10th Report - Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap Contents

2Funding and expenditure

Local roads

31.Local roads funding covers capital expenditure on new roads (improvements) and capital and resource expenditure on maintenance and the renewal of existing roads. In this inquiry we have been concerned only with the funding for maintenance and renewals, not new or upgraded roads. For this reason, Government funding through the National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF)45 and the Safer Roads Fund, which are generally intended for infrastructure improvements rather than routine maintenance, do not form part of this Report.

32.Local road maintenance expenditure can be classified as ‘capital’ or ‘revenue’ and is covered by a combination of local government revenues46 and central government grants:

a)Capital maintenance expenditure is primarily devoted to the structural renewal of highway assets and is funded by the DfT;

b)Revenue maintenance expenditure mainly covers the routine works required to keep the highway serviceable and reactive measures to rectify defects. It is funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) through the revenue support grant.47

33.Funding from the DfT is provided through several different streams. These have been simplified in recent years, to provide more certainty over the medium-term funding outlook. Several submissions praised the DfT for the reforms it has made in this area.48

34.The DfT estimated total local authority road maintenance expenditure49 at £3.65 billion in 2017/18. This is lower than in 2009/10, but an increase on the low point of £3.53 billion in 2012/13. Of this, local ‘A’ road maintenance expenditure has increased slightly since 2009/10 (and recovered from a sharp fall in intervening years), while expenditure on minor roads has decreased sharply, by approximately £600 million.50

Figure 5: Road maintenance expenditure by road class in England (£million in 2017/18 prices)

Source: DfT, Maintenance expenditure by road class in England, Table RDC0310, 31 January 2019

35.The squeeze on local authority budgets has also meant that councils are ‘raiding’ their highways and transport budgets to fund social care and other core services.51 This has been a common thread in the three inquiries the Transport Committee launched in 2018—into buses, active travel and this inquiry into local roads.52 Local authorities were forecast to spend £4.24 billion on highways and transport over 2017–18, but outturn figures for the same period show that they spent £3.99 billion, with an underspend of over £240 million, caused by councils reallocating highways funds to other services.53 National Audit Office (NAO) figures also show that local authorities’ overall non-social-care spend went down by 33% (in real terms) between 2010/11 and 2016/17, with highways and transport services, including highways maintenance, experiencing a 37% cut.54

Local highways maintenance block funding formula

36.A revised formula to calculate individual funding allocations to each local highway authority in England, outside London, was implemented following consultation with the sector in 2014.55 This provides funding through a formula based on the assets for which each local highway authority is responsible.56 The main aspects of the formula, which took effect from 2015, are set out below:

a)Most of the funding is provided on a ‘needs basis’. This means that every local highway authority receives funding allocated based on a formula that takes into account factors such as road length, bridges, street lighting and footways and cycleways. Funding is not ringfenced and local authorities are “free to prioritise their spending as appropriate to meet local needs”.57 In 2014 DfT decided that traffic volumes should not be included in the funding formula.58 The element relating to cycleways and footways was only introduced from 2018/19 onwards.59

b)The second element of the funding, which was introduced in 2015, is distributed on an ‘incentive basis’. It was envisioned that the level of funding a local highway authority would receive would be based on its record in pursuing efficiencies and proper asset management or its public commitment to adopt these practices within an agreed period. It was also intended to encourage local authorities to adopt new, innovative techniques. In 2014 the DfT anticipated that the incentive element of the pot would increase annually from £50 million in 2015/16 to £176 million in 2018/19.60 The allocation for 2018/19 was £150 million, out of a total of approximately £975 million.61 Almost every council in England receives the incentive element.62

c)The third element is the Challenge Fund (CF), a ‘bid-for’ fund intended for highways maintenance and/or other projects such as improving cycle and footway infrastructure. In 2014 the DfT decided to set aside a proportion of funding from the local highways maintenance block grant each year between 2015 and 2021 for the CF.63 The intention is to enable local highway authorities in England to bid for major maintenance projects that are otherwise difficult to fund through the Needs Based Formula funding they receive.64 At the time it projected total funding over the period of £600 million. Generally, the maximum DfT funding a local authority can bid for is capped at £10 million, though higher bids up to a maximum of £20 million may be accepted by exception.65

Criticisms

37.Several local authorities were critical of the method for calculating both their revenue and capital support and claimed that it is ‘too simplistic’.66 Some criticised it for not taking account of traffic volume or capacity levels; others for being an allocation of available budget against asset inventory rather than a reflection of highway authority ‘need’.67

38.Others were supportive. For example Andrew Haysey, Transport Planning Manager at Gateshead Council, told us that the formula “works reasonably well”, and that the incentive element had been “quite useful” in providing focus on longer-term asset management. Stephen Hall, Assistant Director, Economy and Environment at Cumbria County Council, agreed. He told us that the incentive element had “driven good behaviours and has focused our attention on the right areas of improvement, which has been very beneficial”.68 While he agreed that the block funding was generally fine, Andrew Loosemore, Head of Highways Asset Management at Kent County Council, criticised the Challenge Fund part of it:

Maybe the Challenge Fund bit needs some review in order to understand that, if everything is challenging for all highway authorities, there should be even more funding in that pot, or maybe it should be removed and put back into the incentive fund element so that we can bid for it as part of that…69

39.We heard some criticisms of how capital and revenue is accounted for in local authority accounts and what it can be spent on, including limits on ‘capitalisation’.70 Several submissions stated that capital funding was regularly being used to cover revenue expenditure shortfalls via capitalisation.71 For example, the Local Government Technical Advisors Group (LGTAG) said that “many councils are taking different approaches to what is defined as ‘Revenue’ or ‘Capital’”.72 Mr Loosemore from Kent County Council explained that local authorities have become more flexible on these categorisations in recent years, but require further guidance on what is permissible:

About three or four years ago, some very important guidance came out from CIPFA [Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy] that gave us the green light, essentially, that potholes that were permanent repairs could be determined as adding value back to the asset and could be capitalised. That kind of guidance enables us as engineers to—dare I say it?—go into battle with our accountant colleagues and say, “No, this is actually allowed now.” It breaks down that barrier … more guidance around what you can and cannot do would be helpful.73

Lynne Wait, Interim Engineering Manager, Growth and Infrastructure at the Borough of Poole agreed that “having a bit more flexibility on the capital-revenue split or some further definition of what you can capitalise might help people”.74

Fair funding review

40.In February 2016 the Government announced a ‘fair funding review’, followed by consultations in July 2016 and December 2017.75 The review will affect how funding is allocated and redistributed between local authorities from 2020 onwards. It is expected to use three main ‘cost drivers’—population, deprivation and sparsity—together with additional cost drivers related to specific local authority services.76

41.The 2017 consultation indicated a broad consensus for using ‘road length’ and ‘traffic flow’ as the main cost drivers for the highways maintenance allocation. Accordingly, the Government indicated that it intends to implement “a straightforward formula for this service area that incorporates these two cost drivers”.77

Pothole Action Fund

42.Over the past few years the Government has provided additional, discrete pots of capital funding for local councils to help repair potholes and to undertake other routine maintenance. This is usually limited to the financial year in which it is allocated, so must be spent by the end of the financial year, every 31 March.

43.The main capital funding pot for routine maintenance outside the block funding is the Pothole Action Fund. It was announced in Budget 2015 with the aim of fixing over 5 million potholes by 2020/21. The funding is calculated according to the size of the local road network in each area.78

44.In March 2019 the Government announced £50 million for potholes and flood resilience—this is the 2019/20 allocation from the Pothole Action Fund (£25 million) and the Flood Resilience Fund.79 The profile for the Pothole Action Fund is:

Table 1: Pothole Action Fund allocations 2016-21 (£million)

2016/17

50

2017/18

121

2018/19

50

2019/20

25

2020/21

50

Total

296

Source: Department for Transport

Councils are required to report on their spending from the fund. While these reports are usually discoverable through search engines on individual council websites, they are not collected centrally.80

Bid-for funding

45.Having multiple funding streams, many of which must be competitively bid for on an ad hoc basis, makes getting funding a costly process for many local highway authorities. In some cases, it has disincentivised or prevented them from bidding for available funding.81 Leicestershire County Council told us that it has been successful at securing monies from various funding ‘pots’, including through Growth Deals, the NPIF and the Local Large Majors Fund. However, it had concerns about how resource intensive the bidding process was (with no guarantee that authorities’ bids will be successful) and about funds generally only covering relatively short timeframes.82 The South West Highways Alliance (SWHA) supported this view and said that many authorities experience accessibility issues with bid-for funding, particularly those that have experienced significantly decreased funding and staffing levels. They argued that where authorities are already struggling to deliver day-to-day maintenance activities, due to constrained resources, the lack of capacity to take on additional work may prevent them from being able to prepare meaningful bids in a timely manner. SWHA thought that this could be improved if the DfT worked with local authorities:

… to develop transparent, robust and light touch evaluation criteria and agreeing the frequency and timing of bidding opportunities with the industry, to avoid inadvertently excluding certain authorities.83

46.Other witnesses thought that more benefit could be driven from bid-for maintenance funding—as well as improvement schemes, which is where it is focused at present. For example, Lynne Stinson, Team Manager, Assets and Major Programmes Team at Leicestershire County Council, told us that:

The shiny new stuff is something we get an awful lot of opportunity to bid for […] Bidding for maintenance at the same time is not as easy or as prevalent. There should be more flexibility for authorities to bid for funding for maintenance, as well as improvements. Currently, it tends to be ring-fenced for improvement schemes. It is not necessarily about making more money available for roads. The ability to choose to maintain, rather than improve, in certain areas would be beneficial.84

Strategic Road Network (SRN)

47.For the first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) from 2015 to 2020 the Government allocated over £15 billion to the SRN for improvement schemes and new roads.85 The draft RIS2 strategy for 2020 to 2025 was published in October 2018, alongside the Budget. It comes with a £25.3 billion funding envelope. The funding for RIS2 will be provided through the National Roads Fund, which reserves the revenues of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) within England for investment in roads. The final RIS2 will define how this funding is split between capital and resource expenditure and outline the main categories of spend.86

48.Several submissions were critical of the disparity in funding and maintenance standards between the ELRN and the SRN. For example, the Local Government Association (LGA) claimed that the Government will invest approximately £21,600 per mile in local roads, compared to £1.1 million per mile for maintenance of the SRN over the five-year period to 2020.87

Major Roads Network (MRN)

49.As part of the July 2017 Transport Investment Strategy, the Government committed to creating a Major Road Network (MRN)88 across England and in December 2017 published its proposals for this network for consultation.89 The MRN will consist of strategic local routes in England, managed by local authorities. It will receive dedicated funding from the National Roads Fund of £3.5 billion (about 12% of the total fund).90 In December 2018 the Government published guidance setting out the final eligibility criteria for the MRN programme, explained the roles and responsibilities of local and regional bodies in the MRN and how they should work with stakeholders and set out the process for submitting scheme proposals for the Large Local Majors programme and how it aligns with the MRN.91

Impact of revenue cuts

50.Funding challenges have affected the extent and quality of maintenance and upgrades that have taken place on the ELRN in recent years. For example, Lynn Wait, from the South West Highway Alliance, told us that councils in the South West face “real problems, because their revenue budgets have been cut to the absolute minimum, to the point where they cannot be cut any more”.92 The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT) criticised the way the limited amount of funding is distributed and described the current funding system as “broken”.93

51.The Urban Transport Group (UTG) said that the decline in revenue funding has made it difficult to consistently implement an asset management approach characterised by planned, proactive and preventative interventions.94 This was a view mirrored by many other stakeholders, including the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA), which commented that “preventative maintenance is now often beyond the reach of cash-strapped councils and this, combined with increased traffic and rainfall, has contributed to the continued decline of the carriageway”.95 The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority also observed that: “Without long term funding certainty … the reality is that if cuts are to be made then planned/preventative maintenance has to suffer in favour of reactive maintenance”.96

Box 2: Local road maintenance funding in London

Funding is different in London from the rest of England. Neither Transport for London (TfL) nor the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London (‘the councils’) receive any funding from central government to maintain London’s roads. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is the only region in England where this is the case.

In London, the councils receive transport funding from TfL for the Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) that they use to deliver the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This includes a pot for ‘borough assets’, which is based on a roads condition formula. This provides funding only for planned maintenance of Principal Roads (‘A’ roads), which leaves about 90% of London’s roads (most of the local road network) to be funded through the councils’ own capital borrowing arrangements. Additionally, this funding is dependent upon TfL’s own financial situation.

Over the decade to 2019/20, core funding from central Government to the councils will have fallen by 63% in real terms on a cumulative like-for-like basis. The London Councils’ Technical Advisers Group (LoTAG) reported in 2017 an annual shortfall in highway maintenance funding of £92 million for all road assets. If the GLA was treated in the same way as the rest of England, TfL has calculated the needs-based funding allocated to maintain all London’s non-SRN carriageway roads would total around £81.5 million for the period 2018/19 to 2020/21.

TfL spends approximately £500 million per year operating and maintaining the TfL Road Network (TLRN). This includes approximately £150 million per year to the councils for their roads to support their LIPs. Congestion charging and enforcement activities generate around £300 million gross income per year, leaving an annual net operating deficit of around £200 million.

This funding requirement is currently filled by revenue raised from London Underground fares. TfL states that this is an unsustainable funding model for both the Underground and local roads. Historically, TfL spent between £100 and £150 million proactively renewing its road assets, however, due to the removal of the Government’s operational grant non-safety critical renewals have been paused for two years. Renewals have reduced to between £50 and £70 million for 2018/19 and 2019/20.

Source: London Councils (LRF0079); Transport for London (LRF0086)

Funding reform

52.Much of the evidence we received either made a case for or simply stated that there is a need to increase the amount of funding available for local roads.97 In addition, several suggestions were put to us for reform of road maintenance funding. One proposal elicited widespread support: a long-term, front-loaded funding settlement. We discuss this in more detail below.

53.We also heard views on other issues such as the removal of competitive bidding, changing local authority accounting rules, and road pricing. There was no overwhelming evidence of support for any of these, though each clearly have their supporters.98 There was also some support for ring-fencing local highways maintenance block funding to avoid it being reallocated to competing local authority demands (e.g. social care), but there was no consensus on this.99 Mr Berry told us that the DfT has been working with MHCLG and CIPFA on the fair funding review and capitalisation rules, to enable capital funding to be spent on things like pothole repairs. He said that the Department had been making the case “quite heavily” for revenue support grant to be used for capital works.100

Front-loaded, long term funding settlement

54.Several councils recommended a frontloading of investment to deal with the backlog of maintenance and a streamlined, long-term funding settlement to move away from multiple funding sources and short-termism.101 Witnesses had differing views about ring-fencing any future settlement.102

55.The Urban Transport Group (UTG) said that frontloading funding over the next Spending Review period “would lead to a gradual reduction in expensive reactive maintenance and ensure a more cost-effective use of future maintenance funding”.103 Stephen Hall, Assistant Director, Economy and Environment at Cumbria County Council, made the case to us that longer-term funding certainty is critical if local authorities are to deliver durable, cost efficient road maintenance:

At the moment, we have certainty over an annual period, with indicative funding for two or three years. If the funding quantum stayed the same, having certainty across a five to seven-year period of time would enable us to do better planning. We could do better asset management prioritisation, because we would be able to plan over a longer term and have certainty to design schemes that offered better value. We would be able to have a much more open conversation with delivery chains, whether internal resource or externally contracted supply chains, that would enable us to get better value for money, because we could do much more open and sophisticated resource planning.104

Andrew Loosemore from Kent County Council agreed. He told us that:

… a longer-term understanding of what the finance was going to be over, say, a five-year period, even though it may not be the right level of funding that we would expect to maintain our highway asset, would enable us to look at the deterioration model, how our asset is going to perform over a three, five or 10-year period, and what expectation levels we can set for that asset performance.105

56.Others were more prescriptive as to what a multi-year funding settlement should look like. For example, Tarmac said that, at a minimum, there should be a five-year rolling funding plan to enable local highways authorities to develop robust preventative maintenance strategies.106 Matthew Lugg, President of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (CIHT), told us that “if you want to bring the roads up to standard, you need longer term certainty of funding” and recommended a longer-term horizon of more than 10 years.107 The AIA agreed and recommended that highway authorities in England be allocated an additional £1 billion a year for 10 years for road maintenance. This additional funding would comprise £390 million a year to stop further deterioration in conditions and £660 million a year to bring the local network up to a level “where it can effectively support communities and drive economic growth”.108 The AIA suggested hypothecating income from fuel duty to fund this.109

57.Other witnesses told us that Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) income should be hypothecated to fund all roads, including local roads.110 This would require a rethink of current plans for the SRN, given that over the period between 2020 and 2025 almost all VED income is earmarked to pay for the road improvements that form RIS2 (see above). There are other calls for VED to be devolved, so that for example money raised in London is retained by Transport for London and London Councils for use on the London road network. This would also effectively reduce the overall pot available for other projects.111

58.We were pleased to hear the then Minister, Jesse Norman, agreeing with the principle of a multi-year funding allocation. He told us that coming out of the Spending Review this autumn “we should have a five-year local road settlement”:

The key point of these settlements is that, once you have established the envelope, it is set … local authorities and their supply chains … know what to expect. They know what the numbers will look like, broadly speaking, from year to year. They know what the project numbers will look like for the work they are doing, and therefore they can organise their supply chain.

[…] I would look for a road funding settlement for local roads that is independent of the RIS2 funding settlement and … significantly larger.112

59.Jesse Norman also offered support for combining funding from across Government Departments in this settlement, particularly the significant amount of funding that local authorities receive through the local highways maintenance block grant. He said:

You have to include the MHCLG funding pot and other pots of money that [local authorities] raise themselves and/or developer contributions and the like. If we are to have an integrated approach, we need to make an argument about the overall pot of money and make sure that it is not hoovered up elsewhere in the system by Government or by other Departments.113

He was supportive of a long-term settlement to give local authorities “more financial scope to, if not borrow against it, at least make deals that reflect the certainty of future income”.114 He also thought there was scope for ongoing alternative funding mechanisms involving private finance, in certain circumstances where they make sense (e.g. PFI street lighting agreements).115

60.Funding to local authorities to maintain the local road network is too often short-term, stop-start and incoherent. Revenue funding comes primarily from MHCLG, while capital funding usually comes from the DfT, following an allocation from the Treasury. Other funding is available through BEIS and Innovate UK. It is no surprise that local authorities are seeking long-term funding security to enable them to better plan and deliver road maintenance. We conclude that the current short-term approach to funding local road maintenance is not fit for purpose.

61.Funding for road maintenance is not ring-fenced and may be used by local authorities on other priorities. The then Minister told us that councils had actively lobbied the Government in 2010 to remove ring-fencing from local authority budgets; but in evidence to us there was substantial—though not universal—support for its return.

62.We welcome the work the Department for Transport has been doing with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on the fair funding review and capitalisation rules, to enable capital funding to be spent on things like pothole repairs.

63.We welcome the then Minister’s statement that he would like to see a five-year funding settlement for local roads. We recommend that the Department should propose a front-loaded, long-term funding settlement to the Treasury as part of the forthcoming Spending Review so that local authorities can address the historic road maintenance backlog and plan confidently for the future. However, we are clear that this must not be an excuse for a budget cut. We recommend the Treasury give the proposal serious consideration given that proactive maintenance provides better value for money than reactive maintenance. We consider it critical that the DfT engage with MHCLG to roll up the revenue support elements of roads funding into a five-year settlement.

64.The DfT should take the lead on consulting with local authorities about the exact nature of a five-year settlement. This should include whether they would like to see a ‘totex’ allocation (i.e. funding that can be spent on capital or revenue, with no restrictions) and whether they want it to be ring-fenced for spending only on roads. It is important that innovation, collaboration and best practice are properly incentivised through any settlement; this should be part of any consultation. The DfT should also include London councils in the consultation to seek their views on whether the London funding settlement is fit for purpose

65.The then Minister told us that in future, local authorities should be able to borrow against a five-year settlement, allowing them to raise more money to spend on road maintenance. While we welcome this idea in principle we are concerned as to how it would work in practice, given local authorities would still have to repay lenders and roads do not currently generate income. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Department set out what borrowing against a multi-year settlement would mean for local authorities and how such a scheme could work.


45 DfT, Roads Funding: Information Pack, November 2018

46 This includes prudential borrowing, use of capital reserves and monies collected through parking fines and other fees

48 e.g. Hampshire County Council (LRF0041)

49 Including structural works, routing maintenance and repairs and policy, planning and strategy

50 DfT, Maintenance expenditure by road class in England, Table RDC0310, 31 January 2019; There was a change in Government accounting implemented in 2009/10 moving from UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) to IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) reporting, making it difficult to sensibly compare spending before this date.

52 We discuss this in the context of local bus services in England in our 22 May 2019 report Bus services in England outside London

54 NAO, Financial sustainability of local authorities 2018, HC 834, 2017–19, 8 March 2018, figure 10

55 Less than two thirds of councils in England responded to the consultation on the new funding formula (95/153), and of those who replied just over half (52%) supported the principle of a revised funding model as proposed by the DfT in the consultation and 50% agreed with the idea of a Challenge Fund, see: DfT, Response to the Consultation on Local Highways Maintenance Block Funding 2015/16 onwards, December 2014, p4

56 Department for Transport (LRF0035)

61 DfT, Roads Funding: Information Pack, November 2018, p4; needs, incentive and challenge funding - this is not an exact total as the Challenge Fund is allocated over a two year period

62 For individual allocations by local authority, see: DfT, Roads Funding: Information Pack, November 2018

64 DfT, Roads Funding: Information Pack, November 2018, p4

66 Hampshire County Council (LRF0041); London Borough of Islington (LRF0059); Surrey County Council (LRF0062); and Kent County Council (LRF0068)

67 Luton Borough Council (LRF0036) and Oxfordshire County Council (LRF0038)

70 In generally accepted accounting practice, capital resources can only be spent on capital expenditure. Local authorities may transfer money earmarked for revenue expenditure into their capital account, but may not transfer money from their capital account into their revenue account without permission from central government. Transferring money from the capital to the revenue account is known as ‘capitalisation’. For more information, see the relevant government guidance: Statutory Guidance on the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts (updated), March 2016

71 Institute of Highway Engineers (LRF0020)

72 Local Government Technical Advisors Group (LGTAG) (LRF0023)

76 For an overview see House of Commons Library insight, The Fair Funding Review: What does it mean for local government?, 31 May 2018

81 Urban Transport Group (LRF0013); North East Combined Authority (LRF0049); Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) (LRF0074); South West Highway Alliance (LRF0080)

82 Leicestershire County Council (LRF0058)

83 South West Highway Alliance (LRF0080)

85 DfT, Road investment strategy: 2015 to 2020, 1 December 2014; There have been reports that not all the schemes planned for RIS1 will be delivered. The Times reported in April 2019: “of the original 112 schemes 29 had been finished, 15 were under way and 18 would start this year … 37 would start in the next five-year cycle, including the A303 upgrade and a scheme to remodel junction 10 of the M25 … [Highways England] revisited 11 and the return on investment just wasn’t good enough [and have been paused]”, from “Road upgrades are quietly scrapped as money runs out”, The Times, 24 April 2019

87 Local Government Association, LGA responds to AA poll of drivers on the condition of roads, 26 February 2018

88 For more background about the proposal, see: Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, Major Roads for the Future, October 2016

89 DfT, Transport investment strategy, 5 July 2017, p47; this was reported in the press as a ‘bypass fund’ of sorts. The Daily Mail reported: “Mr Grayling said he plans to ensure part of the fund – believed to be around £1billion – is earmarked for local councils so they can improve or replace major strategic roads such as A-roads and by-passes”, from “Crumbling roads to get £1bn upgrade: Councils to use money to revamp A-roads and fix bottlenecks that blight the transport network”, Daily Mail, 5 July 2017

90 DfT, Proposals for the Creation of a Major Road Network, December 2017 and HMT, Budget 2018, HC 1629, October 2018, p55

93 Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT) (LRF0028)

94 Urban Transport Group (LRF0013)

95 Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) (LRF0044)

96 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LRF0072)

97 e.g. Sustrans (LRF0010); Urban Transport Group (LRF0013); JPCS Ltd (LRF0016); Mr Chris Capps (LRF0017); Coventry City Council (LRF0021); Local Government Technical Advisors Group (LGTAG) (LRF0023); Mr Mark Morrell (LRF0026); Suffolk County Council (LRF0029); Devon County Council (LRF0031); RAC Foundation (LRF0037); Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) (LRF0046); Liverpool City Council (LRF0050); Cheshire East Council (LRF0070); and Gateshead Council (LRF0075)

98 e.g. Q233 (Lynne Stinson, Leicestershire County Council) and Hampshire County Council (LRF0041) for removing competitive bidding; Q221 (Andrew Loosemore, Kent County Council) and Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) (LRF0044) for changing local authority accounting rules and CIHT (LRF0025) and Jacobs & Volterra (LRF0085) for road pricing

99 e.g. The Road Surface Treatments Association (LRF0008); IAM RoadSmart (LRF0022); and Norfolk County Council (LRF0056)

101 The Road Surface Treatments Association (LRF0008); Oxfordshire County Council (LRF0038); Transport for the North (LRF0039); Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) (LRF0074); South West Highway Alliance (LRF0080)

102 e.g. Q47 [Matthew Lugg, Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation] and Q235 [Lynne Wait, South West Highway Alliance]

103 Urban Transport Group (LRF0013)

106 Tarmac (LRF0083)

108 Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) (LRF0044)

109 Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) (LRF0044); In 1999 the Labour Government promised to ring-fence real terms increases in fuel duties into a fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network. In practice, this never happened (it was not legislated for).

110 e.g. Living Streets (LRF0047) and Federation of Small Businesses (LRF0054)

111 London Councils (LRF0079)




Published: 1 July 2019