The Department for Transport (DfT) is entering a period of profound change. For three decades it has overseen the franchised railway system. Now it presides over the largest wave of nationalisation since the banking rescues of 2008. With Greater Anglia brought into public ownership on 12 October and Northern Rail nationalised in 2020, the question is whether nationalisation alone can deliver the service passengers expect at a price taxpayers can sustain — or whether deeper reform is needed inside the Department itself.

The DfT’s origins date back to 1919, when Sir Eric Geddes, drawing on his First World War experience in military logistics, created the original Ministry of Transport. A century later, the Department remains organised along traditional lines by mode (roads, rail, maritime, technology) rather than by outcomes. Close ties with industry, frequent ministerial turnover, and the familiar “revolving door” between policy and lobbying reinforce this structure.

The result is that decisions often favour sectors rather than citizens. Budgets are lobbied for by mode rather than aligned with outcomes such as access, affordability, decarbonisation, or levelling up. This creates a system designed to deliver inputs rather than outputs of real social or economic value. Drawing on our industry experience and research, an alternative would be to reframe the Department around demand rather than supply. Instead of Directorates for Roads, Rail, and Maritime, imagine a DfT built around:

• Commuting and Local Travel

• Intercity Travel

• International Passenger and Freight

• National Freight

Delivery would then come from agencies such as Highways England, devolved mayors, local authorities, or digital providers-  bidding to achieve specific social and economic objectives.

Take one example: meeting the daily requirement for around 150,000 business meetings and 150,000 social interactions between Manchester and Birmingham (yes, even post-Covid). This need could be met through high-speed rail, upgraded roads, intercity coaches, or digital substitution. The Bee Network already shows how Greater Manchester is experimenting with this outcome-led approach.

Greater Manchester provides a valuable test case. Under Andy Burnham’s leadership, the city is pioneering devolved transport. The Bee Network integrates bus, tram, cycling, and walking routes under Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), with local rail to follow by 2028. The network is expanding to towns like Glossop, Leigh, and Bolton, showing how a joined-up system can serve both dormitory communities and the city core.

The Bee Network is not just about public transport. Its active travel strategy aims to deliver 1,800 miles of walking and cycling routes and 2,400 new crossings, unlocking wider benefits such as improved health outcomes through a more active population. But these gains cannot easily be realised under the DfT’s siloed structure. They require cross-departmental working, rather than delivery agents like TfGM chasing fragmented funding pots.

This approach also supports the region’s climate ambition. Greater Manchester aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2038, with the Bee Network central to that plan. Transport for Wales offers a rural comparison: equally ambitious but facing very different challenges.

Demand is also being reshaped by digital choices. Hybrid working in Manchester’s tech and financial sectors has reduced peak-time commuting, forcing employers and operators to rethink service patterns. Remote NHS consultations are another example, cutting patient travel and freeing network capacity. These shifts show how transport policy could focus less on modes, more on outcomes.

Market towns matter too. The case for reform is not just urban. Shrewsbury illustrates how fragmented funding and centralised decision-making leave ambitions unfulfilled. The Shrewsbury Moves strategy sets out a 10-year vision for sustainable transport, but evening and Sunday bus services, vital to supporting the local economy, reducing congestion, and providing fair access, remain absent. For more than a decade, Shrewsbury has had no Sunday buses and only a skeletal evening service.

Local MP Julia Buckley argues this is holding back the town’s economy and disadvantaging residents who work late shifts or rely on public transport. She has called for joined-up thinking and new funding powers to deliver services that match local need. Yet progress has stalled because funding streams remain fragmented. Without linked funding pots or devolution beyond city regions, places like Shrewsbury cannot unlock the benefits of integrated transport.

This contrast with Manchester is instructive. Big cities with devolved powers are already trialling outcome-led approaches, while county towns patch together bids and pilots. If the DfT were restructured around outcomes, both Manchester and Shrewsbury could make the case for socially necessary services tailored to local demand.

Greater Manchester can lead by example, showing how a region can deliver value for citizens by embracing a demand-led model, integrating local rail, active travel, and digital substitution. The Bee Network is already a live test bed. But the prize extends beyond cities. Market towns and shire counties must also be empowered to shape services that fit their needs.

The policy call to government is clear: align the DfT’s ambitions with 21st-century needs, end the revolving-door culture of mode-based lobbying, and focus civil servants’ work on objectives and outcomes, regardless of mode. Deliver a system that supports integrated provision for both the economy and citizens, empowering regional opportunity, not only in Manchester but also in towns like Shrewsbury and across the shires.

As Henry Ford put it: “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” For the UK’s transport system to serve its people and economy, the Department must embrace change as decisively as the regions it is meant to support. The alternative is no tangible change in how transport services meet the needs of society.