Our approach to the modelling and appraisal of journey time changes is intended to capture the behavioural choices of travellers, and the resulting impacts on the welfare of society.

There is evidence from everyday life of individuals making choices that suggest they value very small time savings. For instance, pedestrians may choose to cross rather than wait for traffic lights to change, while travellers may rush to catch an underground service, to save 1-2 minutes.

The most recent national study into passenger values of time (Arup et al, 2015), considered this issue, and we provided the rationale for capturing the full range of sizes of time saving as part of our 2016 consultation response on values of travel time.

Firstly, that appraisals are carried out ‘at the margin’ for an incremental scheme, and hence capturing time savings of any size and valuing them at a constant unit value provides a robust mathematical framework to aggregate impacts in a consistent fashion across appraisals.

Furthermore, to ensure a representative approach, we want to reflect the full spectrum of sizes of time saving attributable to different kinds of schemes and different modes. Our approach to the capturing of small time savings is consistent with appraisal frameworks in other countries, for example Sweden.

We intend to gather further evidence on the value of small increments of time savings as part of the next national value of time study, currently being planned.

Transport models are capable of capturing almost any scale of changes in journey time, down to fractions of seconds. Typically, these are aggregated across travellers to provide a measure of the impact of the scheme.

In the Department’s Appraisal Summary Table, used to capture the key results in the appraisal, promoters are requested to provide a breakdown of the total monetary value of net journey time changes by the following increments:

• Changes of 0 to 2 minutes
• Changes of 2 to 5 minutes
• Changes of greater than 5 minutes.

The Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) uses evidence based on a range of valuation methods, including Stated Preference (SP) techniques.

The valuations of changes to passenger travel time in TAG are based on a large-scale set of SP surveys carried out in 2014/15, which surveyed 9,000 individuals and businesses to understand travel behaviour, and elicited values relating to travel time and reliability, as well as parameters relating to journey quality. Findings from this research were implemented in TAG in 2017, and are kept under review.

Further guidance on journey quality impacts for bus and active mode travel are underpinned by SP studies undertaken in 2009 and 1996/7 respectively, while evidence on the ‘option value’ of rail travel is drawn from a 2006 SP study.

Aspects of the evidence base in TAG on impacts to life and health, used in the appraisal of environmental and safety impacts, draw on several SP studies undertaken during the 1990s.

The DfT regularly reviews the evidence base underpinning TAG to ensure it remains a robust basis for investment decision-making. This includes commissioning new research using a variety of valuation methods. A notable recent example relates to the 2023 DfT and National Highways-commissioned study into road freight values of travel time, which utilised SP techniques.

The widening of the south-western stretches of the M25 took place over twenty years ago, with the most recent scheme (M25 J12-15) completed in 2005. Any information available on schemes completed a long time ago will be held in the National Archives.

In line with the Department for Transport’s Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit A1.3, User and Provider Impacts, costs to existing transport users due to the construction of a road investment scheme are recorded in the appraisal. The impact of delays during construction and maintenance are estimated using the same transport models used to predict the overall traffic effects of the scheme. Bespoke software packages, as described in TAG, are used to value the delays to transport users using standard economic parameters.

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table, produced for all road investment schemes, allows for the user delays during construction and maintenance to be recorded alongside the travel time benefits of the road investment scheme, to ensure that the economic appraisal accounts for both the benefits and disbenefits for users of the road investment scheme.

Transport appraisals informed by HM Treasury’s Green Book and DfT’s Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) take account of delays in the commissioning of road schemes via a few mechanisms.

As set out in the Transport Business Case Guidance, the established business case process is designed to be flexible, and responsive to evidence that emerges throughout the duration of the proposal’s development. This includes reflecting emerging evidence on project timelines in the analysis that informs the economic dimension.

TAG contains detailed guidance on setting an appropriate appraisal period, running from the scheme opening date. We intend to include plans to expand this guidance to make it more helpful for promoters assessing potential changes in opening dates, as part of our upcoming Appraisal, Modelling and Evaluation Strategy (AMES), to be published early next year.

Where scheme delivery is expected to take longer, TAG also contains advice on how to appraise impacts to existing transport users that occur during the construction of schemes.

Regarding accidents, TAG contains extensive guidance and tools to assist promoters in assessing the likely accident and safety impacts associated with a scheme. As with all TAG methods, these approaches are kept under review, and updated with robust evidence where appropriate.

The approach recommended to assess benefits from road investment schemes is set out in DfT’s Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), which is based on HMT’s Green Book Guidance. This sets out the best practice guidance on assessing and evaluating policies, programmes and projects. The guidance is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect new evidence.

How long benefits may last will be very much dependent on the nature of the scheme, the local area and the strategic objectives being sought. TAG recommends, therefore, that infrastructure schemes should do bespoke analysis using transport modelling. These models, such as the types described in TAG, allow benefits to be calculated based on various behavioural responses expected. For instance, where infrastructure improvements decrease the cost, time and inconvenience of using that infrastructure, transport users may decide to use that infrastructure, change their destinations or activities, or change their mode of travel.

TAG recommends an appraisal period that is linked to the life of the infrastructure asset. This allows accounting for the foreseeable costs and benefits over that time horizon, where they are expected to occur. The appraisal period is usually for 60 years after scheme opening, which is used reasonably consistently in the sector. Allowances may be made for infrastructure that is expected to have longer-lasting benefits and costs after 60 years. TAG recommends that, in such cases, the analysis may cover up to a 100-year appraisal period from scheme opening as a sensitivity test. This is the recommended treatment, since large uncertainty is a feature of the very-long-term, and costs and benefits are heavily discounted in this period.

The benefits of road travel, in particular transport user benefits, can indeed deteriorate for each road user as congestion reoccurs. TAG methods allow for this, utilising the modelling previously mentioned. The “counterfactual” position is important here. This is the state of transport conditions in the case where there is no investment. Benefits are counted across the entire transport network, including non-road travel. Even where the road in question may reach the levels of congestion seen today, benefits, albeit potentially weaker, are still expected to occur even over long-time horizons, when considering the operation of the whole network. For example, traffic may reroute from previous local bottlenecks, some decongestion on public transport services may occur, and so on. In the counterfactual, people would effectively see higher costs/time/inconvenience of reaching the destinations they desire, or indeed become ‘priced off’, the transport system providing them with lower access to opportunity. Again, local conditions are important in understanding the precise source of such benefits.

The Home Office does not collect information on the number of police officers actively monitoring road and traffic driving standards.

The Home Office collects and publishes data annually on the primary function of police officers, as at 31 March each year, in the ‘Police Workforce, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-workforce-england-and-wales.

Data on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in road policing functions, which includes “traffic units”, “traffic wardens”, “vehicle recovery”, “casualty reduction partnership” and “road policing command team and support overheads” have been collected since March 2015, and can be found in Table F1 of the data tables accompanying each publication. The Home Office do not hold directly comparable data on the number of police officers employed in road policing roles for years prior to 2015.

Table 1 shows the number of FTE police officers employed in road policing roles in England and Wales between 31 March 2015 and 31 March 2024. As at 31 March 2024, there were 4,215 FTE police officers employed in road policing roles, a decrease of 19.5% (1,022 FTE) compared to March 2015 when there were 5,237 FTE police officers employed in road policing roles. The proportion of police officers in road policing roles has also been declining since 2015.

Table 1: Number and proportion of FTE police officers employed in road policing roles, as at 31 March 2015 to 2024, England and Wales

The proportions have been calculated excluding police officers recorded under the ‘Other’ function category, ‘National Policing’ functions or where the function was not known. The ‘Other’ category includes police officers on maternity/paternity leave, career break, full-time education or on suspension; and those on long-term leave (sickness, compassionate special or unpaid).

The Government has announced that it intends to publish a new Strategic Framework for Road Safety, the first in over a decade. Work is already underway on this.

For the Strategic Road Network, funding for enhancements, which includes junction improvements and widening schemes as well as new roads has been allocated as follows as part of the Road Investment Strategy.

For local roads funding varies depending on progress with individual local authority schemes and the amount would vary from year to year. In some cases schemes do not progress to construction due to low or poor value for money. The current forecast spend from 2023/24 onwards is as per the table below but these are liable to change as various schemes update their financial information.

Officials across the Department for Transport are reviewing the stock of Retained EU Law relevant to road transport. As a part of this process, road transport law that is in scope of the Retained EU Law Bill is being reviewed to ensure that it is effective and fit for purpose. The Department will share more information on individual pieces of regulation in due course, whilst also ensuring it provides the information to keep the public Retained EU Law dashboard updated.

There were an estimated 128,209 reported road casualties of all severities in Great Britain in 2021. This was an increase of 11 per cent compared to 2020, but 16 per cent lower than in 2019.

Recent trends in road casualties have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, they showed signs of a return to pre-pandemic levels, increasing compared to 2020 when casualty numbers were low, largely as a result of periods of lockdown resulting in a reduction in road traffic.

The final spend for 2021-22 on the strategic road network will be confirmed in National Highways’ Annual Report and Accounts later this year.

There is no projected underspend in DfT’s 2021-22 budgets for Local Authority road enhancement schemes.

Since 1995, with the first Controlled Motorway, smart motorways have been progressively introduced to the Strategic Road Network (SRN). After a trial commissioned in 2001, the first Dynamic Hard Shoulder (DHS) motorway opened in 2006 and the first All Lane Running (ALR) motorway opened in 2014.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) was given the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the performance and efficiency of Highways England in April 2015, after the development of all three forms of smart motorway. The latest safety evidence drawn from data and analysis of the 2019 STATS19 official statistics is contained in Highways England’s Smart Motorways Stocktake First year progress report 2021, published on 20 April 2021. The Secretary of State has commissioned the ORR to independently review the data to provide further analytical assurance and ensure that the conclusions arrived at are robust.

The Transport Secretary has committed £500 million to smart motorway safety through the improvements set out in the Stocktake Action Plan, published in March 2020. Highways England is accelerating measures through existing contracts and final costings are yet to be confirmed, as they continue to plan and develop the programmes. No investment in smart motorway safety threatens funding to make roads safer on other parts of the road network.

Freight flows are returning to normal, having suffered a significant reduction over the Christmas period when Covid testing was introduced. I can assure the noble Lord that on the outbound we are basically at around 85% of flows from last year, while on the inbound we are at 95% of flows from last year. There has been some change with hauliers seeking other routes because they may be more convenient, but nothing that we would not have expected.