COMMENT
ets being devolved down, whereas if you want to build a tram scheme in a city, for example, that’s quite a large capital com- mitment over a period of time, so there will be some issues there around pooling of funding for larger schemes.
The previous process – centrally-managed regional funding allocations – has been labelled “autocratic” by Transport Secretary Justine Greening. Announcing the consultation, she said: “We now have the opportunity of developing a new system for beyond 2015. A system which ensures that the best outcomes are achieved for the economy whilst balancing the need for developing sustainably and reducing carbon emissions; a system which hands real power to local communities; and a system which is fit for purpose in practical delivery terms.”
She added: “In return for greater devolution, central Government will need assurances on effective governance, financial management, accountability and the achievement of value for money – matters which businesses and local authorities do every day.”
‘Local transport bodies’ – which will be set up according to local wishes, generally covering the same geographic area as LEPs – will agree and prioritise schemes, oversee their delivery and evaluate their impacts, but will not actually deliver the schemes: this will be left up to Network Rail and local authorities, as now.
Jonathan Bray, director of the Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg) Support Unit, told RTM: “We support more devolution of funding and powers, because these decisions are best taken in the areas that are affected, rather than Whitehall. So the principle is welcome.
“But the challenge is in making it work ef- fectively in the case of major local schemes, especially larger schemes. The DfT is pro- posing that money will be parcelled up and devolved down to either LEPs or ‘transport bodies’ made up of one or more LEPs. That could be quite a lot of relatively small pack-
“The second major challenge is govern- ance, which is getting quite crowded now, particularly in our PTE areas, the metro- politan areas, where you have a PTE, an ITA, district councils, one or more district mayors potentially, one or more LEPs, and potentially a transport body. Within that, LEPs are quite variable in terms of the ex- tent to which they’ve focused on transport so far, and their formal structures, because they’re not creatures of statute. ‘Transport body’ too is rather ill-defined in the consul- tation; it’s very unlikely to have any statu- tory basis.”
But he noted that when funding is attached to something, people tend to find a way to make things work, but said the potential conflicts between the various levels and types of local governance involved in trans- port could create future problems.
He added: “I’m not saying any of this is insuperable, and I’m not trying to knock the principle of what the Government is doing. It’s broadly positive. The principle of devolution is right. But there are chal- lenges around the pooling for big schemes, and also the various bodies that are now involved in the devolution agenda, particu- larly in city regions.”
The passenger transport executives have been working closely with the new LEPs, he said, since their inception: “Many of the LEPs do map onto PTE areas. We have the expertise and like to think we’ve an excel- lent track record of successfully bringing about transport schemes, and also are the
right size in terms of both economic foot- print and rail networks, therefore we’ve been working closely with these new enti- ties as they emerge. I would imagine that will continue, particularly as there’s no real appetite for creating new offices, new organisations, new sets of people: we’re al- ready here.
“We’re working on the assumption that the PTEs would be continuing to lead on rail and light rail, because it would be fairly pointless just to transfer a whole load of of- ficers over to a LEP, especially when one of the big ideas of LEPs is you don’t want to recreate something that looks and feels a bit like a regional development agency but on a different level.
“The funding situation is in flux, but one of the most interesting things at the moment is the focus on cities, coming from Greg Clark MP and high levels of the Govern- ment. They’re also talking about a lot more financial freedom, tax increment financ- ing, localised business rates, and there’s no doubt more to come. Devolution will only gain as we go on – goodness knows what we may be looking at in the future.”
Aside from station schemes, the other ma- jor rail projects that such bodies are likely to be involved in are light rail projects. The better outlook for trams at the moment combined with reformed funding arrange- ments could offer a boost for cities looking at implementing their own tram networks, Bray suggested.
He said: “Trams tend to be on a bit of a roll- ercoaster in terms of whether they’re in or out of favour, but they have been having a bit of a recovery lately. Greater Manchester is a real network, something we haven’t re- ally seen before.
“It’s not just a couple of lines, it’s a proper network, and I think that will give tram ser- vices a shot in the arm. Centro’s Midland Metro is moving forward, Nottingham is moving forward. Edinburgh is hanging over all of this slightly, but it’s a one-off, in the way it’s been comprehensively messed up, and it doesn’t seem to be infecting the reputation of the others.
“I think the tram is back, and is credible.”
Jonathan Bray FOR MORE INFORMATION
The deadline for input into the DfT consultation is April 2. Visit
www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/
rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 12 | 25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92