‘Devolution’ of transport powers to Local Government: Impacts of the 2004 Traffic Management Act in England Paul E. Canning a,b,n , Emma E. Hellawell b,n , Susan J. Hughes b , Birgitta C.M. Gatersleben c , Christopher J. Fairhead a a Surrey County Council, Intelligent Transport Systems, Services for Communities, Unit 4, Mole Business Park, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7BA, UK b Department of Civil Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK c Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK article info Keywords: Devolution Traffic Management Act Congestion Intelligent Transport Systems abstract The concept of ‘Devolution’—the transfer of powers away from the Central Government to more local bodies of Government, has been used across many different areas of policy and by many different national governments. This paper examines the devolution of transport powers to the existing Local Traffic Authorities in England via the 2004 Traffic Management Act. The paper first presents a summary of how several different nations have undertaken this process of devolving transport powers and responsibilities to either new or existing bodies. It then presents research from an electronic survey concerning how English Local Traffic Aut‘horities are choosing to use some of the new powers available to them and their opinion on complementary areas of transport policy. Research is also presented from structured telephone interviews, concerning how individual Local Authorities perceive the efficacy and equity of the new legislation. Overall, the results show that only some of these new powers are likely to be used by English Local Authorities, with limited variation in how different types of LTA are choosing to implement these new powers. The structured telephone interviews provided some evidence that rural Authorities in particular are more dissatisfied with the legislation and consider some of the measures unhelpful. The results provide some insights on the formulation of devolved policy applicable to existing Local Government bodies and the varying benefits that can be perceived to apply to different types of Local Authority. Conclusions are drawn on some of the practical difficulties arising from the English experience, and lessons of relevance are drawn for other nations considering a similar devolution of transport powers. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Devolution is defined by the dictionary as ‘‘transference (as of rights, powers, property, or responsibility) to another; especially: the surrender of powers to Local Authorities by a central government’’ (Merriam Webster dictionary 2009). Whilst this process is sometimes undertaken for political reasons (see for example Guibernau, 2009), within the transport policy arena, it is generally undertaken to make use of the productive efficiency that can be achieved from a local level (see for example Tiebout (1956)). Existing literature provides us with several examples of where National Governments have transferred transport powers and responsibilities to either new or existing ‘local’ units of the Government. In the USA, new bodies, in the form of Metropolitan Planning Organisations (MPOs), were created by the 1991 US Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These new bodies were provided with a legal role in the planning and the delivery of transport matters for all US conurbations of more than 50,000 people (Wolf and Farquhar, 2005). The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) further reformed MPOs by mandating collaboration between different transport planning bodies to improve overall service delivery (see for example Department for Transport, 1998; Taylor and Scheitzer, 2005). Reactions to the efficacy of MPOs vary amongst different published works. Whilst there is general agreement that MPOs have a positive benefit on steering transportation using their mandated powers, they do operate with some difficulties. Taylor and Scheitzer (2005), for example, cite their use of local knowledge as beneficial when implementing policy as the ARTICLE IN PRESS Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol Transport Policy 0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.11.001 n Corresponding authors. Present address: Atkins Highways & Transportation, Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 5BW, UK. Tel.: + 44 1372 756 726; fax: + 44 1372 756 607. E-mail address: paul.e.canning@atkinsglobal.com (P.E. Canning). Transport Policy 17 (2010) 64–71