Promoting policy co-ordination through long-term funding allocations: The implications for regional transport policy in England Ian Stafford & Sarah Ayres School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol

Promoting policy co-ordination through long-term funding allocations In July 2005 the Government published indicative regional funding allocations (RFAs) for economic development, housing and transport policy This paper explores the opportunities & challenges presented by this agenda for regional transport policy Research Qs: What motivations underpin the Government’s decision to introduce RFAs? How have regional transport stakeholders responded to this agenda? What are the implications of RFAs for regional transport policy making & delivery?

Policy context & rationale Regions were invited to prepare advice on spending priorities in each policy area up to 2007-8 & indicative planning assumptions up to 2016 In 2006/7 RFA funding amounted to £4.1bn - only 14% of public expenditure in the 3 policy areas in regions RFAs underpinned by previous prioritisation exercises - Whitehall officials confirmed improvements over rounds RFA advice to be developed in partnership - build regional capacity & tailored to local circumstance Advice more likely to be approved if helps to meet national targets Economic development & housing already decentralised - transport viewed as the ‘big prize’

Identifying transport priorities All regions developed prioritisation methodologies, building on work carried out for Regional Transport Strategies (RTS) Many regions used GO funding to commission consultants (some more than others) Methodologies made up of 3 criteria: Policy fit (with other regional priorities: economic, spatial etc) Value for money Deliverability Methodologies varied in complexity & sophistication No ‘best practice’ methodology has emerged

Implications for regional transport policy Pros: Enhanced dialogue between the Centre & regions on sub-national transport issues Regions moving away from ‘wish-lists’ towards realistic, evidence-based spending priorities No region chose to vire funds across 3 policy areas but Yorkshire & Humber identified transport as a top priority RFA process provided Regional Transport Boards/Forums/Strategy Groups with a remit & enhanced transparency in decision-making Regions adopted a collaborative approach, ensuring stakeholder buy-in & collective ownership

Implications for regional transport policy Cons: Programmes under £5m should not be included in RFA scheme but this was criticised on a number of accounts The ‘whale in the pond’ issue threatened smaller transport schemes The process of identifying appropriate transport schemes was viewed as complex There was some confusion with regards the areas in which RFA funding could be spent, e.g. inclusion of rail in submissions

Conclusions The RFA process was viewed to have: Strengthened decision-making on transport issues Improved the regional evidence base, & Enhanced inter-governmental relations But, questions remain about whether the agenda has resulted in greater policy coordination Transport has developed in isolation from economic development & housing & no regions chose to vire funds In July 2007, the Treasury’s Sub-national Review confirmed that an expanded second round would take place within CSR period Reforms set-out within the Sub-national Review, the Eddington Report & Local Transport Bill changes the policy context within which future RFA rounds will take place The Sub-national Review signals a change in ‘mood music’ that emphasises the centrality of economic productivity in regional policy debates This raises questions about prioritisation between policy areas such as economic development, housing & transport in the future