, literally.

    By way of a reminder, Rebecca Lush of Transport Action Network asked for the OBC after learning that it was used as the basis for a decision last year to take funding for the scheme beyond £3bn.

    Despite this, the DfT claimed that the document was “draft” and “has not been finalised”, thereby falling under the Exception at Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations.

    Lush asked for a review in June and the DfT strung the case out for three months.

    Despite upholding the original decision (to release none of the document), the DfT reviewer made clear that:

    Having viewed the OBC I can see that it is dated 3rd October 2025 and is marked final version. It is therefore not an unfinished document.

    So the original claims were wholly bogus. But the DfT took another tack. In a section of the review letter that does not make grammatical sense, it stated:

    (more…)

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.