Research Highlights and Abstract This article provides the first detailed and evidence-based account of the coalition government's approach to transport-related carbon management. It exposes the existence of a ‘governance vacuum’ between the statutory target and a very weak devolved implementation system (i.e. ‘fuzzy governance’ and ‘fuzzy accountability’). Research in four major city regions reveals a systemic switch from an emphasis on carbon management and reduction towards economic growth and job creation. Officials within the policy design and delivery chain emphasise the manner in which the demands of democratic politics tend to frustrate meaningful policy change. A general demand by actors at the local level not for the discretions delivered by localism but for a more robust and centrally managed—even statutory—governance framework. The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport-related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi-level governance with the literature on ‘blame avoidance’ serves to reveal a complex system of ‘fuzzy governance’ and ‘fuzzy accountability’. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub-national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy-makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge.

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.

There has been widespread interest in the potential for the significant behavioural and policy adaptations rendered necessary by Coronavirus to act as a catalyst for radical longer term policy change in transport. However, this body of work to date has been limited in its consideration of how such policy change might be brought about. Translating the lessons from the Coronavirus response to other ongoing strategic challenges such as decarbonisation requires analysis of what the pandemic has revealed about processes of policy formulation and how institutions responsible for policy implementation actually work.

The internationalization of policy regimes and the reorganization of the state have provided new opportunities for cities to bypass nation-state structures and work with other cities internationally. This provides greater opportunity for cities to learn from each other and could be an important stimulus to the transfer of policies across the globe. Few studies exist however which focus on the processes that shape the search for policy lessons and how they are affected by the institutional context within which they are conducted. This paper describes research conducted in the field of urban transport and planning policy across eleven cities in Northern Europe and North America which seeks to explore the motivations for and mechanisms supporting learning about new policies. Thirty policies were examined across the eleven sites using document review and interviews with key actors. The paper explores the search for lessons and the learning process and considers the influences of institutional context, organizational behaviour, and individual cognitive constraints. The process of seeking out and learning policy lessons is defined by individuals operating within a particular policy space and exhibits a number of characteristics of strongly bounded rational choice. The search parameters are significantly influenced by preconceptions of the nature of the preferred solutions and the likelihood of cities in other contexts offering meaningful learning opportunities. Trusted peer networks emerge as critical in overcoming information overload, resource constraints, and uncertainty in the potential for policy transfer. The mobility of policies seems also to be linked to the mobility of the key transfer agents. Cities adopt quite different approaches to engaging with the communities of policy mobilizers which seems likely to impact on the pace and pattern of the movement of policies.