OECD Infrastructure Investment conference outlines perspectives for transport development
For the event, the OECD brought together global experts to discuss the pressing issues of public debt, infrastructure investment and urban demand management. Several prominent experts spoke at the event, including János Bertók, Deputy Head of the OECD's Public Governance Directorate, Jonathan Saks, Chief Economist at the UK's National Infrastructure and Services Development Authority (NISTA), and Finn Aasmund Hobbesland, Director of Social and Development at Nye Veier AS in Norway.
In his opening speech, János Bertók underlined the heavy burden of public debt on public budgets. He pointed out that in many countries, debt servicing is the biggest budget item.
In the United States, for example, interest payments on public debt exceeded $1,000 billion last year, which limits the room for manoeuvre of the public sector and requires new types of cooperation with the private sector,
the expert highlighted.
Bertók stressed the importance of more efficient public service management and the reuse of existing infrastructure to better manage demand. He then introduced Jonathan Saks, who has played a leading role in the development of behavioural economics and demand management strategies in the UK.
A real demand-driven approach is necessary, not wishful thinking
Jonathan Saks, NISTA's Chief Economist, detailed the UK's experience in urban demand management, saying that a systemic approach beyond traditional charging schemes is needed. He stressed the importance of sustainability, social considerations and the relationship between land use and transport.
Saks also presented the International Transport Forum's 2025 forecast, which predicts that public transport passenger numbers will almost double by 2060, mainly due to urbanisation.
This increase in demand poses serious challenges, such as congestion and the high cost of providing services, he added. Decarbonisation is also a critical issue: urban transport accounts for nearly a third of all emissions.
He also provided data to show that the vast majority of investment in transport infrastructure is currently concentrated on the road network. However, a shift to more sustainable modes of transport, such as public transport or active transport (walking, cycling), could reduce overall investment needs by around 5%. This would not only reduce the need for new road networks, but also make the maintenance of existing infrastructure more efficient.
Saks pointed out that urban demand management not only has environmental benefits, but also improves air quality, traffic safety, physical activity and labour productivity. Shared mobility solutions could also significantly reduce the number of vehicles and free up a significant part of urban land currently used for parking.
He gave several examples of cities where congestion charging has been introduced, such as London, Singapore and New York. In these cities, car traffic has fallen significantly while public transport use has increased.
In London, for example, traffic has fallen by 18%, while bus use has increased by 33%.
The fees collected are often reinvested in the improvement of public transport, further increasing the sustainability of the system.
He also spoke about the Norwegian model, where the revenue from congestion charges is used for road network investments. This approach has proved successful: about 9% of the Norwegian transport budget is covered by these tolls.
Sometimes the state is the good master
Finn Aasmund Hobbesland spoke about the Norwegian experience in infrastructure management, in particular the transformation of the state-owned company Nye Veier AS, which is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of highway projects in Norway.
Hobbesland pointed out that since its creation in 2015, Nye Veier has achieved significant results: projects are prioritised on the basis of socio-economic benefits, and costs have been significantly reduced and construction times improved. With a budget of around €800 million per year, significant improvements have been made in road safety, reducing journey times and increasing the efficiency of the national road network.
He also said that the previous system, in which the Norwegian Road Administration had a monopoly, had not produced good results, although infrastructure spending had increased. Long planning times and high costs were a problem.
Since the creation of Nye Veier, the use of resources has been much more efficient: instead of being around 40% over budget, projects are now being delivered 20% under budget.
The emergence of competition in the public sector has also had a positive impact on other actors and has shown that the state can be a good master.
Hobbesland said that Nye Veier's objectives have now changed significantly, with a focus on climate change, reducing CO2 emissions, conserving biodiversity and reversing the destruction of nature. As an example, he cited the E10 and E18 road projects, where cost reduction, eco-design and a focus on real needs rather than automatic compliance with existing standards predominate.
Brussels sees the world in a similar way, but implementation is slow
The European Union's development policy can be aligned with the orientations highlighted at the OECD conference on a number of points, in particular sustainable infrastructure development, demand management and debt awareness. In the EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 (MFF) and the NextGenerationEU recovery programme, support for the “green transition” and the “digital transition”, which are directly linked to the objectives of innovative and sustainable urban transport and infrastructure, has been given a prominent role.
As part of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), specific resources are earmarked for sustainable transport infrastructure, in particular for the development of rail and multimodal transport systems, thereby reducing congestion and the carbon footprint of the traditional road network.
In the field of urban demand management, EU cohesion policy is also increasingly adopting the systemic approach emphasised by Saks. The New Leipzig Charter, adopted in 2021, has become the founding document of European urban development policies, highlighting the importance of “integrated, sustainable and inclusive cities”. This is in line with the principles advocated by the OECD on the need for integrated management of transport, land use and social aspects in urban areas.
In addition, through the European Regional Development Fund, several Member States are supporting financial incentives to promote active ways of transport such as walking and cycling, which is also in line with the OECD's proposed shift in investment.
Increasing the efficiency of infrastructure management, which is also highlighted in the Norwegian example of Nye Veier, is also becoming increasingly important in the EU. Launched in 2021, the InvestEU programme will provide a new single funding framework for strategic investments, with a particular emphasis on maximising socio-economic benefits and long-term sustainability in project selection. At InvestEU, the contribution to climate neutrality objectives is a key element in project evaluation, similar to the environmental focus of Nye Veier.
However, the EU's position on sovereign debt is more nuanced. Although the Stability and Growth Pact imposes fiscal discipline on EU countries (a maximum of 60% of debt to GDP), after the general escape clause introduced in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2024 reforms set new, more flexible, country-specific adjustment paths. To some extent, this contradicts the strict debt management principles emphasised at the OECD conference, but the EU also aims to ensure that investment is not stifled by the need to cut spending in the short term, especially in the context of the green and digital transition.
Cover photo (for illustration purposes only): Portfolio
With funding from the European Union. The opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.
