Transport Committee

The committee scrutinised the Government’s Better Connected strategy as a first attempt at a national integrated transport vision, but witnesses repeatedly said it reads more like a list of initiatives than a true strategy. The strongest recurring concerns were the absence of clear targets, timelines, ownership and evaluation for integration; gaps on freight, rural services, accessibility, shared mobility, mobility hubs, taxis/private hire and active-travel links; and a weak approach to incentives, data-sharing and devolution. Witnesses welcomed some concrete commitments — especially around shared mobility, accessibility, Project Coral, cycle-rail integration and the Mini Switzerland demonstrator — but argued that without stronger national direction, funding certainty and a reworked appraisal framework, the strategy will not deliver mode shift, productivity or equitable access to opportunity.

Witnesses broadly welcomed the Government’s road safety strategy as the first serious national focus in years, but repeatedly warned that its success depends on pace, delivery and funding rather than ambition alone. They pressed for early action on a road safety investigation branch, stronger speed management, and a more systematic approach to young-driver risk, work-related road risk, rural roads, and vehicle safety technology. The panel also argued that consultations should not delay measures already backed by evidence, and that enforcement capacity, local authority resources and clear governance are all essential if the strategy is to meet its casualty-reduction targets.

The Committee scrutinised the HS2 reset after the Secretary of State’s announcement, focusing on revised cost and schedule ranges, the reasons for cost escalation, and how the programme will be controlled from here. Witnesses said the reset runs to April 2027 and that the new cost ranges are robust because they are based on a year of detailed review, benchmarked delivery data and multi-layer independent assurance. Ministers and HS2 Ltd argued that the biggest gains now come from de-risking delivery through a more realistic baseline, stricter governance, revised commercial incentives, and a decision to simplify the train/signalling specification. The session also covered Euston governance and capacity, possible private finance, community impacts, future options north of Birmingham, and industrial relations on the main civils contracts and wider supply-chain arrangements.

The session examined the pace and economics of the UK’s electric-vehicle transition, the effectiveness of policy instruments (notably the ZEV mandate and eVED), public awareness, charging-infrastructure availability and regional disparities, and the role of local authorities and industry in delivering mass uptake. Government representatives reaffirmed commitment and outlined funding and delivery mechanisms (LEVI charging scheme, ECG, home/workplace grants, depot charging, and HGV/coach infrastructure) while acknowledging challenges around charging affordability, regional inequality, grid readiness, and vehicle residual values. Witnesses from the Climate Change Committee emphasised the modelling basis for EV adoption, the importance of policy consistency, and the influence of battery costs, while independent experts highlighted uneven charging distribution and regional disparities. The evidence signals continued government intent to pursue a multi-faceted policy mix (carrots and sticks), with a strong emphasis on certainty for investors and local delivery through LEVI and OZEV/DFT coordination.

The Transport Committee scrutinised National Highways (NH) on RIS3 delivery, leadership continuity, safety performance, cost-benefit governance, and funding arrangements. Key government commitments include the RIS3 five-year package, interim funding bridging to a multi-year settlement, and the Road Safety strategy targets (7.5% KSIs reduction by 2031). Witnesses from NH stressed safety as top priority, outlined plans to mature RIS3 foundations, and highlighted governance improvements, benefits management, and renewals-focused investment. Several questions highlighted gaps or challenges: ORR concerns on benefits realisation and measurement; the absence of a National Highways KPI for active travel (with ongoing collaboration with Active Travel England); funding de-risking for Lower Thames Crossing and lessons from HS2; and the impact of inflation, supply-chain readiness, and contractor safety in the renewals-heavy RIS3. The discussion also covered LTC design certainty, DTF/NISTA governance, and environmental/drainage commitments (water quality, air quality, and climate adaptation).

This session of the Transport Committee scrutinised how to shape transport services for everyday journeys by promoting integrated, multimodal networks and better measurement of their impact. Witnesses argued that travel choices are not driven solely by cost or time, but by upstream life decisions, built environments, and habit; and that policy needs a holistic, system-wide approach rather than mode-specific fixes. They urged a stronger evidence base (including a dedicated transport What Works centre), co-design with communities, and health-in-all-policies framing to underpin decisions. The discussion also covered the role of real-time information, accessibility, inclusive design, rural connectivity, and potential targets for modal shift, alongside the need for transparent appraisal and honest communication about trade-offs when reallocating road space. The government’s Better Connected strategy was cited as a guiding framework, with debate on whether explicit local targets or broader outcomes should drive delivery and funding alongside a more joined-up approach to health, housing, and transport planning across departments.