'Highways England planning to cut or delay major road improvement schemes'

[jackal]

http://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2017/0 ... t-schemes/ (sub required)

https://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/fears-gr ... t-deficit/ (no sub required)

I've already seen that one or two schemes due to start in 2020 have been pushed back to 2021. I expect to see more, especially from schemes that didn't have their consultations yet. Schemes that did have a consultation but have an excuse to delay, like the A27 at Chichester, might also be in trouble.

[crowntown100]

http://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2017/0 ... t-schemes/ (sub required)

https://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/fears-gr ... t-deficit/ (no sub required)

I've already seen that one or two schemes due to start in 2020 have been pushed back to 2021. I expect to see more, especially from schemes that didn't have their consultations yet. Schemes that did have a consultation but have an excuse to delay, like the A27 at Chichester, might also be in trouble.

I was reading the ORR report and it said that they had basically bitten off more than they can chew. They had scheduled between 8-10 schemes to start every year for the next three (i.e. 2017-19) and then the remaining 60 (!) schemes of RP1 for 2020 and that would cause some serious issues within HE with the increased workload.

There does seem to be a few issues. They don't seem to have the cash in hand for the scheme (that's more like to be an issue with the Treasury than HE). They also seem to be taking a while to get through the necessary processes. This is probably two-fold:
1. They have to get ~100 schemes shovel ready, which takes a lot of resource
2. The planning process does seem to be rather long winded

It's a shame, but I can't say that it is unexpected.

[Glom]

So no M31 then?

[roadtester]

AIUI much has been made of recent efforts to make the HE and the roads programme more like the Network Rail set-up to give more stability. Is HE allowed to borrow like Network Rail - or has this at least been seriously suggested?

[jackal]

http://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2017/0 ... t-schemes/ (sub required)

https://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/fears-gr ... t-deficit/ (no sub required)

I've already seen that one or two schemes due to start in 2020 have been pushed back to 2021. I expect to see more, especially from schemes that didn't have their consultations yet. Schemes that did have a consultation but have an excuse to delay, like the A27 at Chichester, might also be in trouble.

I was reading the ORR report and it said that they had basically bitten off more than they can chew. They had scheduled between 8-10 schemes to start every year for the next three (i.e. 2017-19) and then the remaining 60 (!) schemes of RP1 for 2020 and that would cause some serious issues within HE with the increased workload.

There does seem to be a few issues. They don't seem to have the cash in hand for the scheme (that's more like to be an issue with the Treasury than HE). They also seem to be taking a while to get through the necessary processes. This is probably two-fold:
1. They have to get ~100 schemes shovel ready, which takes a lot of resource
2. The planning process does seem to be rather long winded

It's a shame, but I can't say that it is unexpected.

As I understand it, the problem is not delays with processes - quite the contrary. HE planned more schemes than they'd actually be able to afford, on the assumption that complications would arise. As ORR noted, this is good practice to ensure there are sufficient shovel ready schemes. However, the complications haven't happened at the expected rate, so HE will have more schemes ready to start construction in 2020 than they can afford.

Thus, the problems are financial, and on HE's end, not the Treasury's. Taking a longer view, it is really a good problem to have - better to have too many schemes to start construction than not enough.

[crowntown100]

As I understand it, the problem is not delays with processes - quite the contrary. HE planned more schemes than they'd actually be able to afford, on the assumption that complications would arise. As ORR noted, this is good practice to ensure there are sufficient shovel ready schemes. However, the complications haven't happened at the expected rate, so HE will have more schemes ready to start construction in 2020 than they can afford.

Thus, the problems are financial, and on HE's end, not the Treasury's. Taking a longer view, it is really a good problem to have - better to have too many schemes to start construction than not enough.

Ahh, I must have mis-read it then. Perhaps Roadtester's suggestion would be a good work around for this!?

[crowntown100]

So no M31 then?

That's a scheme in planning for Road Period 2, which is 2020-2025, so we wouldn't have seen it this side of 2020 no matter what happens.

That is also based on the assumption that they go with an M31-esque scheme, which they may not.

[Reading]

I guess the other issue will be that along with the planned in crease in house building - where will all the trained labour and available equipment come from.

[roadtester]

As I understand it, the problem is not delays with processes - quite the contrary. HE planned more schemes than they'd actually be able to afford, on the assumption that complications would arise. As ORR noted, this is good practice to ensure there are sufficient shovel ready schemes. However, the complications haven't happened at the expected rate, so HE will have more schemes ready to start construction in 2020 than they can afford.

Thus, the problems are financial, and on HE's end, not the Treasury's. Taking a longer view, it is really a good problem to have - better to have too many schemes to start construction than not enough.

Does this mean that schemes that can't go ahead aren't binned but are instead kept alive "in the programme", albeit delayed?

Several on-again off-again schemes like bits of the A1(M) or the Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 seem to have suffered from having to go through the cycle all over again when they are revived. Does the current regime avoid this sort of thing?

[Truvelo]

Does this mean that schemes that can't go ahead aren't binned but are instead kept alive "in the programme", albeit delayed?

Several on-again off-again schemes like bits of the A1(M) or the Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 seem to have suffered from having to go through the cycle all over again when they are revived. Does the current regime avoid this sort of thing?

Isn't this more to do with the planning system than anything else? When building the extension on my house the work had to start within two years of gaining planning permission. Do road schemes have a similar clause?

[thatapanydude]

Not surprised by this. Looks like the A1(M) j6-j8 smart motorway upgrade will be back on hold, considering the lack of any update on when a consultation will start.

[A9NWIL]

I guess the other issue will be that along with the planned in crease in house building - where will all the trained labour and available equipment come from.

Lots of apprenticeship schemes, which would hopefully bring down unemployment.

[A9NWIL]

Does this mean that schemes that can't go ahead aren't binned but are instead kept alive "in the programme", albeit delayed?

Several on-again off-again schemes like bits of the A1(M) or the Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 seem to have suffered from having to go through the cycle all over again when they are revived. Does the current regime avoid this sort of thing?

Isn't this more to do with the planning system than anything else? When building the extension on my house the work had to start within two years of gaining planning permission. Do road schemes have a similar clause?

Its a shame that road building cant be streamlined in comparison to other things, eg only if its a very bad route or a bad or expensive design. The environmental issues should be thrown out if there is a good reason to build the road, eg the traffic in the area is causing bottlenecks on other surrounding roads, or the road needs widening as the traffic is causing a bottleneck ect.
Also reducing the amount of time for the new roads to go through planning, eg they have to be finished the planning within 6 months of conception and be able to start building work or site clearing work in that time, unless it means buying properties that need vacating or any nature.

[Reading]

I guess the other issue will be that along with the planned in crease in house building - where will all the trained labour and available equipment come from.

Lots of apprenticeship schemes, which would hopefully bring down unemployment.

On BBC this am was the boss of one of the big builders saying lack of skilled labour was a big factor alongside planning delays in stopping them building more homes (think it was Halcrow)

[A9NWIL]

I guess the other issue will be that along with the planned in crease in house building - where will all the trained labour and available equipment come from.

Lots of apprenticeship schemes, which would hopefully bring down unemployment.

On BBC this am was the boss of one of the big builders saying lack of skilled labour was a big factor alongside planning delays in stopping them building more homes (think it was Halcrow)

How on earth did they manage years ago when building wasnt considered such a skilled trade?
Have the trades people forgotten how to teach on the job?

[jackal]

Does this mean that schemes that can't go ahead aren't binned but are instead kept alive "in the programme", albeit delayed?

Several on-again off-again schemes like bits of the A1(M) or the Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 seem to have suffered from having to go through the cycle all over again when they are revived. Does the current regime avoid this sort of thing?

Isn't this more to do with the planning system than anything else? When building the extension on my house the work had to start within two years of gaining planning permission. Do road schemes have a similar clause?

It's not really the same situation as having time-limited planning permission for a building, as no planning application has been made for schemes that were due to start construction in 2020.

For Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) the procedure is basically as follows:

1. Route options
2. Consultation on route options
3. Route selection
4. Preferred Route Announcement (PRA)
5. Consultation on preferred route
6. Development Consent Order (DCO) application

Many RIS1 schemes are still at stage 1 (e.g. A358 Taunton to Southfields), stage 2 (e.g. A5036 Port of Liverpool), or stage 3 (e.g. A27 Chichester), and therefore have a lot of scope for lengthening the timescale for the remaining stages. Hence the seemingly interminable delays with PRAs (e.g. A27 Chichester and M54-M6T link).

Finally, the A1(M) and A14 schemes were delayed by having their funding pulled! Politicians would love you to believe that the planning system is to blame, but 99% of delays are down to political posturing, whether of the left ('roads are bad') or the right ('there's no money left').

[lefthandedspanner]

Lots of apprenticeship schemes, which would hopefully bring down unemployment.

On BBC this am was the boss of one of the big builders saying lack of skilled labour was a big factor alongside planning delays in stopping them building more homes (think it was Halcrow)

How on earth did they manage years ago when building wasnt considered such a skilled trade?
Have the trades people forgotten how to teach on the job?

More likely because the relative intake of new apprentices has dropped over the last 20 years, because many skilled occupations are not perceived as 'aspirational'.

It's not just building either, engineers and engineering-related trades face a serious skills shortage too, which will only get worse over time.

[Glom]

Also Croxlez Rail Link has met the same fate.

[RichardA35]

Does this mean that schemes that can't go ahead aren't binned but are instead kept alive "in the programme", albeit delayed?

Several on-again off-again schemes like bits of the A1(M) or the Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 seem to have suffered from having to go through the cycle all over again when they are revived. Does the current regime avoid this sort of thing?

Isn't this more to do with the planning system than anything else? When building the extension on my house the work had to start within two years of gaining planning permission. Do road schemes have a similar clause?

It's not really the same situation as having time-limited planning permission for a building, as no planning application has been made for schemes that were due to start construction in 2020...

To qualify this a little, environmental surveys are generally only good for a life of two years or so with the respective regulators (Natural England/EA etc), so ongoing update of reports is needed if the promoter is still aiming for the scheme to go ahead.
If you waited say more than 5 years after the order confirmation then you may well find the government policy, design traffic flows (based upon presumed development etc), design standards, traffic and economics conclusions etc could have all changed enough to merit reworking some of the reports and possibly supplemental orders leading to either a new inquiry or a restatement of the decision letter by the SoS to confirm that the scheme is still appropriate.
I think it's hard to judge what is an elapsed period that merits rework or what is a significant policy or economic case change. Each would be dealt with on its merits with advice I suppose.
For LA schemes with planning permission they do generally have a 5 year limit and then need a reapplication with updated reports if the time period has elapsed.

[SteveA30]

Chichester cancelled.
BBC Sussex tweet - 11.13am

I've just learned that the £250m A27 improvements around Chichester have been cancelled by the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling.

The so-called Chichester Bypass would have improved several bottlenecks around the city, but it had proved controversial, with some residents and councillors calling on Highways England to consider other options.

But now the Transport Secretary has written to Highways England to cancel the scheme. A similar scheme at Arundel will go ahead, I understand.

As always, I'll bring you more on this decision as I get it. And you can also listen on BBC Sussex here .