A Patchwork Quilt that works?

Empowering Scotland’s Regional Transport and Economic Partnerships

Scotland’s recovery and future prosperity depend on strong regional cooperation in transport, economic development and public services. Rather than dismantling the seven Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs), a question posed by a recent Scottish Labour policy paper, RTPs which were created specifically to plan and deliver transport across travel-to-work areas we should revitalise them, giving them new resources and clearer roles.

I’d argue argue that RTPs remain “uniquely placed to deliver sustainable, inclusive mobility solutions” and to link transport with local jobs, education and wellbeing. This paper explores how to strengthen regional structures by integrating transport, economic and planning bodies, tweaking boundaries where sensible, and deepening local accountability all without scrapping existing RTPs. In particular, we consider options like merging the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) with 2 regional economic partnerships, and ensuring RTPs work hand-in-hand with the new Regional Economic Partnerships (REPs). I’m all for co-terminist geographies where possible but live is messy and we need to also be open to asymmetry in structures if it leads to better symmetry of outcomes

The Role of Regional Transport Partnerships

Regional Transport Partnerships were established by the last Labour/LibDem Scottish Government in mid-noughties to rightly bridge the gap between national strategy and local delivery. They bring together multiple councils and stakeholders to plan across council boundaries, reflecting actual travel patterns and economic regions.

For example, SPT covers Greater Glasgow and the West of Scotland; SEStran covers Edinburgh and the Lothians; and HITRANS covers the Highlands, Islands and parts of Argyll. Each RTP prepares a Regional Transport Strategy and delivery plan, aiming to coordinate road, rail, bus, ferry and active‐travel projects in its area. In Transport Scotland’s words, RTPs were created to strengthen the planning and delivery of regional transport developments by forging a joint board of councils that can act strategically at a larger scale. In practice, RTPs should have the freedom to invest in things like network planning, bus stations, cycle paths and pilot services, and sometimes even operate key infrastructure, for instance, SPT runs the Glasgow Subway and major bus stations in the west of Scotland.

Because people’s daily lives often cross council borders, regional planning is essential. RTPs recognise the reality of travel-to-work areas and commuting zones, whether in Glasgow’s commuter belt or on remote islands. By taking a regional perspective, they ensure investment matches local needs for instance, improving rural ferry links, coordinating suburban bus routes across several towns, or developing continuous cycling corridors connecting smaller towns. This approach also supports a shift towards sustainable travel. If bus routes and bike lanes are planned only within individual councils, important connections can be missed. In contrast, an RTP can prioritise a long-distance bus route that serves a deprived suburb in one town and connects it to jobs in a city centre next door. It can plan an active travel network that threads safely through multiple local authority areas. In short, RTPs operate on the principle of subsidiarity: decisions are made as close to people as possible, but with a coherent regional strategy which best reflects real live and real geographies of where people live, work and learn.

Risks of Abolishing or Diluting RTPs

Some recent proposals have suggested scrapping or merging these regional bodies, on the assumption that central government or local councils could take over their duties. However, experts warn that fully centralising transport planning risks losing touch with local conditions. A “one-size-fits-all” national model may focus on headline rail or road projects, but it often overlooks the “last-mile” challenges that matter to ordinary people. For example, island and remote communities have very different needs: demand-responsive shuttles or maintained ferry links, than dense urban corridors. Low‐income and rural households, who tend to own fewer cars, would suffer if strategic coordination disappears. Indeed, the dominance of cars already imposes hidden costs on vulnerable groups. Transport Scotland have previously noted that reducing private car use can make Scotland healthier, fairer, [and] greener, since those on low incomes typically drive less but suffer more from pollution and lack of mobility options.

Removing RTPs would also risk disconnecting transport planning from regional economic and social strategies. Key industries like tourism, forestry or offshore energy are often located in sparsely populated areas; they rely on freight networks and shift-based labour. Without a regional body, no single local council might see it as its job to fund or co-ordinate a new bus service that connects rural workers to their jobs, or to plan a freight route that supports local businesses. Similarly, college campuses and apprenticeships draw students from wide areas: inter-council coordination through an RTP can help align bus schedules with class times or shift patterns. By contrast, centralised agencies may overlook these local dynamics or not be place-based enough to have the details on those dynamics.

Finally, RTPs have offered a forum for democratic debate and community input on transport. Local politicians, business leaders and citizens sit on RTP boards alongside technical advisers. This structure fosters accountability, public scrutiny and buy-in and in recent years we have seen efforts to make these strcutures more equitable and inclusive and reflective of the communities they serve. Decisions on things like where to site a park-and-ride, certain groups feeling of safety on certain modes of transport or where to focus active travel funding can be contested in public meetings. This transparency helps avoid the perception that policies are imposed from Holyrood without regard for place. If RTPs were simply abolished, these formal local voices would be lost, at a time when trust and inclusion are critical for getting people onto public transport and bikes and out of their cars, to meet our net zero ambitions?

Integrating Transport with Regional Economic Partnerships

Instead of dismantling RTPs, a smarter approach is to better integrate them into regional governance. In 2021–2023, the Scottish Government helped set up Regional Economic Partnerships (REPs) in eight areas. These REPs bring together councils, local businesses, colleges and enterprise agencies to drive region-wide economic strategy, often aligned with City/Region Growth Deals.

For example, the Highlands & Islands REP (HIREP) includes Highlands and Islands Enterprise, councils and academic institutions; the South of Scotland REP includes Dumfries & Galloway and Scottish Borders stakeholders; and an Ayrshire REP is now in place for the three Ayrshire councils. As part of a national review, experts recommended empowering these REPs with more autonomy, joint working and streamlined funding and the Scottish Government in this year’s Programme for Government have said they will bring more detail forward on how to make this happen before the forthcoming Holyrood election. It makes sense for RTPs to closely coordinate with the REPs covering the same geography.

A joint RTP–REP governance model could deliver real synergy. Transport is a backbone of any economic plan – it affects job accessibility, education, healthcare and logistics – yet it often sits in a silo. A combined committee governance or merged entity could align transport planning with labour-market strategies, investment in infrastructure, and climate goals. Concretely, this could mean:

• Job-access schemes: Bus and train timetables could be aligned with shift patterns in local industries (e.g. in tourism, hospitality or renewable energy), ensuring workers can reach plants and offices when needed.

• Skills and education transport: Regional bodies could subsidise travel for apprentices, trainees or remote learners, making vocational education accessible across wide areas.

• Freight and logistics planning: A regional strategy could target efficient goods movements, such as designing greener trucking corridors that support manufacturing hubs or food producers.

• Green infrastructure: Decarbonisation plans could be joined up. For instance, an RTP might develop an electric bus charging network with input from grid specialists and local energy firms represented in the REP.

• Community transport: Local community groups could work through the RTP to pilot demand-responsive services in coordination with economic development grants from the REP.

This converged approach has multiple advantages. It cuts duplication (rather than separate transport and economic committees, one co-convened entity handles both – think Health and Social Care partnerships maybe?). It pools budgets and data. It cements transport as a core pillar of a “CWB and wellbeing economy” approach keeping jobs, spending and skills development focused locally. In fact, previous regional development reviews highlighted that other countries use devolved bodies to boost local economies, and urged Scottish regions to do the same. By preserving RTPs but formally linking them to REPs, Scotland could make its regions “stronger and more entrepreneurial,” ensuring that every pound invested yields maximum local benefit.

Options for Reform: Tweaking Boundaries and Merging Bodies

In reforming regional structures, small boundary adjustments and mergers can be considered. The goal is to better align governance with how people live and work, without unnecessarily splintering effective organisations. For example, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) region is one of the largest transport areas, covering Glasgow City, West Dunbartonshire, East and West Renfrewshire, East, North and South Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute, and parts of Lanarkshire. Rather than break SPT up, an option is to merge it in a co-governance with adjacent economic partnerships. One practical proposal is to incorporate SPT into two complementary REPs: a “Glasgow and West Scotland” REP and an “Ayrshire & South West Scotland” REP, reflecting major travel-to-work corridors. SPT would not change it would carry it’s existing transport functions, while also taking on regional economic development roles for their sub-region. This keeps the travel planning expertise of SPT intact, but strengthens its business and community mandate through closer ties to the REPs.

Other RTPs could see similar calibrated changes. For instance, HITRANS already overlaps the Highlands & Islands REP; giving the combined body more transport powers could avoid duplication.  SEStran (Edinburgh area) might formally align with an Edinburgh REP. Even small boundary tweaks such as adjusting which council areas belong to which partnership could improve coherence. The key is to respect existing regional identities (e.g. the notion of “Greater Glasgow” or “Highlands & Islands”) while integrating economic strategy. Any such merger or realignment should follow the principle of local consent: councils and citizens would need to back the change, as suggested by Scotland Government/COSLA Local Governance Review principles.

Several complementary reforms could bolster RTP effectiveness:

• Statutory powers and funding: Ensure RTPs (or merged RTP-REP bodies) have not only statutory authority to hold funds for capital projects but there is political will for them to do so, maintenance reserves and insurance (as is now allowed under the Transport (Scotland) Act). This gives regions predictability and responsibility.

• Enhanced decision-making: Devolve more decision powers to regions on issues like bus franchising or major infrastructure funding and an individual/collective ability to use the power of general competence. This was recommended in previous regional review and could allow local leaders to act quickly.

• Cross-sector integration: Further embed representation on RTP boards from health services, education, housing and enterprise agencies. For example, NHS board members or college representatives could sit alongside councillors to ensure transport planning supports wider social goals (like health access or learning routes). This is a tweak to the Boards current numbers and split between councillor and non-councillor members.

• Community involvement: Maintain and deepen local consultation obligations. RTPs should be supported with funding and training to engage citizens, cycling groups, disability advocates and businesses, ensuring plans reflect on-the-ground needs, building on previous co-design pilots.

• Performance accountability: Introduce regional transport performance targets that complement national goals. RTPs could report annually on metrics like rural mobility, bus punctuality or active travel uptake, aligning with a regional wellbeing economy or CWB prosperity or inequality metrics.

In choosing and combining these options, the outcome should be stronger, not weaker regional bodies. For example, creating a “West Scotland Combined Authority” with an elected mayor has been suggested (in the style of Manchester or London). While mayoral models have merits, an interim approach could be more modest: simply merge SPT and local 2 REPs into a joint regional board with rotating leadership between councils, rather than waiting years to set up a new political office. The existing RTP constitution (as joint boards of councillors and appointed experts) already resembles a mini-authority; building on it could be quicker than full reorganisation.

Delivering Health, Equity and Sustainability

Crucially, empowered regional transport structures directly support health and wellbeing. Accessible transit means people can reach medical appointments, schools and jobs, which improves life chances and public health. For instance, SEStran notes that in South-East Scotland transport improvements are making healthcare more reachable and tackling social isolation in rural villages. Regional bodies can prioritise “transport to health” initiatives, like dedicated shuttle buses or telehealth hubs with transport links, which single councils cannot coordinate effectively yet are vital if you want to make Christie Commission outcomes a reality across Scotland.

Active travel, walking, cycling should be central as well given the recent population health framework published and championed last month by COSLA and Scottish Government. Across Scotland, experts observe that more cars on the road harm everyone’s health through accidents, air and noise pollution, and sedentary lifestyles. Transport Scotland’s climate plan explicitly highlights that a modal shift away from cars brings multiple benefits: safer roads, cleaner air, more physical activity, and revitalised town centres. Because low-income and vulnerable groups are least likely to own cars, an investment in regional cycling and public transport is inherently progressive. An RTP, sensitive to local topography and commuting patterns, can create continuous cycle networks linking housing estates to workplaces, schools and clinics. It can coordinate “bike + public transport” schemes such as bike parking at bus hubs across council lines or regional modal shift Apps and infrastructure.

Freight and logistics, too, benefit from regional thinking. Industries from manufacturing to farming depend on reliable road and rail freight. An RTP can work with businesses and ports to develop a regional freight strategy for example, setting up freight quality partnerships that optimise goods movement, shifting heavy freight off local roads onto rail where possible. Likewise, energy and resource projects: fisheries, space offshore wind, forestry often span large areas; a regional authority can ensure transport planning supports these key sectors. Without RTPs, such freight concerns might never rise above fragmented local planning.

Finally, empowering regional bodies builds community wealth. By keeping transport planning more local and place-based, more money circulates in local supply chains for example, contracting local firms for bus services or bike-share systems. This aligns with Scotland’s “Community Wealth Building” philosophy: regions that control their infrastructure can tailor it to lift inclusive prosperity. For example, a joint regional transport-economy body could require social value from contractors e.g. training opportunities for local residents when building a new tram line. It could prioritise services that connect deprived areas to jobs, as other community transport programmes have successfully done elsewhere. These place-based strategies ensure transport investment contributes directly to tackling inequality, not just moving vehicles.

Conclusion: Strengthening Regions, Not Weakening Them

The goal of reform must be about outcomes and should be about strong, democratically accountable place-based partnerships, not centralised bureaucracies. The case for scrapping RTPs is outweighed by the benefits they provide to everyday citizens from reliable transport and safe cycleways, to keeping jobs within reach and long-term planning and tought leadership. Instead of abolition, Scotland needs a renewed regional framework that brings together transport and economic strategy. That might mean modest boundary changes or even melting certain boundaries to fit (for instance, combining SPT’s with two adjacent Regional Economic Partnerships through governance), but always with an eye on subsidiarity and local empowerment.

Adopting this approach would help unlock the full potential of Scotland’s regions. It would drive the modal shift to low-carbon travel needed for net-zero, improve public health, and ensure rural and urban populations alike can access work and education. Most of all, it would give communities a genuine voice in shaping how their places work and grow. As I put it previously/ provocatively put it, we must revitalise our regional partnerships rather than abolish them if we are to secure Scotland’s transport and economic future. The time has come to act on that provocation: by empowering RTPs through strategic integration with REPs, smarter governance and adequate funding, we lay the groundwork for resilient regional economies and healthier, happier communities across Scotland.

That will never happen…

Scotland’s Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs) offer a strong precedent for how co-governance can work across sectors. Created by legislation in 2014, HSCPs bring together councils and health boards to jointly plan and deliver services through shared budgets and integrated strategic plans. They’ve shown that it’s possible to align leadership, funding and accountability across traditionally separate systems in a way that’s tailored to local needs, not perfect but what situation is in the messy but positive world of public services

This model has clear relevance for transport and economic development. Just as HSCPs coordinate health and care to improve wellbeing, Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs) and Regional Economic Partnerships (REPs) could be brought together into Regional Prosperity Partnerships. These new bodies would oversee travel-to-work infrastructure, economic strategy, and community wealth-building, all under shared governance, pooled investment, and a single regional plan.

The HSCP experience shows that integration works best when it's statutory, locally driven, and focused on outcomes. It’s a reminder that Scotland already has the tools, and the precedent, to do joined-up regional delivery at scale so why wouldn’t we with RTPs?