The Friday Blog | Is National Highways Finished as a Credible Publicly Owned Company?

National Highways, the government-owned body responsible for England’s motorways and major A-roads, is facing an existential question: can it retain its credibility as a publicly owned infrastructure company?

After a decade marked by ambitious but controversial projects, safety controversies, financial overruns, and public protests, the organisation’s reputation is under intense scrutiny. With the government pivoting toward road renewals rather than headline-grabbing new-build projects, and senior leaders under pressure to demonstrate tangible results, the company’s future as a trusted custodian of England’s road network is far from assured.

Recent developments, including the government taking direct control of the Lower Thames Crossing, underline both the pressures National Highways faces and the degree of oversight ministers now feel necessary.

Smart Motorways: Innovation or Controversy?

Smart motorways were originally promoted as a cost-effective, innovative solution to congestion, converting hard shoulders into live lanes and using digital signage and variable speed limits to manage traffic flow. The promise was compelling: improved journey times, increased capacity, and economic benefits for the regions served.

Yet these schemes quickly became a symbol of mismanagement. Fatal accidents, poor emergency refuge provision, and inconsistent communication with drivers sparked public outcry. Campaigners, most prominently Claire Mercer of the Smart Motorways Kill campaign, have staged protests and demanded transparency, particularly regarding Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports. These reports, intended to assess safety and performance, have been slow to publish, fostering suspicion that safety concerns are being downplayed.

The fallout has been damaging: public trust has eroded, MPs are scrutinising every new decision, and National Highways’ reputation as a competent, accountable operator is in question. Smart motorways illustrate how an innovative concept, when poorly executed, can undermine a company’s credibility for years.

Leadership Under the Microscope: Harris vs O’Sullivan

The crisis has intensified pressure on National Highways’ leadership. The contrast between past and current leadership styles underscores the challenge:

• Jim O’Sullivan, National Highways’ former CEO, pursued a front-foot, high-visibility approach, prioritising large-scale projects and rapid delivery. While ambitious, his style contributed to overrun costs, safety oversights, and a perception that political optics sometimes outweighed operational prudence.

• Nick Harris, his successor, has adopted a pragmatic, safety-first approach, focusing on renewals, maintenance, and stakeholder engagement. Harris emphasises transparent reporting and measured delivery over high-profile megaprojects.

  
  

The tension between these approaches raises questions: can a publicly owned company regain credibility through pragmatism alone, or is the shadow of past failures too long to overcome?

Campaigner Pressure and Public Accountability

Public scrutiny has become a defining feature of National Highways’ operating environment. Campaigners and advocacy groups are increasingly vocal about transparency and safety. Protests, particularly those demanding full disclosure of smart motorway POPE reports, have amplified scrutiny on the agency.

The government’s recent decision to take control of the Lower Thames Crossing, a major infrastructure project initially under National Highways’ management, underscores these pressures. Ministers cited concerns over cost, delivery timelines, and operational oversight, effectively removing the project from the organisation’s control. This move sends a clear message: where National Highways’ credibility is perceived as weak, the government is prepared to intervene directly.

These developments exacerbate the challenge for Nick Harris, whose pragmatic approach now faces the dual pressures of internal reform and external oversight. Every decision is being watched by MPs, campaigners, and the media, creating a heightened accountability environment.

Renewals: Pragmatic Pivot or Signal of Decline?

In response to smart motorway failures and public scrutiny, the government has signalled a strategic shift toward renewals and maintenance, deprioritising major new-build schemes. From a pragmatic perspective, this is sensible: improving the safety, resilience, and reliability of the existing network delivers tangible benefits without the risk of costly overruns.

However, this shift also carries reputational risk. Road users and policymakers often equate visibility with progress. Unlike large-scale projects, renewals are incremental, less glamorous, and harder to communicate as achievements, making it challenging for National Highways to reclaim its status as a visionary public organisation.

The combination of a renewals-focused strategy and government intervention in major projects like the Lower Thames Crossing raises existential questions about the organisation’s autonomy and ability to deliver at scale. If ministers feel compelled to step in, the perception of National Highways as a capable, credible public agency is further undermined.

Fiscal and Operational Pressures

Financial scrutiny adds another layer of complexity. Years of overspending on smart motorways, combined with rising construction costs and maintenance backlogs, have put National Highways under pressure to deliver more with less. Leadership must balance safety, cost efficiency, and public perception—no easy task given the organisation’s size and complexity.

Moreover, opportunity costs loom large. Billions spent on controversial projects like smart motorways could have funded regional rail, local transport, or smaller-scale infrastructure upgrades, potentially delivering more equitable benefits across the country. Public perception is increasingly that National Highways has historically prioritised ambitious schemes over prudent stewardship of public funds.

Rebuilding Credibility: Can It Be Done?

The central question remains: is National Highways finished as a credible publicly owned company, or can it reinvent itself?

The path to recovery lies in several critical areas:

1. Safety First: Tangible improvements in accident reduction, emergency provisions, and compliance with modern safety standards are essential to restoring public confidence.

2. Transparency: Timely publication of safety reports, open engagement with campaigners, and clear communication with the public will be key.

3. Operational Efficiency: Delivering renewals on time, within budget, and with measurable outcomes will demonstrate that the organisation can manage public resources responsibly.

4. Leadership and Culture: Harris’ pragmatic, safety-driven approach must be embedded at all levels to replace a culture that previously favoured speed and optics over rigorous risk management.

5. Public Engagement: Beyond safety reports, National Highways must actively involve road users, MPs, and local communities in planning and reporting. This is essential to rebuild trust in a post-smart motorway era.

Success in these areas could reposition National Highways as a reliable steward of public roads, shifting the narrative from past failures to future competence.

Risks of Failure

Failure to act decisively risks the organisation’s long-term credibility. Key risks include:

• Erosion of public trust: Continued delays, opaque reporting, or perceived safety compromises could permanently tarnish the company’s reputation.

• Political intervention: Projects like the Lower Thames Crossing demonstrate that ministers are willing to take direct control when confidence is low. Repeated intervention could reduce National Highways to an implementing agency rather than a strategic leader.

• Financial scrutiny: Mismanagement of maintenance budgets or poorly delivered projects would exacerbate public and parliamentary concerns over value for money.

The stakes could not be higher. National Highways must prove it can deliver essential services efficiently, safely, and transparently, or risk being seen as an ineffective public body.

Conclusion: National Highways at a Crossroads

National Highways stands at a crossroads. The failures of smart motorways, public protests demanding transparency, government interventions like the Lower Thames Crossing, and the shift to renewals create both opportunity and risk.

Under Nick Harris’ leadership, there is a pathway to restoring trust: a measured, pragmatic, safety-first approach that demonstrates tangible results. However, the shadow of past missteps—combined with political scrutiny and ongoing public pressure—means that credibility cannot be taken for granted.

The question is stark: is National Highways finished as a credible publicly owned company, or can it reinvent itself as a competent, accountable, and trusted steward of England’s road network?

The coming years will be decisive. If National Highways can deliver safe, efficient, and transparent road management, it may yet reaffirm its role as a cornerstone of national infrastructure. If it fails, the organisation risks being remembered not for its roads, but for missed opportunities, unsafe projects, and lost public trust.