1. 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

2. 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?

3. Policy context & rationale
Regions were invited to prepare advice on spending priorities in each policy area up to & 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’

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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