Do Institutional Arrangements Make a Difference to Transport Policy and Implementation? Lessons for Britain

Abstract

The authors describe local government decisionmaking in transport in three areas of the United Kingdom—London, West Yorkshire, and Edinburgh—in which major changes in local government decisionmaking structures have taken place over the last decade, and between which arrangements are now very different. They discuss whether institutional change has had a beneficial or adverse effect, and whether any of the current structures provides a more effective framework for policy development and implementation. The results suggest that, although the sites share a broadly common set of objectives, there are differences in devolved responsibilities and in the extent to which various policy options are within the control of the bodies charged with transport policy delivery. The existence of several tiers of government, coupled with the many interactions required between these public sector bodies and the predominantly private sector public transport operators, appears to create extra transactional barriers and impedes the implementation of the most effective measures for cutting congestion. There is, however, a compelling argument for the presence of an overarching tier of government to organise travel over a spatial scale compatible with that of major commuter patterns. The extent to which such arrangements currently appear to work is a function of the range of powers and the funding levels afforded to the coordinating organisation.