Transport officers believe the first regional ranking exercise for transport investment has been broadly successful, but they will press Whitehall for clarification on this and future rounds.
The Government had accepted the advice from all regions and sent positive messages in decision letters, said John Deegan, president of the County Surveyors’ Society. But given the different approaches taken to priority-setting, it might be helpful to have further guidance on the process, he added. ‘We want to be seen to be even-handed across the country.’
It was unclear why schemes were rejected, on value-for-money grounds, in only one region, West Midlands. ‘That’s a question we want to put to the department when we meet,’ said Deegan.
But, he added: ‘Overall, the process seems to have worked reasonably well and it looks as if it will continue.’ Fears that delays due to the new funding allocation process would scupper some schemes seem to have been allayed.
The CSS will work with the DfT to explore possible improvements, notably reducing the time taken to approve scheme funding and the proposals for pooled regional infrastructure and other funds.
The regional funding process was meant to include housing and economic development, as well as transport. ‘We are still some distance away from a cross-sectoral approach to investment,’ he said.
But environmental campaigners attacked the ‘strong bias towards road schemes’ outside the big cities, where some large public transport schemes had got the go-ahead.
While three controversial road schemes in the Southwest had been dropped, as recommended by the regional assembly, other environmentally-damaging schemes had been ‘waved through,’ said Transport 2000 director, Stephen Joseph.
Regions collectively allocated 72% of their bids to roads, and just 24% to public transport.