Potholes are more than a seasonal nuisance. They can damage vehicles, increase the risk of collisions and make walking or cycling less appealing. For councils, repeated repairs also consume money that could otherwise support planned road maintenance and long term improvements.
The government’s £27 billion road investment strategy appears to offer a substantial response to the condition and capacity of England’s roads. However, understanding whether it can solve the pothole problem requires a closer look at where the funding is directed, who is responsible for local roads and why defects continue to form.
Why potholes remain a persistent problem
Potholes usually develop when water enters small cracks in the road surface. Cold weather can cause that water to freeze and expand, weakening the surrounding material. Traffic then places further pressure on the damaged area until sections of the surface break away. Heavy vehicles, utility works, poor drainage and ageing road materials can accelerate the process.
The problem is not limited to winter. Prolonged wet weather can expose weaknesses in road surfaces, while hot conditions may soften some materials and contribute to deformation. Years of patching can also create an uneven network of joints and repairs that are vulnerable to future water penetration.
Reactive repairs versus preventive maintenance
Many highway authorities must balance urgent pothole repairs with more comprehensive maintenance programmes. Filling an individual hole may restore safety quickly, but it does not necessarily address deterioration across the wider stretch of road. If the surrounding surface is already failing, another defect may soon appear nearby.
Preventive treatments, resurfacing and reconstruction can provide better long term value when they are carried out at the right stage of a road’s life. These approaches generally require more planning and higher initial spending, which can be difficult when budgets are under pressure and authorities are responding to immediate safety reports.
What the £27 billion strategy is designed to fund
The £27 billion figure is closely associated with the second Road Investment Strategy, which set out spending plans for England’s strategic road network between 2020 and 2025. This network is managed by National Highways and consists primarily of motorways and major A roads. The programme covers maintenance, renewals, safety measures, technology and major improvement schemes.
This distinction matters because most potholes encountered on residential streets and ordinary local routes are the responsibility of local highway authorities. A large national roads budget does not automatically translate into equivalent funding for council managed streets. As a result, the headline figure can create expectations that extend beyond the strategy’s actual scope.
Investment in major roads can still have an indirect effect
Keeping motorways and major A roads in good condition supports freight movement, commuting and regional connectivity. Improvements may also reduce disruption caused by emergency repairs and help prevent serious surface defects from developing on some of the country’s busiest routes.
However, investment in strategic roads cannot replace consistent funding for local maintenance. Drivers may experience a high quality motorway journey and then encounter damaged surfaces after moving onto urban or rural council roads. Any assessment of the strategy must therefore separate its performance on the strategic network from the broader condition of England’s local roads.
The local roads funding gap
Local authorities manage the overwhelming majority of England’s road network, including residential streets, rural lanes and many urban A roads. Their maintenance resources come from a combination of central government grants, council revenue, capital budgets and occasional targeted funding. The amount available varies between authorities, as do the size, age and condition of their networks.
A rural council may be responsible for thousands of miles of lightly used roads spread across a wide area, while an urban authority must manage heavy traffic, frequent utility works and competition for road space. Both can face substantial maintenance backlogs, but the causes and practical solutions may be different.
Short term allocations can limit long term planning
Road maintenance works best when authorities can plan several years ahead. Multi year certainty allows councils to inspect their networks, prioritise preventive treatments, coordinate road closures and secure better value from contractors. It can also support investment in equipment, materials and workforce skills.
Short term or competitive funding pots may help address urgent defects, but they can make it harder to develop stable programmes. If an authority does not know what funding will be available in future years, it may favour immediate patching over resurfacing that requires more preparation. Funding announced late in the financial year can create additional pressure to commission and complete work quickly.
Inflation reduces the amount of work budgets can buy
The value of a maintenance allocation depends on construction costs as well as the headline amount. Increases in the price of bitumen, fuel, aggregates, machinery and labour can reduce the number of roads that can be treated. A budget that rises in cash terms may still deliver less physical work if costs rise more quickly.
Authorities also have to pay for inspections, drainage maintenance, road markings, bridges, traffic signals and other highway assets. Pothole repairs are therefore only one demand within a much broader maintenance programme.
Why resurfacing is often better than repeated patching
A patch repair is appropriate when a defect is isolated and the surrounding road remains structurally sound. Crews can remove loose material, prepare the area and install a durable repair without replacing the entire surface. Done correctly, this can be a cost effective intervention.
Problems arise when a road has extensive cracking, multiple previous patches or deeper structural failure. Filling each visible pothole may treat the symptoms while leaving the underlying weakness in place. Water can enter through nearby cracks, and the edges of repairs may deteriorate under traffic.
Different treatments suit different stages of deterioration
Surface dressing and similar preventive treatments can seal a road against water and restore skid resistance before serious defects form. Resurfacing replaces the upper layer when deterioration is more advanced. Full reconstruction may be required when the foundation has failed or the road is no longer capable of carrying expected traffic loads.
The most economical option is not always the least expensive treatment on the day. A low cost repair that fails repeatedly can cost more over time than a planned intervention with a longer service life. Whole life cost assessments can help authorities decide when continued patching no longer represents value for money.
Drainage must be part of the solution
Road surfaces cannot be considered in isolation from drainage. Blocked gullies, damaged channels, saturated verges and poorly maintained ditches can leave water standing on or beneath the carriageway. Even a newly repaired surface may deteriorate prematurely if water is not managed effectively.
Coordinating drainage clearance with resurfacing can improve durability. Authorities may also need to address tree roots, unstable ground and repeated flooding where local conditions contribute to persistent failures.
Utility works and the condition of repaired roads
Water, gas, electricity and communications companies regularly excavate roads to install, repair or upgrade infrastructure. These works are essential, but every opening creates joints that must be sealed properly. Poorly reinstated trenches can settle, crack or allow water into the surrounding pavement.
Highway authorities can inspect reinstatements and require defects to be corrected within the applicable guarantee period. Permit schemes can also help coordinate works and reduce avoidable disruption. Effective enforcement requires trained inspectors, accurate records and enough capacity to revisit sites after work has been completed.
Better coordination can prevent roads being dug up twice
A common source of frustration is a road being resurfaced shortly before a utility company excavates it. Restrictions can protect newly resurfaced streets for a period, although emergency and essential works may still need to proceed. Earlier communication between councils, utilities and developers can reduce conflicts and allow planned works to be completed before resurfacing begins.
Digital mapping of planned maintenance and utility programmes can support this coordination. It can also help authorities identify locations where repeated excavation is contributing to surface deterioration.
How technology can improve pothole prevention
Traditional inspections remain important, particularly for identifying hazards that require urgent action. However, authorities increasingly have access to vehicle mounted cameras, surface scanners and software that can assess cracking, deformation and texture across large parts of a network.
These tools can identify deterioration before a pothole becomes visible. When combined with traffic data, repair histories and weather information, they can help maintenance teams prioritise roads according to risk and likely future cost.
Public reporting is useful but cannot replace inspections
Online forms and mobile reporting systems allow road users to provide locations, descriptions and photographs of defects. This can help councils respond to hazards between scheduled inspections. Reports are most useful when they contain an accurate location and enough information to distinguish a pothole from other issues such as a sunken utility cover or damaged drain.
Not every reported defect will meet an authority’s threshold for immediate repair. Decisions usually consider factors such as depth, width, location, traffic speed and risk to different road users. Transparent inspection and repair policies can help residents understand why some defects receive a faster response than others.
Safety must include cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians
A pothole that causes discomfort for a car occupant may present a much more serious hazard to someone using two wheels. Cyclists and motorcyclists can be forced to swerve into traffic, while defects near the edge of the carriageway can affect the area they use most frequently. Loose repair material can also reduce grip.
Inspection regimes should therefore consider the types of users present, not only the volume of motor traffic. Roads near schools, bus stops, cycle routes and pedestrian crossings may require particular attention. Footways also need sustained maintenance because broken surfaces can create trip hazards and restrict access for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility.
How the strategy should be judged
The Road Investment Strategy should primarily be assessed against the objectives set for the strategic road network. Relevant measures include pavement condition, safety, journey reliability, environmental performance and the timely delivery of renewals. It is not reasonable to attribute every local street defect to a programme that was not designed to fund those streets.
At the same time, a national roads policy can appear unbalanced if major improvement schemes receive substantial commitments while local maintenance backlogs continue to grow.
Headline spending does not guarantee delivery
A multi billion pound programme must be considered alongside what is actually completed. Planning delays, legal challenges, revised project scopes, inflation and supply chain constraints can affect delivery.
Clear reporting should distinguish between capital committed, money spent, projects delivered and measurable changes in road condition. It should also explain how much is allocated to maintenance and renewals compared with new construction or capacity improvements.
What a more complete response would require
Solving the pothole problem requires a coordinated approach across strategic and local networks. Local authorities need predictable, long term maintenance settlements that reflect network size, condition, traffic levels and local environmental pressures.
Authorities, in turn, need robust asset management plans that prioritise preventive work and publish clear information about performance. Repairs should follow appropriate standards, be inspected where necessary and form part of a wider plan for the road rather than an endless sequence of isolated patches.
Maintenance should be treated as asset protection
Roads are valuable public assets. Allowing them to deteriorate transfers larger costs into the future and increases disruption when extensive reconstruction becomes unavoidable. Regular sealing, drainage clearance and timely resurfacing may attract less public attention than emergency repairs, but they can prevent many potholes from forming.
A successful policy would therefore measure how much deterioration has been prevented, not only how many potholes have been filled. It would also examine repair durability, repeat defects and the proportion of the network receiving planned treatment each year.
Is £27 billion the answer?
The £27 billion strategy can support safer and more reliable motorways and major A roads, and its maintenance elements can help prevent potholes on the strategic network.
A lasting answer requires sustained local funding, preventive maintenance, effective drainage, better coordination of utility works and transparent performance monitoring. Without those measures, a large national investment headline may improve major routes while potholes remain a familiar problem on everyday streets.
