How can the UK achieve the best outcomes from transport infrastructure?
David Oliver, transport lead, PA Consulting
The UK transport sector is on the cusp of a major gear shift. Accelerating the huge potential, says PA Consulting’s transport lead David Oliver, rests on resolving three central tensions: siloed transportation modes, national and regional competition for funding and disjointed sector-sector relationships
In its first 100 days, the Labour government has positioned transport as key to achieving its goals of sustainable economic growth, the transition to clean power, social mobility, and greater regional empowerment.
Yet transport systems still depend on expensive and slow infrastructure – UK rail follows Victorian routes, and major roads follow routes dug by Roman legionaries.
Improving the transport system in this decisive decade therefore depends on achieving radically better outcomes from the infrastructure we already have, and what we can build with limited funds. This is achievable, but will require resolving three tensions that have so far prevented effective transport reform.
1: Between transport modes
At a national level, the rail and strategic road networks are infamously siloed, each optimising plans according to their needs. Yet the decisions of one affect the other. A new rail line will likely bring disruption to the roads through construction, but if done correctly can alleviate long-term road congestion. Get it wrong, and it could lead to more congestion, higher carbon emissions, entrenched inequality, and economic friction.
Integrating multiple complex systems is inherently difficult – with different priorities; and the complexity of each system encourages institutional silos.
Nonetheless, policymakers do have two levers to reduce tension. The first is governance: for example, instituting a coordination mechanism between road and rail, as well as airports, and ensuring that targets and lines of accountability encourage such cooperation.
The second lever is funding. By prioritising finance for projects that deliver against wider, shared strategic objectives, policymakers can incentivise collaboration.
The fact that you can drive or take a train from Copenhagen to Malmö is testament to the effectiveness of these levers. The journey previously involved a five-mile ferry across the strait. Now, 20,000 daily commuters pass through the Øresund Bridge-Tunnel, a road and rail link that epitomises intermodal and international cooperation. And there is seamless rail service, despite the systems using different currencies and languages, crossing on opposite sides of the track, and using different voltages.
The Department for Transport has already set up a shadow body, Great British Rail, to start collaborative working, and deliver improvements for passengers. The same principles could also be extended between modes.
2: Between national and regional
Regional bodies are well-placed to transform transport outcomes without spending billions on infrastructure.
The city of Curitiba in Brazil, for example, experienced deteriorating ridership on its bus network in the 2000s. Authorities reversed this by building dedicated bus lanes to connect underserved suburbs, implementing a priority traffic management system, and imposing a flat fare across modes and subsidies for disadvantaged groups.
This worked because a single local body had authority over planning, service franchising, and local roads, enabling it to fill the strategic gaps that often prevent effective public transport utilisation.
In the UK, mayors and regional bodies have the same advantages. But currently, regional and national projects compete for money through competitive bidding, a process that tends to mean regional interests lose out. This explains, for example, why per capita public transport spending was 37 percent higher in London and the South East than the national average in the second half of the 2010s.
Limited funding has hindered regional transport integration, even with devolved authority. This impedes regional input to central decision-making, crucial for effective empowerment. A consultative approach with long-term funding for high-impact projects could shift some resources from national to regional bodies, potentially increasing overall impact.
3: Between transport and other infrastructure
The principles of collaboration also need to apply between transport and other critical infrastructure. EV adoption, for example, will be critical for decarbonising both transport and the energy system itself.
The Rapid Charging Fund (RCF) demonstrates government use of finance to nudge collaboration. Under the scheme, government funding would go towards the cost of electricity network capacity to ensure the private sector can install ultra-rapid charge points where they are needed. RCF-funded grid connections will be ‘future-proofed’ for at least 10 years, with options to extend to 2050 where feasible.
Policymakers can make it easier to build homes around new or existing transport infrastructure or the other way around, which helps meet housing and transport objectives. Kent Thameside, for example, is an ongoing regeneration project combining large-scale housebuilding with dedicated Fastrack bus lanes.
At a local level, planning can also be used to unlock additional private sector finance to help fund transport infrastructure. For example, Hong Kong grants city transport operator MTR development rights around new stations at prices frozen at pre-announcement levels. MTR can benefit from rising land prices, either taking a lucrative cut from property sales, or renting sites to commercial and residential businesses. This approach generates system-wide revenues equivalent to 60 percent of ticket takings.
Lean into digital easy wins…
Digital technologies present the lowest hanging fruit for optimising transport outcomes due to no new physical infrastructure. Instead, they join up services using existing infrastructure to improve the user experience.
A simple integrated ticketing platform can have a huge effect. Journey planning and real-time updates can also encourage multimodal public transport trips by filling information gaps and improving reliability.
Making digital infrastructure work requires coordination – direct or indirect. At the very least, joining up services in one user interface requires operators not only to sign up to the same interface, but also to share back-end data.
…and be willing to make hard choices
The tensions above are navigable – and better outcomes achievable. Yet doing so requires an exercise in central authority that isn’t without risks or trade-offs.
To maximize transport infrastructure benefits, the government must make tough, sometimes unpopular, but necessary decisions. Ideally, it should seek innovative solutions that transform zero-sum situations into mutually beneficial outcomes.
This article is based upon a longer examination of the tensions facing transport by David Oliver, Harriet Cocker, Heather Bolding published by PA Consulting as part of the Decisive Decade series which explores ten topics that will define and shape the next ten years.