Q and A: Phil Carey on the Government's MRN plans


Phil Carey is a former senior official at the Department for Transport (DfT) and co-author of the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund report A Major Road Network for England with David Quarmby. 

Speaking in a personal capacity, he talks exclusively to Transport Network about his initial take on the Government's consultation on taking the MRN plans from concept to reality.      

Q What is your reaction to the consultation?

Overall I am delighted to see the extent of progress in government picking up our proposition. It is quite unusual to see something move as fast as this really from a single report.

Q It seems local authorities pitch to regional groups or sub-national transport bodies, and the regional bodies then pitch to the secretary of state. What do you think of that process?

Phil Carey

I think it is what was expected. Arrangements need to be made for where there will be no STB. It is interesting to see there is a prominent role being proposed for Highways England, probably particularly where there is no STB in that part of the country. I think the whole question of the relationship between the MRN and the Highways England network is one of the most challenging bits of all this, which we have to get right. The original Rees Jeffreys study suggested an integrated road network which included the SRN; but government have been clear on this for some time that the MRN is now a very distinct proposition sitting alongside the SRN.

I understand the reasons for taking that approach but it is important to make sure you still have the maximum integration between the two both in terms of operation and indeed in terms of defining the networks in the first place.

Q Do the types of schemes eligible for MRN funding cover all that is needed?

That’s one to think about carefully and people may have different views. It is good to see packages of improvements at the end of the list and they go on to say the department see these as playing a crucial role in developing the MRN. I think overall the available funds will be spread fairly thinly. So it may be most effective if package schemes and small-scale improvements along a corridor dominate, offering the best chance of improving the journey experience, safety on the corridor and how it relates to the local environment along a corridor.

I know that in presenting the proposals the secretary of state made a lot of it being a bypass package - but bypasses potentially soak up a lot of the available cash and it would be good to see a fair chunk going to smaller scale packages of improvements.

Q What do you think of the funding ranges – £20m-£50m schemes, rising to a maximum of £100m in exceptional circumstances?

It sounds about right. That is large enough to enable decent packages over a few miles of road. You might not find that much in the way of 'missing links' – that could potentially be very costly. 

Q The DfT has said this money is not for maintenance as they don’t want this to affect the normal local maintenance budget. This is for transformation schemes however that would mean more money is needed for maintenance wouldn’t it? Have they fully addressed that issue?

That struck me too. I know that local authorities are concerned that there could be no allowance for routine maintenance, with no revenue funding in this proposition and even the capital maintenance may not be that well covered. It is certainly something that needs clarifying, particularly where there might be more road out there to be maintained.

Q On the issue of defining the network, the DfT appears to be largely following your lead on the quantitative and qualitative elements. Has anything changed since you wrote the report that has changed your perspective on this?

My immediate question to DfT is to clarify the situation. While the DfT does seem to be taking the same approach we did, they don’t set out the exact figures.

[The Rees Jeffreys Road Fund report suggested using motorway and A-road links with average daily traffic flow greater than 20,000 vehicles, along with (b) roads with as few as 10,000 vehicles, provided that at least 5% of that flow is heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or 15% is light vans.]

I think they are still talking about the same annual average daily flows (AADF) levels – 20,000 and 10,000 –to create a two tier thresholds for traffic flow. In their press statement they referred to 5,000 miles of A road in their MRN, which is a fair bit more than we proposed in the Rees Jeffreys report, which was about 3,800 miles of A road.

Either they have lowered the threshold and are allowing slightly less trafficked road to get into the initial MRN pot, or it is a consequence of this proposal to include all of the de-trunked roads, from the noughties mainly. If the latter, it is quite significant and it would be useful to know DfT thinking. There is a line about including de-trunked roads ‘where appropriate’. We just need to know a bit more about what the proposal is there and the right way to bring in a significant extra mileage of roads.

Q What do you think of the criteria for assessing the eligible schemes, which includes promoting growth, and unlocking housing?

I think the question about supporting the SRN is an interesting one in that the proposals for the SRN involve some spend of Highways England money off-network where it directly eases pressures on the SRN so to an extent that sort of funding might already be allowed for in the RIS 2 process. Should we be also including it in the MRN process? Overall the goals are pretty close to the line of the Rees Jeffreys report.

Q Unlike your report, the DfT said it was not including forecasted traffic levels in its plans but would use a review every system. Every five years for the MRN itself and every two years for regional evidence bases. What do you think of this approach?

You need to think carefully about the implications of it. I worry that if there is a two-year component of the MRN cycle it very quickly takes you out of kilter with the SRN five year cycle. The alignment of the cycle all the way through strikes me as a pretty important objective here. Getting some sense of how traffic levels are going to evolve, Yes it is part of a review process every five years or so (Rees Jeffreys also suggested this) but in a way it also needs to be part of the process right now. Defining the MRN over the next year just based on 2016 data – there needs to be some element of looking forward, taking account of current growth areas; you need to link that in this first round of the MRN and can’t just leave that for another five years’ time.

The starting point for Rees Jeffreys was to try and extend to local roads the same degree of certainty that the SRN is now enjoying and anything that detracts or takes away from the SRN approach is undesirable.

One thing that I was pleased to see in the consultation document was the recognition that there is or has been a funding gap between the SRN and local roads. I welcome this recognition there is a need for action to get more resources to local roads.

DfT recognises it is a programme for the long term and needs further refinement so this seems like a genuinely important and valuable first-stage consultation exercise.

Q Would you agree that the process the DfT has developed between local, regional and central government should avoid the worst elements of competitive bidding?

We hope. It’s great that this is really making good use of the STB structure coming into play - this plays well to what STBs were made for in the roads world at least.

Register now for full access

Register just once to get unrestricted, real-time coverage of the issues and challenges facing UK transport and highways engineers.

Full website content includes the latest news, exclusive commentary from leading industry figures and detailed topical analysis of the highways, transportation, environment and place-shaping sectors. Use the link below to register your details for full, free access.

Already a registered? Login

comments powered by Disqus
transport network jobs

Engineer Maintenance

Liverpool City Council
£32,233 - £37,107
Liverpool City Council are looking to recruit an Engineer Maintenance Liverpool, Merseyside
Recuriter: Liverpool City Council

Tree Services Programme Manager

Nottingham City Council
You will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the Council's trees and woods, and will provide professional advice to others Woodthorpe, Nottingham
Recuriter: Nottingham City Council

Transport Coordinator

Camden London Borough Council
£32,473 to £37,670
We have an exciting opportunity for 2 highly customer focused Transport Coordinators to work in the busy Camden Transport Team. Camden, London (Greater)
Recuriter: Camden London Borough Council

Highway Electrical Supervisor (Highway Maintenance)

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
£24,657 to £28,221
The post will support two Senior Lighting Engineers in leading and contributing to the delivery of the Street Lighting function for the Authority Bootle, Merseyside
Recuriter: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

Flood Risk Management Engineer

London Borough of Bexley
£31,353 to £36,876
We are currently seeking a Flood Risk Management Engineer who will have a lead role with the Flood Risk and Development Team Bexley (City/Town), London (Greater)
Recuriter: London Borough of Bexley

Senior Engineer (Traffic Signal Improvements)

Lincolnshire County Council
£34,106 - £38,052
This is a superb opportunity to lead, motivate and inspire our engineering team working on traffic signal improvement projects. Lincolnshire
Recuriter: Lincolnshire County Council

Senior Engineer (Traffic Signal System and Operations)

Lincolnshire County Council
£34,106 - £38,052
This is a superb opportunity to lead, motivate and inspire our engineering team working on traffic signal systems and operations. Lincolnshire
Recuriter: Lincolnshire County Council

Principal Engineer (Traffic Signals)

Lincolnshire County Council
£42,806 - £49,441
Do you want to lead, manage and motivate a team of engineers working at the cutting edge of technology? Lincolnshire
Recuriter: Lincolnshire County Council

Principal Nuisance Control Officer

Brent Council
£38,040 - £40,086 p.a. inc. + £4,800 shift allowance p.a.
Salary range
Recuriter: Brent Council

Rights of Way Search Officer - Highways Services

Bridgend County Borough Council
£7,188 - £7,327 per annum
We are seeking someone to assist in maintaining, developing and promoting the Definitive Map for Bridgend Bridgend (Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr)
Recuriter: Bridgend County Borough Council

Countryside Access Maintenance Officer - Highways Services

Bridgend County Borough Council
£12,644 - £13,015 per annum
We are seeking someone to assist in ensuring that the local rights of way network is protected, well maintained and enjoyed... Bridgend (Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr)
Recuriter: Bridgend County Borough Council

Principal Transport Officer

Cambridgeshire County Council
£37,320 to £40,198
The role will require close dialogue with developers and their agents and necessitate strong partnership working with District Councils... Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
Recuriter: Cambridgeshire County Council

Project Engineer

North Yorkshire County Council
up to £33,136
Are you a qualified Highways Project Engineer? Would you like to work in the famous James Herriot area of natural beauty? North Yorkshire
Recuriter: North Yorkshire County Council

Highways Officer Highways and Transport

North Yorkshire County Council
£28,2281 p.a.
Are you someone who is looking to progress their career with one of the most highly regarded highway services in the country? North Yorkshire
Recuriter: North Yorkshire County Council

Regional Strategy Officer

North Yorkshire County Council
Band 15 – up to £41,846
Are you an experienced Transport Planner? Do you have exceptional communication skills to build relationships within teams? North Yorkshire
Recuriter: North Yorkshire County Council

Area Manager

North Yorkshire County Council
up to £53,113 p.a. winter allowance plus 10% one off additional payment for exceptional candidates
Four Area Highway Managers roles available York, North Yorkshire
Recuriter: North Yorkshire County Council

Transport Planning Officer – Major Development Applications

Somerset County Council
£33,136 to £37,107
We have a fantastic opportunity in Somerset within our Highways Development Management team. Taunton, Somerset
Recuriter: Somerset County Council

Communications Manager - North London Heat & Power Project

Camden London Borough Council
£40,028 to £46,431
We have an exciting new opportunity for an enthusiastic and talented individual to join us and be part of a team... Camden, London (Greater)
Recuriter: Camden London Borough Council

Commissioner for Passenger Transport Services

Somerset County Council
£45,216 per annum
You will be responsible for the development of long-term policy, strategy, plans and programmes for passenger transport Taunton, Somerset
Recuriter: Somerset County Council

Technician(s) / Assistant Engineer

Darlington Borough Council
£16,755 - £29,909 Annually
As part of a team you will be involved in the management and improvement of the highway network Darlington, Durham
Recuriter: Darlington Borough Council