If you spend much time watching Westminster, you’d be forgiven for thinking nothing is happening elsewhere.
But take a look at strategic transport authorities in 2026, and you’ll see something far more impactful than political drama.
The City-Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS), the £5.7bn five-year programme launched in 2022, is quietly giving way to its successor: Transport for the City Regions (TCR).
CRSTS did what it said on the tin. It provided steady, largely predictable capital funding. Greater Manchester, for example, received just over £200m a year. Not insignificant, nor wildly volatile. Combined authorities could plan around it.
TCR is different in two ways, the first being that it’s much, much larger. Across seven years, it amounts to around £15.6bn for eight established strategic authorities. Secondly, the profile ramps up. In some areas, transport budgets increase by up to 25% year on year before peaking towards the end of the Spending Review period.
By 2029/30, Greater Manchester’s transport allocation is just under £500m for that year alone. In combined authority terms, that is a serious annual envelope. And this isn’t confined to Manchester. The West Midlands, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and others see similar upward curves.
So far, so good. More money, longer horizons, greater responsibility. That was always the direction of travel for devolution.
But there is a detail worth dwelling on.
The 10% Question
Under the new integrated settlements, established strategic authorities can move up to 10% between funding pots each year.
Transport now sits within a broader capital envelope alongside housing, regeneration, skills and net zero.
Take a simplified Greater Manchester example for 2026/27:
- Transport: £350m
- Housing & regeneration: £100m
- Skills: £140m
- Net zero: £50m
Ten per cent flexibility may not sound dramatic, but in practice, it could mean tens of millions of pounds can shift depending on local priorities.
If housing pressures intensify, some transport funding could move. If transport schemes are politically central, funding for transport could rise. Either way, the allocation is no longer simply determined in Whitehall and handed down fully formed.
It becomes a local political judgement.
Where Decisions Now Sit
Despite 10 years of transport devolution, until now, the transport sector’s centre of gravity has been national. Funding structures were defined by the Department for Transport, and engagement strategies reflected that reality.
As envelopes grow and flexibility increases, more of the decisive conversations move into mayoral offices and combined authority leadership teams.
Transport schemes will increasingly be considered not only on technical merit, but on how they contribute to:
- Housing delivery
- Regeneration outcomes
- Skills pipelines
- Net zero commitments
And crucially, how they contribute to a mayor’s overall growth narrative. If a scheme cannot survive a discussion about whether 10% should be moved elsewhere, it’s exposed.
The firms that understand mayoral politics will shape the next decade of transport delivery, while the firms that don’t will simply bid for what others have already defined.
That may sound blunt. But it’s also increasingly accurate.
Eight Different Political Economies
There are now eight established strategic authorities with meaningful fiscal weight.
Each has its own leadership style, internal dynamics and priorities. What lands in the West Midlands will not automatically resonate in West Yorkshire. What works in Greater Manchester may not carry in the North East.
For organisations operating in this space, the question is no longer simply: what is the funding total?
It is:
- Who shapes the mayor’s strategic direction?
- How is transport positioned relative to housing and regeneration?
- How do we protect this scheme if the mayor takes 10% out of the funding pot?
- Which authorities are likely to gain greater flexibility next?
These are political and institutional questions as much as financial ones.
The next phase of transport delivery will be shaped less by national programme design and more by local trade-offs within integrated settlements. Understanding that shift, and positioning accordingly, is now part of the job.
At Inflect, we work with combined authorities and mayoral teams across England. We see how these decisions are made, how priorities are set, and how narratives are constructed.
Because in this environment, knowing that there is money available is only the starting point.
Knowing how it is allocated is what really matters.