First the Railway is Renationalised, Then Transport Scotland is Abolished – Will National Highways Be Next?

The UK's transport landscape is undergoing one of its most significant periods of structural change in decades. The renationalisation of passenger rail services in England is underway.

Scotland's transport governance is being fundamentally reshaped through proposals to abolish Transport Scotland as a standalone agency. Meanwhile, questions are beginning to emerge about the future of National Highways, England's strategic road operator.

For those working across highways, infrastructure, traffic management and transport policy, the question is no longer whether government intervention in transport delivery is increasing—it clearly is. The more pertinent question is where this trend ultimately leads.

Could National Highways face a similar fate to the rail industry? Or does the strategic road network remain politically and economically distinct enough to avoid major structural reform?

The answer depends largely on how current political thinking develops, whether economic pressures intensify, and perhaps most importantly, who occupies Number 10 over the next decade.

A Shift Towards Greater State Control

The renationalisation of rail is not simply a transport policy decision. It reflects a broader political philosophy emerging within the current Labour government.

The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) represents a belief that fragmented structures have failed to deliver the reliability, efficiency and value for money expected by passengers and taxpayers. The argument from ministers is straightforward:

• Public money already heavily subsidises rail.

• Private operators have often transferred risk back to government.

• Passengers see little benefit from fragmentation.

• Strategic planning is more difficult when multiple organisations share responsibility.

Viewed through this lens, rail is being repositioned as an essential public service rather than a commercial market.

That distinction matters because roads occupy a similarly critical position within the national economy.

National Highways manages approximately 4,500 miles of motorways and major A roads but carries around one-third of all traffic and two-thirds of freight movements. It is difficult to argue that the strategic road network is any less economically vital than the railway.

The question becomes whether the same logic that justified rail renationalisation could eventually be applied to roads.

The Case Against Change

There are several strong reasons why National Highways may remain largely untouched.

National Highways Already Operates Within Government

Unlike train operating companies, National Highways is already wholly owned by government.

Since the transformation from the Highways Agency in 2015, National Highways has operated as a government-owned company rather than a private enterprise.

This means there is no obvious privatisation model to reverse.

1. In many respects, National Highways already sits in the position that rail is moving towards.

2. Its funding comes from government.

3. Its objectives are set by government.

4. Its performance is monitored by government.

5. Its assets remain publicly owned.

Consequently, advocates of the current structure argue there is relatively little political gain from reorganising it.

Performance Has Generally Been Strong

While National Highways has attracted criticism over project costs and delivery timescales, international comparisons often place England's strategic road network among the most effective in Europe.

Supporters argue that the arm's-length company model has delivered:

• Greater commercial flexibility.

• Long-term investment planning.

• Stronger engineering capability.

• More professional asset management.

• Reduced political interference in operational decisions.

The five-year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) framework was specifically designed to provide certainty and stability that annual Treasury budgeting could not achieve.

Many in the infrastructure sector fear that dismantling this model could reintroduce short-term political decision-making.

Roads Remain Politically Sensitive

Governments of all colours understand that motorists represent a far larger voting bloc than rail passengers.

Road investment decisions affect:

• Commuters.

• Freight operators.

• Emergency services.

• Rural communities.

• Businesses.

Any disruption to the operation of the strategic road network would carry substantial political risk.

This creates a natural caution around major institutional reform.

The Case for Reform

Despite these arguments, there are growing voices questioning whether National Highways' current model remains fit for purpose.

Rising Costs and Delivery Challenges

Large-scale road projects have become increasingly expensive.

The Lower Thames Crossing, originally estimated at around £5 billion, has seen projected costs rise substantially.

Smart motorway programmes generated significant controversy and ultimately faced political intervention.

Several RIS projects have experienced delays, cost escalation or cancellation.

Critics argue these challenges raise legitimate questions about governance and accountability.

If taxpayers are funding ever-larger infrastructure budgets, should ministers exert more direct control?

This is precisely the argument that gained traction within rail policy circles.

Environmental Pressures

Perhaps the greatest challenge comes from climate policy.

Successive governments have committed to net-zero emissions targets.

Road transport remains one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions.

Some policymakers increasingly question whether expanding road capacity aligns with long-term environmental objectives.

Under this perspective, National Highways can appear caught between conflicting mandates:

• Supporting economic growth.

• Reducing congestion.

• Delivering decarbonisation.

Future governments may seek governance models that place environmental priorities at the centre of decision-making rather than treating them as competing objectives.

Greater Integration of Transport

One of Labour's emerging transport themes is integration.

Rail, buses, active travel and roads have historically been managed through separate institutions.

There is growing discussion around whether future transport planning should become more holistic.

Some policy thinkers advocate a model where strategic roads are planned alongside rail and public transport investment rather than through separate funding streams and organisations.

Such thinking could eventually lead to structural reform, even if not outright abolition.

Lessons from Scotland

The debate becomes even more interesting when viewed through developments north of the border.

The Scottish Government has increasingly pursued integrated transport policies focused on sustainability, public transport and decarbonisation.

Discussion around Transport Scotland's future reflects broader questions about whether transport agencies should remain standalone organisations or become more closely integrated within government structures.

If Transport Scotland's role is reduced or absorbed into a wider governmental framework, observers in England will inevitably ask whether similar reforms could emerge elsewhere.

While constitutional arrangements differ significantly, political ideas often travel surprisingly quickly.

What If Labour Changes Leader?

The future becomes considerably harder to predict when leadership scenarios are introduced.

Sir Keir Starmer's government currently presents itself as fiscally cautious, pragmatic and institutionally conservative.

Although rail renationalisation is significant, it has been framed as correcting a specific market failure rather than signalling widespread nationalisation.

Under Starmer, National Highways appears relatively secure.

However, politics rarely stands still.

The Andy Burnham Factor

Although purely speculative, Andy Burnham is often discussed as one of Labour's most recognisable future leadership contenders.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has consistently championed:

• Public control of transport systems.

• Greater local accountability.

• Integrated transport planning.

• Expanded public ownership models.

• Regional decision-making powers.

His successful franchising of Greater Manchester's bus network demonstrates a willingness to challenge established operating structures.

If Burnham were ever to become Prime Minister, transport policy could take a noticeably different direction.

What Might Burnham Support?

A Burnham-led government might prioritise:

Greater Integration

Roads, rail, buses and active travel could be planned through a unified national framework.

National Highways may be required to work within broader mobility objectives rather than road-specific targets.

Stronger Regional Control

Burnham has consistently argued for devolving power away from Whitehall.

Future reforms could potentially transfer greater responsibility for strategic roads to combined authorities and regional transport bodies.

This would represent one of the most significant changes in highways governance since the creation of National Highways itself.

Public Service Outcomes

Performance measures could shift away from purely operational indicators towards wider societal outcomes including:

• Economic inclusion.

• Carbon reduction.

• Public health.

• Regional growth.

Such a shift would fundamentally alter infrastructure investment priorities.

Why National Highways Still Probably Survives

Even under a more interventionist government, complete abolition appears unlikely.

The expertise required to manage:

• Major infrastructure projects.

• Asset management programmes.

• Network operations.

• Technology systems.

• Emergency response capability.

cannot easily be replicated within a traditional civil service department.

The more realistic scenario is evolution rather than elimination.

Potential changes could include:

• Greater ministerial oversight.

• Revised governance structures.

• Stronger environmental objectives.

• Increased regional influence.

• Enhanced integration with wider transport planning.

National Highways might look different in ten years' time, but it is unlikely to disappear entirely.

The Real Question: What Problem Is Government Trying to Solve?

Perhaps the most important lesson from rail renationalisation is that institutional reform rarely occurs because politicians dislike an organisation.

It occurs when governments believe existing structures are preventing desired outcomes.

Rail was reformed because ministers concluded fragmentation was contributing to poor performance.

Any future reform of National Highways would require a similar diagnosis.

Government would need to believe that:

• Delivery performance is inadequate.

• Costs are excessive.

• Environmental objectives are not being met.

• Integration with wider transport systems is failing.

At present, there is insufficient evidence that ministers have reached those conclusions.

Conclusion

The renationalisation of rail and potential restructuring of Transport Scotland undoubtedly signal a changing transport policy environment. They reflect a growing willingness among governments to challenge institutional arrangements that were once considered settled.

However, National Highways occupies a fundamentally different position.

It is already publicly owned.

It already operates within a government-controlled framework.

And it continues to manage one of the country's most economically critical assets.

Could reform happen? Absolutely.

Could governance evolve under future administrations? Almost certainly.

Could an Andy Burnham-led government pursue a more integrated, devolved and publicly directed transport system? Very possibly.

But the evidence today suggests that the future of National Highways is more likely to involve transformation than termination.

The real debate is not whether National Highways will be abolished.

It is whether the strategic road network of the future will continue to be managed primarily as a highways system—or increasingly as one component of a much broader mobility and economic infrastructure strategy.

That question, rather than organisational structure alone, may ultimately determine what happens next.