The Friday Blog | A1 Northumberland Dualling: Balancing Cost, Safety, and the Future of UK Infrastructure

In the North East of England, the single carriageway stretch of the A1 in Northumberland has long been a source of concern for local residents, businesses, and politicians.

With frequent closures due to accidents and an alarming record of casualties, calls to upgrade the road to a dual carriageway have been made repeatedly over the years. Yet, in 2024, the government officially scrapped plans to dual this “dangerous” road, citing funding constraints and deeming the project “unaffordable.”

This decision has reignited debates about the balance between government spending priorities and public safety, raising a fundamental question: are cost savings being placed above the safety and long-term economic benefits of vital transport infrastructure?

The Safety Argument

The safety concerns along the A1 cannot be understated. According to data from the North East Transport Analysis Data Unit, funded by the five Tyne and Wear councils, there have been 26 casualties on the road in 2025 alone, with 10 people sustaining serious injuries and one fatality.

The single carriageway design, with its limited overtaking opportunities, mixed traffic of cars and heavy goods vehicles, and high traffic volumes, has been blamed for numerous accidents.

Local councillors are unequivocal about the need for urgent action. Liberal Democrat councillor Isabel Hunter stressed that the road is being shut on an “almost weekly basis” due to accidents. Conservative council leader Glen Sandersonechoed these concerns, describing the road as a “dangerous spine” between Northumberland and Scotland.

From a safety perspective, the argument for dualling is clear: a dual carriageway can significantly reduce head-on collisions, improve traffic flow, and provide a safer route for both local and long-distance traffic. Dualling would also better accommodate emergency vehicles and reduce the risk of secondary accidents caused by sudden congestion.

The Cost Dilemma

Despite the clear safety case, the government’s decision to halt the project highlights the financial constraints faced in public infrastructure spending. Dualling major roadways is expensive, often running into hundreds of millions of pounds, with additional costs for land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and long-term maintenance. In 2024, the Department for Transport concluded that the A1 dualling was “unfunded and unaffordable,” reflecting both the limited fiscal space for large-scale projects and the government’s broader priorities in infrastructure investment.

This raises a critical question for policymakers and the public alike: is the decision to scrap the project a prudent use of public funds, or a short-term saving at the expense of long-term safety and efficiency?

From a fiscal perspective, cancelling the project allows the government to redirect funds to other pressing needs, such as healthcare, schools, or more cost-effective road maintenance schemes. However, these immediate savings may be offset by the long-term costs of accidents, emergency services deployment, lost productivity due to congestion, and potential legal liabilities arising from preventable accidents.

Could Private Financing Provide a Solution?

One potential way to reconcile cost constraints with safety imperatives is to explore a DBFO (Design, Build, Finance, Operate) model. Under this arrangement, private investors would fund the construction of the dual carriageway upfront, and the government would repay the cost over a period of years, effectively “mortgaging” the project.

This approach offers several advantages:

• Immediate Construction: The road could be upgraded without waiting for government budget allocations.

• Risk Transfer: Private partners take on initial design, construction, and financing risks, potentially reducing cost overruns for the public sector.

• Cashflow Management: The government can spread the financial burden over multiple years, avoiding the need for a single large capital outlay.

However, DBFO projects also carry potential drawbacks:

• Higher Long-Term Cost: Financing charges and profit margins for private investors can make the total cost higher over the life of the project compared to direct government funding.

• Contract Complexity: Long-term contractual agreements must clearly define responsibilities for maintenance, operational performance, and risk sharing.

• Public Accountability: Some critics argue that essential infrastructure projects should remain fully publicly funded to ensure transparency and prevent excessive private influence over critical public assets.

  
  

Despite these caveats, the DBFO approach could represent a viable compromise, allowing the A1 dualling to proceed while managing immediate fiscal pressures and safeguarding road users.

Potential Benefits of Dualling the A1

Dualling the A1 would bring a range of potential benefits beyond enhanced safety:

1. Improved Traffic Flow: A dual carriageway would reduce bottlenecks, shorten journey times, and improve reliability for local and long-distance traffic.

2. Economic Growth: Enhanced transport links can stimulate regional economic development, attracting businesses, supporting local supply chains, and encouraging investment in the North East.

3. Connectivity: The A1 is a strategic route connecting Northumberland with Scotland and the wider North East. Upgrading it strengthens national transport infrastructure and improves resilience for both passenger and freight traffic.

4. Environmental Management: While road expansions can raise environmental concerns, modern dualling projects often include measures to mitigate impacts, such as wildlife crossings, noise reduction schemes, and improved drainage. Reduced congestion can also lower emissions from idling vehicles.

5. Emergency Response: Dual carriageways offer safer and faster routes for emergency services, potentially reducing response times in critical situations.

   
   

Potential Drawbacks and Challenges

Despite these advantages, dualling the A1 would not be without challenges:

• High Cost: Even with private financing, the project requires careful oversight to ensure long-term value.

• Environmental Impact: Expanding the road could disrupt local ecosystems, agricultural land, and heritage sites, requiring careful planning and mitigation measures.

• Construction Disruption: The building phase would likely involve temporary closures, diversions, and other disruptions for residents and businesses in the area.

• Maintenance Costs: Dual carriageways require ongoing maintenance, adding to long-term budgetary commitments for local authorities and national agencies.

  
  

Alternatives to Full Dualling

Some suggest that there may be more cost-effective alternatives to full dualling, such as:

• Targeted Safety Upgrades: Adding passing lanes, improved signage, or barriers at high-risk points can reduce accidents without the full cost of dualling.

• Intelligent Traffic Management: Using technology to monitor traffic flow and respond to incidents quickly can mitigate congestion and improve safety.

• Enhanced Public Transport: Investing in rail and bus services may reduce traffic volume on the A1, indirectly improving safety without large-scale road construction.

  
  

While these measures can offer partial solutions, many experts argue they do not fully address the fundamental safety risks of a single carriageway with high traffic volumes.

The Political Dimension

The debate over the A1 also highlights political tensions. Councillors of different parties agree on the necessity of dualling, suggesting that safety concerns transcend partisan lines. Hunter’s statement that “we’re not particularly bothered which party does it” signals a pragmatic approach focused on outcomes rather than politics.

Yet, the government’s decision reflects broader fiscal constraints and a prioritisation framework that may favour other projects with higher economic returns or lower upfront costs. Critics argue this approach risks sending the wrong signal about valuing safety and public wellbeing, potentially eroding trust in decision-making around infrastructure.

Conclusion: Balancing Costs, Safety, and Long-Term Vision

The situation with the A1 in Northumberland presents a clear tension: the immediate cost savings of cancelling the dualling project versus the long-term safety, economic, and social benefits of upgrading the road.

A DBFO financing model could offer a practical compromise, allowing the road to be upgraded without waiting for a large capital allocation, while spreading costs over time. However, such arrangements require careful contract management and oversight to ensure value for money, transparency, and accountability.

Ultimately, the debate over the A1 is emblematic of wider infrastructure challenges in the UK: how to allocate limited public funds responsibly while safeguarding citizens, promoting regional development, and maintaining trust in government decision-making. Cutting corners to save money may provide temporary fiscal relief, but the potential consequences—fatalities, injuries, congestion, and stifled regional growth—can far outweigh initial savings.

As Northumberland councils continue to press the government to reverse its decision, the A1 debate serves as a reminder that roads are more than just lines on a map—they are lifelines for communities, commerce, and safety. Policymakers must carefully consider innovative financing models, such as DBFO, alongside traditional funding approaches, to ensure that safety and long-term economic benefits are never sacrificed for short-term budgetary convenience.