Closed consultation

Adapting the UK's transport system to the impacts of climate change: summary of responses

Updated 17 March 2025

This is a summary of responses to the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) draft climate change adaptation strategy. It summarises the consultation responses only and does not set out the government’s response.

We will publish the government’s response alongside this summary on the consultation homepage in due course.

The draft strategy set out options to contribute to a well-adapted transport network that is flexible, reliable, operates safely and is responsive to a changing climate. 

The consultation primarily sought views from:

• transport infrastructure operators (Network Rail, National Highways, airports and ports)
• local transport authorities
• sector-wide stakeholders
• transport industry groups
• non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• academia
• consultancies

The overarching objectives of the draft strategy were to:

• embed climate adaptation within the transport sector turning it into ‘business as usual’
• use guidance and tools to prioritise investments in adaptation
• enhance adaptation action and foster cross-sector collaboration

Executive summary

A total of 125 responses were received during the consultation period, 74 of which were submitted directly via the online survey. An additional 51 written responses were received by email or letter.

We are grateful to all organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation with their views and suggestions. All responses are being considered in the development of policy and a future government response.

DfT hosted a series of workshops with attendees including transport infrastructure operators, local transport authorities and other transport organisations, providing DfT with feedback before the consultation closed.

There was a broad distribution of respondents.

Figure 1: approximate breakdown of respondents

Type of respondent or organisation	Number of responses
Roads	43
Rail	11
Aviation	9
Maritime	6
Devolved government, agency or public body	16
Regulator	2
Chartered institute	5
Other organisation	22
Individual	11

The largest respondent group – from the roads sub-sector – comprised a strategic road authority, local highway authorities and road industry representatives.

Other groups responsible for the management of transport infrastructure comprised of:

• rail organisations and train operating companies
• representation from aviation
• representation from maritime organisations and ports

Additional responses were received, for example, from:

• transport regulators
• consultancies
• NGOs
• members of the public

Many other organisations responded, including the likes of trade unions, chartered institutes, academia and private organisations.

A significant number of responses were from large organisations and, therefore, the percentage of responses cited for each question throughout this summary of responses does not present a representative sample of stakeholder views.

Out of 125 responses:

• 11 were from individuals
• 114 were from organisations

Strategy themes

The draft strategy proposed a blueprint incorporating a series of policies to embed adaptation action across the transport sector.

Headline policies included:

• between 2024 and 2026, improve risk assessment across the transport sector
• by 2024, transport infrastructure operators (organisations responsible for managing the risks of climate change for example, Network Rail, National Highways, airports, ports and highway authorities) identify senior ownership of climate risks
• by 2025, embed consideration of climate risks in DfT business case processes
• by 2025, incentivise adaptation measures through funding agreements
• by 2027, consider the need for climate resilience remits for regulators

We consulted on whether these policy proposals are supported.

Summary of consultation responses

The main survey questions were grouped under 4 chapter themes:

• collaboration
• regulatory
• economics
• culture

The figure below shows the majority of respondents supported the various policy proposals, with every chapter receiving a minimum of 60% support.

Overall, we received 104 survey responses.

Figure 2: indicative level of support for each chapter

Chapter and theme	Action is effective (%)	Action would be ineffective (%)	Unsure/don’t know if action would be effective (%)	No response (%)
Collaboration: interdependencies	59%	10%	14%	17%
Collaboration: working together	73%	9%	6%	12%
Regulatory: review of regulators remits	75%	5%	10%	10%
Regulatory: standardising the approach	70%	8%	10%	12%
Economics: measuring progress	61%	13%	11%	15%
Economics: incentivise action	57%	10%	18%	15%
Economics: building the evidence base	58%	12%	17%	13%
Economics: providing the tools required	59%	13%	13%	15%
Culture: embedding climate risk	63%	2%	21%	14%

Despite broad support for the strategy, there were recurrent additional asks raised by all types of respondents centred around funding, guidance and regulation.

These themes were:

• funding to support adaptation measures
• funding for training and access to skilled resourcing
• more guidance on the assessment of climate risk
• a standardised approach to reporting across government
• more tools and data to enable decision making

Many respondents said the introduction of regulation to aid reporting would be welcomed. However, respondents also highlighted that if this were to be developed, impacts on businesses’ daily operations should be considered.

Funding

Respondents said funding should provide:

• increased funding allocations or funding for schemes
• financial incentives, like tax breaks
• funds to develop and access skilled resourcing
• funds for training

Guidance

Respondents said guidance should be provided about:

• assessing climate risk and reporting
• standardised reporting
• tools used for data baselines, benchmarking and climate scenarios
• interdependencies

Regulation

Respondents said regulation should:

• help embed adaptation
• help aid reporting
• take into account organisation size, if developed
• not restrict daily operations

Culture proposals

Embedding climate risk

We asked respondents to evaluate a series of possible actions and targeted interventions to embed climate risk in planning and operations across the sector.

Question 16: Overall, in your view, will the actions in ‘culture: embedding climate risk’ make organisations responsible for transport infrastructure more or less likely to report on climate risks?

Figure 3: answers to question 16

Answer	Responses (%)
More likely	63%
No change	14%
Don’t know	7%
Less likely	2%
No answer	14%

Those who supported the policy proposals held similar views to those of a highway authority that expressed encouragement for developing the strategy and welcomed the strategic lead DfT was taking in getting organisations to think about adaptation within its daily operations.

Some respondents who stated the policies were unlikely to aid climate reporting welcomed a strategy but thought the actions were not robust enough. Others raised concerns about the lack of financial support.

Some respondents suggested a need for regulation or contractual obligations to ensure that timely and robust reporting is more effective. One consultancy suggested introducing voluntary reporting before moving to a mandatory requirement.

A member of the public suggested the strategy should be developed further with more detail on timelines and more robust measures to enforce delivery.

An NGO supported the proposals, stating that the sharing of best practice between organisations and case studies will help embed adaptation.

Another common theme that arose from the consultation was the desire for policies to explore international collaboration and for government to explicitly facilitate this.

We asked: In your view, what more, if anything, could government do to further encourage reporting on climate risks?

Views were mixed in response to this question. However, many respondents reiterated the need for funding, stating that this would be a huge factor in implementing adaptation measures.

Another recurrent theme in response to this question was the suggestion of supporting regulation to help embed adaptation within organisations. Respondents raised concerns that although organisations will start to assess climate risk, without financial incentives backed by supporting regulation adaptation and climate risk assessments will be inconsistent and may not achieve the desired results.

A rail transport infrastructure operator (TIO) suggested government could help address climate adaptation by supporting organisations to develop adaptive capacity. This would support access to expert professionals who are working on climate adaptation.

A sub-national transport body said transport authority revenue budgets continue to be very constrained, which impacts the capacity to undertake additional reporting processes. They suggested that funding allocations reflect any additional new burdens that new policies may generate.

Economic proposals

Providing the tools required

We asked respondents to evaluate a series of proposals to give infrastructure owners and operators the guidance, tools, evidence and knowledge to consider climate risks thoroughly and successfully make the case for action.

Question 19: Overall, in your view, will the commitments in ‘providing the tools required’ support organisations responsible for transport infrastructure in taking adaptation action?

Figure 4: answers to question 19

Answer	Responses (%)
Yes	59%
Don’t know	13%
No	13%
No response	15%

Those that supported it welcomed policy proposals but reiterated the need for more funding for:

• tools
• resources
• data to aid decision-making

Many respondents also stated the need for more resources to grow and upskill teams within organisations.

Respondents who thought the policies were unlikely to aid organisations raised concerns that the proposals were too vague and did not provide enough detail on delivery. Some respondents stated they would benefit from non-statutory guidance and would appreciate support from government in exploring adaptation pathways.

One combined transport authority stated that these policies need to be supported by long term revenue funding.

Building the evidence base

We asked respondents their views on possible measures to support organisations in understanding where costs are likely to be most critical to prioritise action and better account for the benefits of adaptation relative to the costs of climate risks.

Question 22: Overall, in your view, will the research commitments in ‘building the evidence base’ support organisations responsible for transport infrastructure to make evidence-based investment decisions on climate change adaptation?

Figure 5: answers to question 22

Answer	Respondent (%)
Yes	58%
Don’t know	17%
No	12%
No response	13%

Of the 58% of respondents who agreed with the measures, many welcomed these proposals, stating they would help address evidence gaps. Many respondents also suggested that more research was needed to aid investment decisions.

A rail organisation suggested that the cross-sector actions lack detailed policies to support knowledge sharing or help to navigate complex organisational structures. This organisation, therefore, did not believe these policies would work.

There were concerns raised by some respondents about the lack of detail on how government will address knowledge gaps across the transport sector.

Incentivising action

Respondents were asked their views on proposals to help incentivise action to embed climate adaptation within transport organisations.

Question 25: Overall, in your view, will the actions in ‘incentivise action’ support organisations responsible for transport infrastructure to embed adaptation into policies and projects?

Figure 6: answers to question 25

Answer	Respondent (%)
Yes	57%
Don’t know	18%
No	10%
No response	15%

Those who did agree said the actions would incentivise and promote action on adaptation and raised concerns around enforcement. Others stated concern that without regulation or enforcement through contract management, adaptation would not become embedded within transport organisations.

An airline agreed with the proposals, saying incorporation of adaptation measures within relevant planning policy – such as policy statements or sector specific guidance – would be welcomed.

A port authority had concerns that the proposals would not have much impact on the maritime sector. This authority advised that consideration should be given to incentivising transport infrastructure operators (TIOs) to carry out comprehensive and timely reporting on climate risks, as well as creating bespoke funding agreements and incentives.

Measuring progress

We asked for views on whether proposed policies would help measure the impacts of extreme weather and condition of assets across the whole of the transport sector.

Question 26: Overall, in your view, will the commitments in ‘measuring progress’ help organisations responsible for transport infrastructure in measuring progress on adaptation?

Figure 7: answers to question 26

Answer	Respondent (%)
Yes	61%
Don’t know	11%
No	13%
No response	16%

Overall, the majority of respondents welcomed the proposals to aid the collation of data from stakeholders on climate disruption and costs and the development of indicators. However, concerns were raised about the timelines for these actions, with some respondents stating they were not ambitious enough.

Most respondents indicated there is significant demand for useful data and metrics that would allow TIOs to develop evidence-based business cases and get buy-in from senior leaders.

Others said there is insufficient guidance on measuring the impacts of climate change or adaptation measures. These respondents agreed that proposals would help support different transport modes.

13% disagreed that these measures would help: they were concerned that without the right metrics and indicators, data might not be robust enough.

11% were unsure and reported concerns about the current lack of consistency in data collection, which could inhibit successful implementation. 16% did not respond.

Regulatory proposals

Standardising the approach

We asked respondents whether they supported proposals to set a clear direction for adaptation ambition by:

• identifying new opportunities for the sector
• reducing uncertainty about adaptation

Question 29: Overall, do you support or oppose the actions in the strategy aimed at standardising the approach to climate adaptation?

Figure 8: answers to question 29

Answer	Respondent (%)
Support	70%
Don’t know	10%
Oppose	8%
No response	12%

Overall, 70% of respondents supported actions aimed at standardising the approach to climate adaptation. Common themes included setting a consistent approach – with one TIO commenting it would provide opportunities for collaboration across sectors – especially for interdependencies.

Most respondents said that a consistent approach will result in more efficient implementation of adaptation measures across infrastructure projects.

8% of respondents opposed the proposals, with some requesting a clearer regulatory approach.  

10% of respondents were unsure with some concern raised around the lack of data for local challenges, which in turn can adversely impact decision making.

13% did not answer the question.

Setting climate adaptation standards

We asked: what role, if any, would you like government to take in setting climate adaptation standards, including why?

Views were mixed as to the role government should take regarding the setting of climate adaptation standards. A chartered institute suggested the need for government to lead is too urgent for elongated review, suggesting the adoption of standards.

Recurrent themes were represented by a local highways authority that suggested a joined up and standardised approach to adaptation and climate risk assessments set by government would provide a straightforward way for organisations to establish the adaptability of transport schemes. This authority expressed the view that a set of standards would support climate change adaptation and provide a rationale for adaptation schemes. However, they also remarked that standards should be implemented in a way that does not exacerbate existing challenges surrounding delivery, funding and decision-making.

A consultancy said a standardised approach was essential and reiterated a common theme from stakeholders in the transport sector. This firm also requested that DfT specify which climate scenario to use to enable better comparison across risk assessments.

Reviewing the role of regulators

We asked for views on the role of the regulators and proposed policy action for consideration.

Question 32: Do you support or oppose a review of transport regulators’ remits regarding climate change adaptation?

Figure 9: answers to question 32

Answer	Respondent (%)
Support	75%
Don’t know	10%
Oppose	5%
No response	10%

The majority of respondents supported a review of transport regulators’ remits. An example was a TIO operating within the maritime sector, who suggested that regulators should have an important role to play in standardising climate change adaptation but stated that any review needed to incorporate views from the industry.

Overall, 5% opposed a review and raised concerns that any review would not be backed by sufficient resources and would, therefore, not deliver the desired outcomes.

10% of respondents were unsure and 11% did not respond.

A TIO operating within the aviation sector welcomed the review but stated concerns – typical with respondents –saying any overbearing regulation should be avoided as organisations are likely to have a raft of regulatory requirements to satisfy already. They also suggested further support could be provided to ensure regulators have suitably qualified staff to provide appropriate reviews, challenge and guidance.

Collaboration proposals

Working in partnership

We sought views on potential collaboration actions to help transport operators enhance knowledge and capability on adaptation and use expertise from organisations that lead on adaptation progress.

Question 35: Overall, in your view, will the actions in ‘working in partnership’ support organisations responsible for transport infrastructure to expand their capability on climate change adaptation?

Figure 10: answers to question 35

Answer	Respondent (%)
Yes	73%
Don’t know	6%
No	9%
No response	12%

Overall, 73% of respondents agreed the actions proposed would help expand organisational capability on climate adaptation. Most respondents supported the proposals, for example, an organisation representing transport industry bodies welcomed the goal of bringing organisations together to collaborate on climate change adaptation.

9% disagreed the actions would support the sector, a further 6% were unsure and 13% did not respond.

One freight company’s response supported the proposal and provided belief that the actions would lead to strengthened partnerships and better adaptation to changes in the climate.

A member of the public agreed that sharing knowledge is vital, but there needs to be a more robust link to funding to support organisations.

Interdependencies

We sought views on whether the proposed policies would help organisations better understand interdependencies within their systems.

Question 38: Overall, in your view, will the actions in the strategy help organisations to understand their interdependencies across different infrastructure?

Figure 11: answers to question 35

Answer	Respondent (%)
Yes	59%
Don’t know	14%
No	10%
No response	17%

Overall, 59% of respondents agreed that the strategy proposals would help organisations better understand interdependencies. 

10% disagreed as they were concerned that the actions were not robust enough. A further 14% were unsure whether the proposals would help and 17% did not respond.

A chartered institute also remarked that the transport adaptation strategy is a step in the right direction but said DfT should include more detailed guidance on what transport interdependencies are and how they need to be addressed for organisations.

An academic institution echoed this, stating that the draft strategy content does not provide enough detail on how DfT would address interdependencies between different systems.

Further comments

Finally, we invited a further opportunity to provide feedback on our climate adaptation policy.

We asked: What, if any, further comments do you have on the transport adaptation strategy?

The responses overall were positive about the proposed strategic direction set out in the consultation. However, there were also concerns about how achievable this strategy would be, given funding and capacity constraints. This was particularly a focus for ports, airports and local highway authorities.

The theme of funding was raised by multiple respondents. One response from a mayoral combined authority suggested DfT identify and release the funding, resourcing and training needed to support the successful delivery of any strategy.

There was significant demand, particularly from local highway authorities, for access to skills, training and funding by government. There was also significant demand to improve the accessibility of evidence and knowledge to build a shared understanding between government, subject matter experts and the transport sector.

There was recurrent feedback for clear and actionable evidence and benchmarks on the economic costs and benefits associated with adaptation. Respondents stated this would make it easier for TIOs to build a business case for adaptation and a supporting narrative around the longer-term financial savings that adaptation could potentially unlock.

Some respondents believe adaptation should become a mandatory requirement for new infrastructure projects. There was, however, equal and opposite demand from the maritime and aviation sub-sectors to reduce the amount of legislation and bureaucracy associated with infrastructure investment and reporting on adaptation.

There were some concerns raised around levels of ambition and whether implementation of policies could go further. A train operating company suggested the lack of mandatory action and enforcement could impact the delivery of proposed actions, they proposed DfT should strengthen proposed actions to ensure change is promoted

In contrast, others welcomed the proposed content of a strategy, and a local highways authority explained that a clearer steer at national level would be helpful. They stated that within the roads sector, adaptation relies on local leadership, which creates inconsistency. They saw a strategy as an opportunity to promote consistent action. This theme was consistent across the transport modes, for example, a port said that a strategy and the actions proposed would be a positive step and should encourage TIOs to act on climate change adaptation.

An NGO supported the measures proposed to improve the knowledge base of climate adaptation and resilience. This was against their desire to see DfT include further guidance on the implementation of nature-based solutions, stating these measures are often cost-effective and have wider benefits for people and wildlife.

We thank all those who took time to respond to the consultation. Government will consider the inputs received and will respond in due course.

Actions and policies proposed within the draft transport adaptation strategy (annex)

Culture policy proposals

Embedding climate risk

In 2024, TIOs will undertake reporting as set out in the fourth climate adaptation reporting strategy, including named highway authorities as part of the local authority pilot scheme. DfT will engage across the transport sector, with a specific focus on ports and aviation, along with transport regulators – such as the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – to enhance uptake and quality of reporting.

By 2026, all TIOs are to undertake and publish climate risk assessments. These risks should be embedded in governance processes and included in risk reporting mechanisms, such as risk registers.

In 2024, ask UK airports that were not captured in the fourth round of climate adaptation reporting to voluntarily report on adaptation action to government.

In 2024, ask train operating companies (TOCs) and freight operating companies to voluntarily report on adaptation action to government.

Explore incorporating appropriate adaptation requirements into rail licences and contracts under recommendations in the roadmap following the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) climate change maturity matrix project.

By 2024, TIOs will identify a senior responsible officer for adaptation to DfT. This will ensure that senior leadership are accountable and has ownership of managing climate risks.

By 2026, TIOs and transport industry associations will include adaptation and climate resilience in their organisation objectives to promote climate risk management across the sector.

DfT will regularly review and assess climate risks to the transport sector in line with other risks as part of the department’s internal risk assessment tool. This evidence-based work will support risk and policy development and help inform the department’s engagement with the transport sector.

DfT will review how it works across chronic and acute risks, ensuring this aligns with the refreshed national security risk assessment.

DfT will fulfil related commitments made in government strategies and policy frameworks relevant to climate risks, such as the UK government resilience framework.

By 2025, implement recommendations from DfT’s individual report following the RSSB’s climate change maturity matrix project. This will improve DfT’s ability to provide advice to rail industry bodies in managing climate risk.

CAA will explore the opportunities to enhance adaptation action within the aviation sector – such as developing guidance on climate adaptation and ways of working to embed adaptation across organisations.

Economic policy proposals

Providing the tools required

DfT will develop tools so the sector can identify adaptation measures. By 2024, we will develop an online database with best-practice adaptation measures, working in partnership with transport stakeholders through the Transport Research Innovation Board.

By 2025, we will develop a tool to provide additional climate information for the transport sector. This could be used by the transport sector to inform climate adaptation investments, risk assessments and asset designs.

By 2025, DfT will enhance climate risk assessment guidance in line with Green book supplementary guidance so infrastructure operators can identify risks and prioritise action. This will increase uptake, reduce uncertainty, and improve consistency in assessment. It will also support local authorities to fulfil the third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) commitment to improve asset management plans.

Building the evidence base

Between 2023 and 2027, deliver the £10 million decarbonised, adaptable, resilient transport infrastructures (DARe) hub in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The hub takes a systems approach to developing and implementing sustainable, low carbon adaptation solutions for resilient transport infrastructure and streetscapes and is presented by:

• Newcastle University
• Heriot-Watt University
• University of Cambridge
• University of Glasgow

It will consider transition risks and build solutions for resilience, including rethinking existing transport infrastructure to reduce emissions. This work is complemented by a £15 million research programme between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and UKRI, which will also contribute to the evidence base on effective adaptation action.

By 2024, undertake a review of policies and proposals that are being developed to decarbonise transport to identify transition risks. This also includes updating existing guidance on climate risk assessments where necessary.

By 2025, review approaches to valuing the costs of climate risks to transport systems and assets. This work will explore approaches and evidence to factor climate risks into analysis as part of DfT business cases, supported by associated transport analysis guidance.

By 2025, explore how and where funding for research and development, trials and adaptation measures could be effective in removing barriers to adaptation action. Also explore where that funding could come from, taking an evidence-based approach and working in partnership with all parts of the transport sector.

Incentivising action

From 2024, consider adaptation actions necessary in relevant planning policy documents, including national policy statements and sector specific guidance.

Explore opportunities for how the £2 million rural innovation fund for transport can promote adaptation action when implementing innovative solutions to rural transport challenges, following its launch in 2024.

By 2025, embed consideration of climate risks in DfT business case process and decision-making, supported by associated guidance, including transport analysis guidance.

By 2025, incentivise adaptation measures through funding agreements, such as the Road Investment Strategy (RIS) and Network Rail Control Periods and explore options through contractual agreements and licences. This will require action to be taken by National Highways, Network Rail, other licence holders and ORR.

By 2025, promote greater adaptation action across DfT, informed by policy expertise and demonstrate leadership across government.

Explore opportunities for rail adaptation enhancement projects to enter the rail network enhancements pipeline, such as future spending reviews.

Measuring progress

By 2027, collate data transport stakeholders capture on weather and climate related disruption and costs to support them to enhance data sets and better understand the impacts of climate change on their business. The data will also enable government to better support the sector in risk management.

By 2028, progress the development of indicators – in partnership with the sector – to measure adaptation outcomes and impacts with the view to having more effective metrics for local roads, airports and ports to inform NAP4.

Between 2025 and 2030, DfT may require National Highways to monitor how susceptible the strategic road network is to flooding through its performance specification. This is subject to final decisions on the third RIS.

From 2025, ports in England will trial a regular monitoring survey to gather information on the frequency of weather disruptions on port operations.

Network Rail will better understand the costs and impacts of climate change by improving the quality and quantity of its data analysis.

Regulatory policy proposals

Standardising the approach

By 2025, DfT will support the sector to have a consistent approach when using climate scenarios and climate risk assessments. This will be done by facilitating cross sector collaboration.

By 2027, DfT will explore the role of adaptation standards and determine what information is required to inform these for the transport sector.

DfT will work across government to implement commitments in the resilience framework that align with regulatory cycles to maximise the window of opportunity for investment, where possible.

By 2027, Network Rail will agree levels of service in extreme weather conditions with government and regulators. In determining these levels of resilience, Network Rail will consider the balance between the costs of resilience, impacts of disruption and consumer expectations.

Reviewing the role of regulators

By the start of 2027, DfT will:

• consider the Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommendation for climate resilience remits for regulators

• work closely with the ORR, the CAA and relevant stakeholders

Collaboration policy proposals

Working in partnership

From 2023, DfT will utilise forums to promote industry collaboration including:

• IOAF
• Transport Research Innovation Board
• UK Roads Leadership Group

By 2028, all TIOs will identify and map out interdependencies across the transport sector and with relevant infrastructure operators. This will include plans for addressing potential points of failure.

By 2028, all TIOs will enhance adaptive capacity by providing training on climate adaptation and what it means for infrastructure to relevant staff.

Strengthen the role of the IOAF by working with Defra and other government departments to share best practice on managing sector interdependencies, including the risk of cascading failures – as committed to in NAP3.

TIOs will consider engaging with international counterparts to learn best practice on response and recovery from extreme weather events. This means using forums including but not limited to:

• Conference of the Parties (COP)
• International Transport Forum (ITF)
• International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
• International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
• World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC)
• Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR)
• European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Build capability and skills for adaptation in government by working with Defra – as committed to in NAP3.

Explore establishing a framework that encourages best practice on climate adaptation and engagement with industry members and international forums for collaboration with airlines, major airports, the CAA and NATS.

Rail industry will lead on climate change adaptation by sharing best practice with transport operators.