It is very clear that devolution works for transport. Where powers are devolved, transport gets more investment and more policy focus. This can be most easily seen in London where the transport system has been transformed since the mayoralty was created, but it can also be seen in Scotland, where rail investment has markedly increased since devolution of rail power. In Merseyside too, since the locally accountable passenger transport executive, Merseytravel, took over responsibility for it, the local electric commuter network has gone from being known as ‘Miseryrail’ to being among the top performers for both punctuality and for passenger satisfaction.
Local control is better than remote control from Whitehall because local decision-makers recognise more fully the key importance of transport in delivering wider economic, social and environmental goals and act accordingly. They also know that they will also get the credit when local transport works well and pay the penalty when it doesn’t. Civil servants from Surrey – who never even have to visit the regions they rule – are working to a different set of priorities. That’s not to say the current and past governments haven’t devolved on transport in England outside London – they just haven’t done it enough and they haven’t been decisive enough – particularly on what tier to devolve what to. And, to be fair, devolution in England outside London does pose some challenges in terms of its economic and political geographies – it’s easier to devolve decisively with clearer geographical entities like London, Scotland and Wales.
However, there are two big tests coming up in particular on our London-based government’s commitment to decisive and meaningful devolution on transport. The first is on rail. There is a big opportunity, as the current Northern and Trans-Pennine franchises come to a close to replace the low-ambition, low-investment approach of Whitehall to local rail services in the north with a devolved solution where a consortium of PTEs and local transport authorities elsewhere take control of those services – with the right deal on funding, of course! This would open up the way not only for more investment in a more locally responsive network but also for better integration with local heavy rail services with other forms of local public transport. Smart ticketing – something similar to Oyster in London – could help give the large urban areas something similar to what London has in terms of a single public transport network bound together by smart and integrated ticketing.
The other big test is on buses. Outside London bus services are deregulated with local transport authorities unable to plan and manage the bus network in the way that London has been so successful in doing. Despite threats to devastate local bus services in retaliation by bus operators who make monopoly profits from their local unregulated monopolies in Tyne and Wear, the local PTE, Nexus, has triggered the formal process which could lead to a ‘Quality Contract’ – in essence, the same system that London uses to plan the network under franchise to bus operators who have to provide the service determined by Transport for London. Both the last and the current government have failed to get behind ‘Quality Contract’ bids in the past, leaving the burden of taking on the vested interests of the bus companies to local government. But devolution on public transport means supporting transport authorities when they seek to take on full responsibility for the main form of local public transport – the bus. When this is combined with more powers over local rail then the prospect of fully integrated, London-style, public transport provision – with all the benefits that clearly brings – is there for the taking.
—————————————————————————————
Jonathan Bray is director of the Passenger Transport Executive Group
—————————————————————————————