The findings from the review are discussed across four core themes, namely (i) building resilience to deal with an uncertain future, (ii) achieving decarbonisation, (iii) digitalisation and technology, and (iv) integrating updated climate science. While these themes are common across the transport sector, their treatment varies considerably across governance levels. National strategies tend to emphasise broad targets, standards, and inter-sectoral coordination, whereas local strategies often prioritise implementation challenges, funding constraints, and community engagement.

Building resilience to deal with an uncertain future

To ensure that transport systems can continue to function effectively in the face of both present and future changes and disruptions, they must demonstrate adaptability and resilience to a wide range of hazards, events, and processes. These challenges can lead to increased service demands, infrastructure deterioration, or outright failure, and can operate over varying timescales, ultimately causing disruptions to transport networks and a reduction in overall performance^38,39,40. This study evaluates the strategies and processes employed by UK transport authorities to anticipate potential disruptions or shocks to their infrastructure and operations, to resist and absorb these shocks, minimise their impacts, and ensure effective recovery. Furthermore, the review examines the capacity of these authorities to assess their vulnerability and preparedness in the face of such shocks, as well as their ability to adapt and transform their infrastructure over time to enhance resilience. Particular emphasis is placed on the risks associated with cascading failures, organisational perspectives regarding the importance of resilience, and evidence of practices such as stress testing and the development of resilience standards.

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) introduced a framework for assessing the resilience and adaptive capacity of the UK’s critical infrastructure systems and organisations²⁷. In broad terms, the NIC³⁶ adopts the definition of resilience provided by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, formerly UNISDR), as outlined in the Sendai Framework³⁷: ‘the ability of a system, community, or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform, and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner.’ This definition builds upon earlier work by UNISDR⁴¹. The terminology surrounding resilience is highly variable, encompassing a wide range of definitions and related terms⁴². For the task in hand, we adopt the resilience terminology defined within the NIC²⁷ framework, as summarised in Table 1.

Approximately one-third of the strategies reviewed do not explicitly address or anticipate the hazards posed by climate change. Furthermore, only half of the reviewed documents provide any substantial discussion of climate-related hazards, primarily focusing on floods (50%), storms (defined herein as heavy rainfall or snow, usually associated with high windspeeds, 46%), and heatwaves (23%), in descending order of perceived importance (see Fig. 1). In those documents that do not explicitly address climate change hazards, climate change is often discussed solely in the context of its link to CO₂ emissions and as a rationale for the net-zero transition. This is influenced by the existence of statutory CO₂ emission reduction targets, as established by UK law⁴³. However, such an approach may underestimate the potential severity of disruptions resulting from climate change and related extreme weather events, indicating opportunities for improvement in resilience planning to ensure comprehensive preparedness.

*The review documents tended to differentiate between the civil infrastructure and mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment so that distinction was maintained herein.

Collaboration with external organisations, such as weather agencies, to anticipate and prepare for weather-related disruptions is predominantly emphasised at the national level. This includes entities such as Network Rail, National Highways, Transport Scotland, the Welsh Government, and the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. However, such collaboration is rarely considered at the local level. A limited number of the reviewed documents, such as the Local Transport Plans for Cornwall, Devon, East Riding of Yorkshire, Glasgow, and Hampshire, as well as the Climate Change Adaptation Plans from Trinity House and the Northern Lighthouse Board, commendably acknowledged the need to enhance capacity to resist and absorb shocks to transport operations (See Fig. 2). However, the majority of other strategy documents reviewed, lacked explicit plans or actionable practices to address this issue. Also of note, the majority of the strategies reviewed failed to account for the interdependencies of their infrastructure with other critical systems, such as the power network (see Fig. 3). This is reflected in the low proportion of strategies that identify power outages as a potential hazard (see Fig. 1), despite the significant emphasis on electrification as a key pathway to achieving decarbonisation targets. Finally, the low proportion of strategies recommending inspection as a method for improving resilience is likely due to the fact that it is already a routine part the organisations’ asset management strategies.

Plans within reviewed transport strategies for improving resilience and adaptability.

Strategies that consider dependencies with other sectors.

The NIC framework²⁷ highlights absorption and recovery as critical components of resilience, focusing on responses that occur after a failure or shock has impacted the network. However, the majority of the strategies reviewed place greater emphasis on anticipating, resisting, and adapting to potential hazards, with contingency planning remaining a relatively limited approach (see Fig. 2). Long-term resilience planning is predominantly concentrated at the national (e.g. Network Rail; the Civil Aviation Authority, CAA) and regional (e.g. Transport for South East) levels, with limited emphasis on local-scale implementation (e.g. East Renfrewshire Council and Herefordshire Council). Even where long-term resilience plans exist, there is an absence of established national resilience standards, and it remains unclear whether authorities have developed internal processes to address resilience issues. This gap in resilience standards also appears to affect the short-term/responsive management of disruptions, potentially highlighting a critical weakness in comprehensive resilience planning across all governance levels. Furthermore, a decision-making framework that can be followed in the event of a shock is not explicitly described, potentially highlighting a critical area where the wider transport sector lacks preparedness, increasing the risk of prolonged service outages and infrastructure damage.

The inherent uncertainties in forecasting the magnitude and frequency of future hazards, coupled with the complexities of designing and managing infrastructure to effectively resist and absorb their impacts, suggest that significant disruptions are likely to become increasingly frequent. As a result, the capacity to recover effectively from such events is anticipated to become a critical component of resilience strategies. A number of the challenges faced by differing transport sectors and modes, along with efforts made to address them is summarised in the following list.

• The rail sector is particularly susceptible to extreme weather events such as flooding and heatwaves. Existing adaptation measures include improvements to drainage systems, track reinforcement, and the use of heat-resistant materials. Recent region-specific initiatives have sought to develop tailored responses to local environmental challenges. However, while climate change and extreme weather are often acknowledged as sources of potential disruption and individual asset management groups may have well developed protocols to address them[for example, Network Rail’s Earthworks Technical Strategy:⁴⁴], they tend to be compartmentalised as per the example here of earthworks and are not considered in the context of related infrastructure systems, furthermore the sector lacks specific resilience standards and formalised frameworks to guide infrastructure operators in decision-making and response during disruptive events.

• The road network faces considerable challenges, including disruptions caused by flooding, snow, and heat damage. Adaptation efforts have focused on improving road surfaces, enhancing drainage systems, implementing robust maintenance schedules⁴⁵ and developing tools to understand deterioration of their asset portfolio over the long term as influenced by climate change [e.g. earthworks:⁴⁶]. While nearly 45% of road-related strategies acknowledge the impacts of climate change and public health emergencies, many lack a comprehensive assessment of network resilience. Furthermore, clearly defined procedures for managing such shocks are often absent in these strategies.

• Active travel modes, including walking and cycling, are vulnerable to disruptions such as urban flooding and heat stress. Adaptation measures have centred on the development of green infrastructure, improvements to urban drainage, and the provision of shaded pathways⁴⁷. Although the reviewed strategies often highlight the resilience benefits of sustainable urban planning, specific and consistent resilience standards for active travel infrastructure remain largely absent.

• The maritime sector faces significant risks from sea-level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather events. Adaptation efforts in this sector include strengthening port infrastructure, enhancing early warning systems, and improving emergency response capabilities. While maritime strategies frequently address these disruptions and aim to prepare for a wide range of risks—such as storms, power outages, floods, and cyber-attacks—many lack explicit decision-making frameworks. Notably, the Northern Lighthouse Board⁴⁸ has adopted a whole-system approach, utilising data analytics to enable proactive maintenance and repair for the marine-navigation assets. The sector also recognises its critical interdependencies with other infrastructure systems, including power, telecommunications, road, and rail. Additionally, the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Maritime 2050 strategy⁴⁹ seeks to establish incident precursors for the maritime sector, drawing inspiration from the approach employed by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) for railways.

• The aviation sector faces diverse disruptions, including extreme weather events and volcanic ash clouds. Adaptation measures outlined by the CAA⁵⁰ include enhancing runway durability, improving air traffic management, and developing contingency plans. While two of the UK’s largest airports have developed resilience plans, others are merely encouraged to develop their own. Although climate change and extreme weather are frequently acknowledged, explicit resilience standards and well-defined decision-making processes are often implied rather than clearly detailed. To address these shortcomings, the DfT and CAA have established the Aviation Resilience Planning Strategic Risk Group⁵¹, tasked with identifying critical interventions to enhance sector resilience and mitigate flight disruptions.

The findings from the review highlight the pressing need across all transport sectors for the development of formal resilience standards, comprehensive risk assessment frameworks, and well-defined decision-making procedures. The inherent interdependency of differing systems also strongly suggests that it is necessary to take a systems approach to resilience. Bridging these gaps is crucial for ensuring that the UK’s transport infrastructure is adequately equipped to withstand, adapt to, and recover from the challenges associated with climate change and other potential disruptions.

Achieving decarbonisation in the transport sector

The UK is committed to decarbonising the transport sector by 2050 through a series of key policies, investments and strategies focusing on transitioning to zero-emission vehicles, increasing active travel, and decarbonising freight and public transport (Fig. 4)^52,53,54,55. A critical part of this will require the acceleration of modal shifts to public and active transport, making them more accessible, through improving infrastructure and encouraging the use of public transport. To support the ambitious target of ensuring that half of all urban journeys are undertaken by walking or cycling by 2030, a £2 billion investment has been allocated to enhance active travel infrastructure in towns and cities⁵⁶. Equally, rural areas will require improved connectivity and upgraded infrastructure to ensure that such efforts are effectively implemented across the entire country. Short journeys, particularly those under five miles, which accounted for 58% of private car trips in 2019, offer significant potential for emission reductions through active travel. It is reported that 2–4% of car-kilometres can be switched to public transport by 2030, increasing to 5–8% by 2050⁵⁷. The intended shift to public transportation and active travel could be hindered by an ageing population, socioeconomic disparities, poor and unsafe infrastructure, inadequate rural connectivity^58,59, and negative perceptions regarding protection, autonomy, prestige, frequency, and reliability^60,61,62,63, requiring targeted interventions to promote behavioural change.

UK Transportation decarbonisation timeline highlighting key strategies and legal mandates.

The UK’s Zero–Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate⁵³, one of the most ambitious global frameworks for transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), sets targets requiring 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans to be zero-emission by 2030, rising to 100% by 2035. This initiative, coupled with the planned phase–out of non–zero emission HGVs by 2040 and the electrification of rail lines, reflects the UK’s commitment to decarbonising its transport sector. However, several significant challenges threaten the successful realisation of these targets. The transition to EVs still faces barriers such as high upfront costs relative to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, particularly for lower–income households⁶⁴, though the price gap has narrowed considerably with the growth of the used-EV market. Recent data indicate that purchase price premium of an EV in 2023 cost about 40% more than ICE equivalents, down from approximately 50% in 2020⁶⁵. The availability of public chargepoints in the UK has also expanded rapidly, with more than 53,600 devices recorded in January 2024, representing a 45% increase compared with the beginning of 2023⁶⁵. The Department for Transport has targeted the roll–out of 6000 ultra–rapid charge points by 2035, including EV infrastructure on–street and in public car parks⁵². The placement and use of on–street charging may also have implications for pedestrian accessibility and safety, and so must be carefully considered when selecting locations. On the other hand, concerns about battery sustainability, including the extraction and disposal of raw materials and the scarcity of critical minerals⁶⁶, pose ecological and scalability challenges^67,68. For HGVs, both battery-electric and hydrogen options are under active development. Recent evidence indicates that deployment is currently dominated by battery-electric HGVs. Across Europe, there are already over 15,000 BEV HGVs on the roads compared with fewer than 200 hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, with 7500 new BEV registrations in 2024 alone compared to around 100 hydrogen units⁶⁹. While electrification of rail lines is planned, alternative solutions will be necessary where electrification is not feasible. The quieter operation of EVs may also raise safety concerns for pedestrians and other road users, particularly in urban areas⁵⁸. Addressing these barriers will require comprehensive and integrated strategies that balance technological innovation, infrastructure development, and socioeconomic considerations to ensure the successful implementation of the ZEV mandate and the broader decarbonisation of the UK’s transport system.

The decarbonisation strategies outlined in the reviewed local and regional authority roadmaps share significant similarities. The regional transport roadmaps reflect diverse priorities and challenges tailored to the unique needs of their populations and economies while aligning with national decarbonisation goals. Predominantly rural areas such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Northeast England^70,71,72 emphasise solutions for dispersed populations and car dependency, whereas medium- to high-density regions like London, the West Midlands, and the West of England prioritise mass transit and integrated public transport systems^73,74,75. A common focus across all regions is the transition to sustainable transport modes, including walking, cycling, public transport, and innovative options like carpooling and on-demand services, with an emphasis on inclusive accessibility to reduce transport inequalities. Despite these efforts, shared challenges persist, including the need to decarbonise transport infrastructure, address the impact of heavier electric vehicles (EVs) on road durability, and ensure grid resilience and equitable access to EV charging for underserved populations^74,76. Changing entrenched behaviours around private vehicle ownership remains a significant obstacle, with many regions adopting financial incentives, congestion charges, and public awareness campaigns to encourage alternatives⁷⁷. Furthermore, long-term funding constraints and fragmented integration across modes and jurisdictions undermine the ability to deliver seamless and equitable mobility solutions. While some regions actively explore emerging technologies like hydrogen freight⁷², Mobility as a Service (MaaS), and autonomous systems^78,79, others remain cautious, reflecting disparities in investment capacities and risk appetites. Addressing these challenges will require cohesive, locally informed strategies that balance the urgency of decarbonisation with regional contexts, ensuring transport systems across the UK evolve sustainably while meeting national climate goals.

Local authorities have also developed strategies to improve transport infrastructure, reduce carbon emissions, and achieve net-zero goals while enhancing citizen wellbeing, as outlined in Table 2. These strategies, however, face significant challenges due to varying carbon baselines across councils (e.g. 1990 for East Renfrewshire, 2005 for Leeds, and 2019 for Cornwall) and constraints on local authority budgets, which affect both the implementation of new transport strategies and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Key gaps in the proposed strategies include an over-reliance on EVs, inequitable access to charging infrastructure, limited driving range, and concerns about battery longevity and replacement. Moreover, constraints on local budgets, often reliant on central funding, further complicate the ability of councils to implement ambitious transport strategies, highlighting the need for increased investment and innovative financing solutions to overcome these challenges. In the reviewed local authority roadmaps, renewable energy measures included both onsite generation (e.g. rooftop solar photovoltaic systems) and offsite procurement (e.g. power purchase agreements and green tariffs), indicating that local authorities are pursuing both approaches.

Transport roadmaps have conventionally focused on reducing operational carbon emissions associated with traffic movement, often overlooking the embodied carbon linked to the construction and maintenance of physical infrastructure. Nevertheless, multiple roadmaps have been developed by transport authorities, industries, and institutions to decarbonise carbon-intensive materials such as concrete, steel, and asphalt^{80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87}. Across these roadmaps, key strategies (listed in Table S2) are interconnected and dependent on various sectors and industries (Fig. 5). The power and energy sector plays a vital role in decarbonising construction materials, as the most widely adopted strategy—grid decarbonisation—relies on providing clean energy for energy-intensive processes in steel and cement manufacturing. Additionally, the availability of alternative fuels such as biomass or hydrogen is essential for reducing emissions in the production of construction materials (Fig. 5). Other commonly adopted strategies include reducing emissions from material transport within the transport sector and implementing carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) technologies (Fig. 5). Technologies such as CCUS are yet to be realised with limited use to date, and raise many questions regarding the scalability along with their implementation cost. These interdependent strategies depend on external sectors beyond material manufacturing, and the material manufacturers play a significant role in influencing their supply chains and collaborating across industries to adopt these technologies.

See Table S2 for a detailed list of associated strategies.

Some strategies are common within the material and construction industries, such as process efficiencies, waste reduction, and design/construction efficiency, which can lead to substantial reductions in energy use and emissions. Such actions could lead to a 22% carbon reduction by 2050. For material-dependent strategies, the concrete and cement industry rely heavily on optimizing the mix design to produce low carbon concrete by replacing Portland cement with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), fly ash, limestone fillers, and other admixtures. However, recent climate change initiatives have led to supply shortages for GGBS and fly ash, prompting the exploration of alternatives such as China clay (kaolin) from southwest UK quarries. While low carbon cements and concrete are the most widespread strategies, it could only reduce the 2018 baseline by 12%. In the steel industry, key strategies focus on circular economy principles and electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking. Meanwhile, for the asphalt industry, low-temperature asphalt production is a primary strategy for energy and carbon reduction. Therefore, in order for construction materials to achieve net zero, a tailored approach to decarbonisation is needed that considers both sector-specific challenges and broader sector dependencies.

Digitalisation and technology

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) highlighted the strategic importance of leveraging technology and data to enhance infrastructure management, with the dual objectives of delivering consumer benefits and achieving cost efficiencies⁸⁸. Key opportunities included the use of sensors and machine learning-driven analytics to optimise asset management and maintenance, minimise delays on transport networks, and utilise real-time data streams throughout the lifecycle of infrastructure assets to improve performance and safety. However, translating these ambitions into actionable strategies remains a challenge at the regional and local levels, where powers and budgets are often devolved. Similarly, the Geospatial Commission (GC) has underscored the transformative potential of geospatial data, identifying transport as a key focus area in its 2030 strategy⁸⁹.

The role of technology and data in relation to meeting organisations’ strategic objectives was explicitly defined in only 27% of the reviewed documents across different levels (see Fig. 6), indicating a lack of specificity in articulating their strategic importance. Where technology and data were mentioned, they were often presented as general examples without a clear connection to organisational goals. 22% explicitly stated that organisations already had access to the data required to achieve their objectives, while 27% acknowledged a current lack of data but outlined strategies to acquire it in the future. The remaining documents indicated gaps in organisational data plans, potentially limiting their capacity to meet strategic goals. However, it is recognised that these gaps may be addressed in supplementary documents that were outside the scope of this review. These findings highlight the need for clearer integration of data strategies into local and regional transport plans to fully realise the potential of technological and geospatial innovations.

Specific technologies and data types identified in the strategy documents.

Among the reviewed documents that linked technology or data to specific objectives, the most common focus was the transition to net zero carbon emissions. This was discussed in 23% of the documents, which typically focused on the use of low-carbon vehicles or fuels such as electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles. Other goals included improving transport service quality through smart city applications, with 16% referencing technologies aimed at service users, such as contactless payments and smart ticketing, and 15% highlighting applications for planning and operational decision-making, such as tracking road demand or optimising traffic routing. Figure 6 shows the most common technologies identified in the review. While 30% of documents specifically referenced low-emission vehicles as critical to achieving net zero objectives, only 13% mentioned sensors or sensor networks, and just 5% identified specific applications of sensing technologies, such as infrastructure condition monitoring. These findings highlight significant gaps in the integration of technology and data into strategic planning, particularly in leveraging advanced tools to improve infrastructure performance and achieve long-term sustainability goals.

Few documents detailed the scale of current technology or data use, although some set future deployment targets, such as the planned rollout of EV charging infrastructure. This reflects the need for greater clarity in government policies on low- and zero-emission vehicles, alongside the expansion of the electricity system to support widespread EV adoption and the integration of circular strategies to secure critical materials for battery supply chains. By 2035, the UK aims to make EV batteries 95% recyclable and increase road vehicle occupancy through Transport as a Service (TaaS) models⁵². EV battery technology is rapidly evolving, with a shift from cobalt-heavy nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) batteries to higher nickel content variants and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistry for short-range vehicles, driven by cost and supply vulnerabilities^90,91. Research into advanced battery technologies offers opportunities to surpass the theoretical limits of lithium-ion batteries⁹², yet significant gaps remain in the UK’s battery recycling and manufacturing industry. Developing a robust recycling framework and attracting gigafactories would strengthen supply chains and support net zero targets⁹³.

A recent report to the UK Parliament on emissions reduction progress⁹⁴ emphasised the importance of incorporating shared transport into planning reforms, particularly as advancements in autonomous vehicle technology support the shift toward TaaS and shared mobility models. Autonomous vehicles integrated into shared mobility schemes have the potential to enhance fleet management, improve vehicle efficiency, and reduce emissions^95,96,97, but significant uncertainties remain regarding their impact on transport systems, road traffic patterns, private vehicle ownership, and infrastructure demands^98,99. A modal shift away from private vehicles is critical for achieving the UK’s decarbonisation targets, with a reduction of 20–27% in private car use required by 2030¹⁰⁰. Evidence from car-sharing schemes, such as car clubs, indicates their potential, with each car club vehicle replacing up to 20 private cars in 2021¹⁰¹. Case studies on carpooling, such as Lifeshare in the UK and BlaBlaCar in the EU, highlight their capacity to reduce private car use by increasing vehicle occupancy^102,103. However, gaps in data persist, particularly for peer-to-peer car-sharing models, and there are concerns that shared mobility schemes may shift trips away from environmentally friendly modes like walking, cycling, and public transport, potentially undermining their environmental benefits¹⁰⁴. These complexities underscore the need for further research to better understand the evolving role of shared mobility and its impact on decarbonisation, transport demand, and travel behaviour.

Nearly half (48%) of the reviewed strategies anticipated an increased rollout of technologies, with 30% assuming greater availability of lower-carbon fuels or vehicles in the future. Such assumptions are pivotal for achieving net–zero carbon targets, which frequently hinge on the adoption of lower–carbon technologies. However, any delays or shortcomings in these rollouts could substantially impede an organisation’s ability to fulfil its objectives. While many local and regional organisations may have limited influence over the pace or success of technology rollouts, the review revealed a concerning lack of acknowledgement of these risks and an almost complete absence of contingency planning. Notably, the Bristol Transport Strategy¹⁰⁵ incorporated a contingency plan, which proposed prioritising investment in proven technologies to expand public transport infrastructure in the event that low-emission vehicles do not become sufficiently available. The absence of contingency plans in the majority of the reviewed strategies underscores a critical deficiency in risk management and adaptive planning across these documents.

Only 23% of reviewed documents referred to a clear data management strategy within their respective organisations, highlighting a potential area for improvement in how data are managed and utilised to support organisational objectives. Cybersecurity, a critical issue in increasingly digitalised transport infrastructure, was mentioned in just 10% of the documents, with limited detail provided. Notable strategies included the use of warm standby systems⁵⁰ and references to the roles of government and industry in addressing cybersecurity threats and building capabilities¹⁰⁶. This reflects a general underestimation of cybersecurity risks in transport operations and management. Furthermore, only 11% of the documents addressed the need for interoperable data systems, which are vital for the efficient operation and planning of integrated transport systems. Discussion on interoperability was often limited to identifying current barriers^106,107,108, although one document outlined future plans for achieving interoperability in freight transport systems¹⁰⁹. These findings suggest significant gaps in the integration of data strategies, cybersecurity measures, and interoperability planning, all of which are critical for advancing the digital transformation of transport infrastructure.

The review highlights significant data and technological gaps that constrain organisational operations and the effective delivery of transport services. Key data-related challenges include the rapid obsolescence of census data, limited insights into travel patterns, and insufficient information on the effectiveness of road safety initiatives. Technological priorities identified across the documents include the development of multi-operator, integrated, and equitable ticketing systems; next-generation signalling and predictive traffic management technologies; and tools to optimise kerbside space usage, particularly for deliveries. Other critical needs include predictive service information, such as forecasting the impacts of weather events on passengers, and greater clarity regarding the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. These gaps underscore the necessity of enhanced data strategies and technological innovation to improve the efficiency, sustainability, and resilience of transport systems. However, the review also reveals a lack of clear definitions, robust planning, and contingency measures to address risks associated with future technology and interdependencies. Despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of leveraging data and technology to achieve strategic goals, such as the transition to net zero carbon, many organisations appear underprepared to fully integrate these tools into their operations, potentially limiting their ability to achieve long-term objectives. Although artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) were not explicitly referenced in the reviewed documents, their future role in transport technology, infrastructure management, and planning is likely to grow. The recently published UK Government Transport Artificial Intelligence Action Plan¹¹⁰ indicates a stronger policy emphasis on AI/ML adoption, which could encourage stakeholders to integrate these tools more explicitly into future transport strategies.

Integrating updated climate science

Transportation is significantly influenced by climate change, with varied hazards such as precipitation extremes, severe thunderstorms, temperature changes, sea level rise, and wind patterns posing threats to infrastructure and operations. However, the integration of updated climate science into transport sector planning remains limited. Many sectoral documents fail to address specific climate hazards or rely on outdated climate models, creating a disconnect between advancements in climate science and their application to transport resilience and adaptation strategies. Only 5% of transport strategies use the latest UKCP18 climate projections, while most still rely on the older UKCP09 data or fail to specify the models used. This lack of specificity undermines the ability to assess and mitigate risks effectively, particularly as climate science has advanced significantly over the last decade.

Recent developments in high-resolution climate modelling, such as kilometre-scale convection-permitting models (CPMs), offer transformative insights for understanding localised climate impacts^111,112. For example, the UKCP18-Local simulation suite provides 100 years’ worth of simulations of the UK climate (from 1980 to 2080) on a 2.2 km grid, which allows convective rainfall events to be captured, and in turn projects an enormous increase in rainfall extremes with warming [e.g.¹¹³]. Earlier lower-resolution (~10–100 km grid) regional models with parameterised convection were producing less uplift in these extremes, and these new results warrant a requirement for a re-evaluation of flood risks for every sector, including transportation [e.g.¹¹⁴]. These advancements extend beyond precipitation, with CPMs providing better representations of hazardous weather events, such as thunderstorms, wind patterns, and upper-atmosphere turbulence, which are critical for both surface and aviation transport systems [e.g.^115,116,117]. Moreover, emerging tools like machine learning and artificial intelligence are beginning to enhance climate projections, offering faster and computationally efficient ways to analyse risks, though their adoption in the transport sector remains minimal [e.g.¹¹⁸].

Despite these advancements, only a few transport authorities incorporate updated climate science into strategic planning. For example, hazards like heatwaves, which significantly affect road surfaces, rail infrastructure, and non-motorised transport, are under-represented in sectoral documents. Similarly, the role of compound hazards, such as simultaneous flooding and wind storms, is largely overlooked, with only 5% of documents addressing them. This lack of integration reflects broader gaps in contingency planning and risk assessment, leaving the sector ill-prepared to address the cascading impacts of climate-induced disruptions. Overall, 86% of the reviewed documents do not include specific information on the approaches and climate models used. While approximately two-thirds of the documents reviewed mention climate change, the impacts of climate change are often only briefly mentioned with generic terms like ‘climate risks’, ‘climate crisis,’ etc. Among those hazards specified, flooding accounts for the largest share, as shown earlier in Fig. 1. Other hazards include heatwaves, droughts, fires, turbulence, icing (for aviation), sea level rise, sea fog, sea currents, ice hazards (over oceans), storms, and wintertime wind/rain, although these latter hazards are much less commonly addressed within the strategy documents.

The transport sector must integrate the latest advancements in climate science into its planning processes, leveraging tools such as UKCP18²⁵, convection-permitting models (CPMs)¹¹², and machine learning¹¹⁹ to enhance vulnerability assessments and resilience strategies. This alignment should prioritise a comprehensive evaluation of transport systems’ exposure to both current and future hazards, using improved insights into climate extremes to guide adaptive and proactive measures. Collaboration between the transport sector and the climate science community is essential to bridge knowledge gaps, foster innovation, and ensure that planning remains data-driven and future-focused. Without such integration, the sector risks being ill-prepared to tackle the complex and interconnected challenges posed by climate change, undermining efforts to develop sustainable and resilient transport systems.

Views from stakeholders

The insights from the review reveal critical gaps and opportunities in resilience planning, decarbonisation, digitalisation, and climate science integration. These findings directly informed the workshop discussions, which explored how such challenges are perceived and prioritised by stakeholders. The workshops, which engaged over 100 stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and other key actors, revealed that the challenges of achieving resilience and decarbonisation within the UK transport infrastructure sector vary significantly across national, regional, and local contexts. The following synthesis reflects the themes most consistently raised across participants, while recognising that some views diverged. Each level presents distinct priorities, complexities, and opportunities for intervention, highlighting the need for targeted strategies that address the specific needs and characteristics of each scale.

At the national level, participants emphasised that the primary challenges focus on overarching issues such as energy dependence, governance, and system interdependence. Transitioning to low-carbon energy sources remains a critical priority to align the transport system with net-zero targets. System interdependencies, such as the cascading effects of disruptions across energy, transport, and communication networks, require coordinated national policies and investments in infrastructure resilience. Governance challenges are particularly acute at this scale, as they involve balancing conflicting priorities across sectors and aligning national transport policies with international climate commitments. The development of a unified funding strategy is essential, addressing uncertainties around long-term financial support for infrastructure projects that deliver both resilience and decarbonisation. Additionally, tackling systemic issues, such as ageing national transport assets, requires a consistent approach to modernisation and integration with climate resilience objectives.

At the regional level, workshop discussions highlighted challenges centred around addressing infrastructure interdependencies, regional climate hazards, and governance boundaries. Regions must navigate complex interactions between transport networks and other systems, such as energy grids and water infrastructure, particularly when planning for cascading impacts of extreme weather events¹²⁰. Regional transport strategies also face the challenge of addressing spatial inequalities, such as the lack of adequate rural transport options and the uneven distribution of infrastructure investments. Governance coordination is a particularly significant challenge at this scale, where regional boundaries often complicate the alignment of policies and funding mechanisms. For example, coordinating between sub-national transport bodies and local authorities can help ensure that investment and planning priorities are consistent across regions. Addressing regional climate risks, such as flooding and extreme heat, is another critical area, requiring the integration of regional climate adaptation measures into transport resilience strategies.

Locally, participants noted that challenges focus on community engagement, immediate transport needs, and practical implementation barriers. At this level, issues such as public perception, behavioural change, and making the case for funding availability and clarity are particularly pressing. Local authorities often face resource constraints, yet they are responsible for addressing visible and immediate challenges such as poor road maintenance, a lack of active travel options, and community buy-in for transport initiatives. Demand modelling and the coordination of maintenance and capital works are often easier to implement at the local level but require strong local leadership and clear alignment with regional and national priorities. Additionally, local adaptation to demographic and socioeconomic changes, such as shifting population needs and mobility demands, highlights the importance of flexible and responsive transport planning. Local contexts also provide opportunities for innovation, such as piloting low-carbon technologies and embedding monitoring systems to enhance resilience. However, these initiatives often face barriers such as insufficient technical expertise, funding uncertainties, and difficulties in scaling successful pilots to regional or national levels.

Critical gaps and barriers to the effective use of data and technology in the transport sector were also raised by participants across workshops. Foremost is the need for standardised transport data that can be utilised across the sector, adhering to the FAIR principles¹²¹, with a presumption in favour of open-access data. This must be complemented by open-source tools and models that can operate at different levels to facilitate the interpretation and application of these data. Additionally, harmonised approaches to data collection and reporting are required to ensure consistency across the sector, alongside efforts to overcome barriers to data sharing and improve data interoperability. Standards within the sector must also evolve to accommodate emerging and future technologies. The workshops further highlighted the importance of identifying reliable data sources that describe the resilience of infrastructure, which could inform resilience standards for the sector. A significant gap exists in the availability of real-time, network-level data to optimise routing and re-routing during disruptions. Similarly, there is a lack of real-time data on asset condition, loading, capacity, and deterioration, which could be addressed through structural health monitoring (SHM) systems and sensor networks. Finally, the absence of real-time data on construction and maintenance operations, such as crew availability and equipment condition, presents an additional barrier to effective decision-making and operational efficiency in the transport sector. Addressing these gaps is essential for enhancing the sector’s data-driven capabilities and resilience.

Across all scales, a consistent theme is the need for improved integration and collaboration. Workshop participants stressed that national policies must provide clear guidance and resources that empower regional and local authorities to implement effective solutions. At the same time, local innovations and insights should inform regional and national strategies to ensure policies are grounded in practical realities. Challenges such as public perception, behavioural change, and governance inefficiencies require multi-level coordination to ensure that transport systems evolve cohesively and sustainably. The findings further underscore the need for collaborative approaches to overcome barriers. For example, resolving conflicts between local, regional, and national transport ambitions will require improved governance structures, shared funding models, and active public and private sector engagement. The integration of advanced technologies, such as embedded monitoring systems and digitisation for better assessment, offers pathways for enhancing system resilience, but these need to be aligned with standards and practices across different sectors.

The stakeholder perspectives highlight how the challenges and opportunities identified in the review are experienced differently at national, regional, and local levels. These insights point to the need for a decision-making framework that links evidence to action. Some challenges, such as demand modelling and coordination of maintenance works, can be addressed relatively quickly, whereas others, including governance reform, funding clarity, and public perception, require sustained efforts. Strategic interventions must therefore reconcile short-term priorities with longer-term systemic change, ensuring that the transport system evolves in alignment with net-zero goals and can withstand future shocks. This calls for an iterative and collaborative approach that incorporates stakeholder insights and embeds decarbonisation and resilience across all aspects of transport planning and operations.

Decision-making for decarbonised, adaptable and resilient transport systems

The findings from the review and stakeholder interactions underscore the urgent need for systematic decision-making procedures that integrate resilience and decarbonisation into the transport sector. This approach must consider diverse infrastructure asset types, system interdependencies, and varying hazards within transport planning, design, and operations. Furthermore, it must explicitly account for how the ability of transport infrastructure systems to deliver sufficient capacity directly influences travel demand, traveller behaviour, and responses to disruptions. In response to the gaps identified in the review, such as limited use of updated climate science, weak resilience standards, and insufficient attention to equity, and the challenges raised in the workshops, including governance barriers and behavioural change, these insights have been synthesised into a conceptual decision-making framework. This framework (Fig. 7) provides a practical guide for applying a holistic approach across different governance levels and is outlined below.

Each of the ‘fingers’ radiating into the centre represents a specific analytical or planning activity that informs decision-making. For example, under Risk Assessment, these include integration of updated climate science, systems thinking and criticality assessment, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, etc.

The proposed framework brings together the four segments of risk assessment, sustainability, condition assessment, and resilience, each associated with the capacity of the infrastructure system. Each segment is operationalised through a set of analytical components, or ‘fingers’, while travel demand insights act as the integrative loop that connects them. The loop captures both how users respond to policies or disruptions and how broader patterns of travel behaviour, land use, and demographic or technological change shape infrastructure needs over time. The framework is intended as a practical guide to support decision-making rather than a purely theoretical construct. When applying it, the decision-makers first establish the context (for instance, a local transport investment plan, a regional transport strategy, or a national decarbonisation roadmap) before working systematically through the components of each segment. The ‘fingers’ serve as a checklist of analytical tasks, ensuring that critical issues are not overlooked and the process is designed to be iterative, offering a structured way to prioritise interventions, compare alternatives, and revisit assumptions as conditions change. Table S3 lists the analytical components within each segment and describes their role in decision-making.

• Risk assessment should evaluate infrastructure risks not only in terms of asset performance but also by considering multi-dimensional impacts, including safety, environmental, social, and economic consequences^122,123. Such assessments must account for uncertainties across various future scenarios (e.g. shifts in loading conditions, variations in extreme weather events, and long-term climate change)¹²⁴. Adopting a whole-system perspective of transport is imperative, incorporating criticality assessments across multiple spatial scales (from individual assets to network-wide analysis)^119,125 and across temporal horizons, ranging from immediate emergency responses¹²⁶ to long-term strategic planning^127,128. Identifying critical nodes^129,130 and vulnerable points¹³¹ enables stakeholders to evaluate both localised and systemic risks, facilitating effective management and contingency planning. The risk assessment segment within the framework also emphasises the need to integrate updated climate science, apply systems thinking, and use sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of candidate strategies under a wide range of uncertain futures.

• Sustainability: Treating sustainability as an afterthought often leads to cost overruns and implementation failures¹³². Sustainability extends beyond carbon emissions to encompass factors such as resource efficiency¹³³, circularity¹³⁴, biodiversity¹³⁵, and the reduction of other pollutants such as microplastics, air and noise pollution¹³⁶. It also includes a social dimension, ensuring that issues of equity, inclusivity, affordability, and accessibility are addressed alongside environmental and economic considerations. To facilitate this, these factors should be represented as measurable metrics, enabling easier incorporation into planning and informed decision-making. In new construction projects, embedding sustainability is more straightforward, as targets and behavioural expectations can be established early in the project lifecycle¹³⁷. However, on the operational side, incorporating sustainability considerations requires greater support and well-defined guidelines¹³⁸. Budget constraints, supply chain availability, and uncertainties against performance of novel low carbon materials and technologies add complexity, underscoring the importance of clear and actionable strategies. Early integration of sustainability into projects has consistently proven beneficial¹³². In addition to embodied carbon associated with infrastructure, there is also a need to incorporate future mobility scenarios such as uptake of EVs¹³⁹.

• Resilience and adaptation: Traditional transportation planning has predominantly prioritised operational efficiency, often neglecting essential aspects of resilience and the complex interdependencies within critical infrastructure systems^130,140. In response to the increasing frequency and severity of weather-related events, there is a growing recognition of the need to explicitly integrate resilience and adaptation measures into transportation planning and design, enabling systems to better anticipate disruptions, withstand disturbances, and rapidly recover to ensure continuous service provision and safeguard economic stability¹⁴¹. Adaptation strategies, informed by up-to-date climate science¹⁴², can guide infrastructure modifications, investment priorities, and operational improvements to better manage risks from extreme weather events, long-term climatic shifts, and other disruptive events. Prioritizing investments that build redundancy, such as alternative routes or multi-modal transport solutions¹⁴³, can also strengthen system robustness and continuity during disruptions. Effective resilience planning requires systemic thinking, assessing vulnerabilities not only at the asset level but also across networks¹⁴⁴, considering interdependencies between transportation infrastructure and other critical systems such as energy and telecommunications¹³⁰. Within the framework, resilience could be further operationalised through the establishment of resilience standards, explicit recovery and response planning, and the incorporation of service continuity measures that ensure transport systems remain functional during shocks. Such proactive approaches not only safeguard infrastructure assets but also promote equitable outcomes by reducing vulnerability and ensuring reliable transport accessibility for all communities.

• Condition assessment: To effectively manage transport infrastructure systems and their associated assets, it is essential to understand their current condition and how this condition may evolve over time [see, for example,^145,146,147]. This task is inherently complex due to diverse asset types that may require unique condition measures and are subject to varying modes and mechanisms of deterioration. Additional complexities arise from the variable loading that transport systems experience over time, influenced by factors such as climate change (which alters the frequency and magnitude of hazards), other natural and anthropogenic risks, and shifts in demographic, economic, and technological landscapes. To this end, transport infrastructure management must incorporate robust asset condition assessments, along with reliable forecasts and projections of future condition changes [see, for example,^46,148] that account for projected future loadings and the likely capacity requirements. They must also produce outputs that enable comparisons across multiple asset types, often by translating condition data into metrics such as risks of failure. These failures may be defined in terms of ultimate or serviceability limit states, depending on the specific requirements of the transport system and the legislative regime in which it operates. The framework highlights the importance of enhancing condition assessment through improved monitoring, forecasting, and the use of unified metrics that allow for prioritisation of assets and networks.

Understanding and modelling travel demand is critical to developing resilient and low–carbon transport systems since it directly influences infrastructure usage, stress and the evolution of travel behaviours, and therefore contributes to understanding capacity requirements that the transport infrastructure needs to support. Traditional methodologies, such as the four–step approach and four–step models (FSMs), have primarily focussed on aggregated motorised travel behaviours at regional or sub–regional scales^149,150,151. However, these conventional models are increasingly seen as inadequate, as they restrict the range of trip activities and often fail to capture the complexity of contemporary mobility patterns—particularly the emergence of alternative modes such as e-bikes, shared mobility services and active travel^{152,153,154,155}. Furthermore, traditional models generally overlook the intricate spatial and temporal interdependencies inherent in individual travel behaviours and household dynamics^156,157. In response, recent advances in data analytics and computational techniques have led to the development of agent-based models (AgBMs), which simulate individual travel decisions by integrating detailed socio-demographic attributes and comprehensive daily activity patterns in space and time^155,158,159. These models tend to focus on three primary scenarios:

• Analyse general transport mobility, including congestion management, logistics, and travel behaviours under typical conditions^160,161,162.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of specific policy interventions such as promoting public transport^{162,163,164,165}, adopting sustainable mobility practices^166,167, expanding the market share of electric vehicles^168,169,170, and integrating automated mobility on demand^171,172 before their real–world implementation.

• Examine how extreme weather events may affect both transport networks and the wider population, thereby highlighting the need for robust resilience planning^{173,174,175,176,177}.

While the first scenario concentrates on capturing routine mobility patterns encompassing different user groups, transport modes, and travel schedules, the other two scenarios explore ‘what if’ conditions in which decarbonisation policies or hazardous climate events transform existing travel practices and require individuals to adapt to new realities. This bottom-up approach provides a more nuanced and realistic representation of travel demand, thereby offering critical insights for the formulation of sustainable mobility policies and response of transport users to disruptions.

Additionally, capturing how travel behaviours change during and after disruptions is crucial, as it directly impacts the capacity requirements of the wider transport system and individuals’ ability to move effectively. Understanding these behavioural shifts can inform infrastructure planning and operational strategies to ensure that transport networks remain functional and resilient under stress conditions. During disruptions, transport users may adopt alternative modes or routes, adjust their travel timing, or choose not to travel altogether¹⁷⁸. These adjustments not only redistribute demand across different parts of the network but also influence future travel choices and patterns. By accurately modelling these dynamic adjustments in travel behaviour, transport planners and policymakers can better predict network performance and identify necessary investments or interventions to maintain system functionality, accessibility, and equity in mobility during and after disruptive events¹⁷⁹.