PROPOSED BUS REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Glasgow City Council Response

1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate yes/no/undecided and
explain the reasons for your response.
Yes - Glasgow City Council welcomes the proposed Bill and is supportive of legislation that provides a
workable mechanism to maintain and enhance socially necessary bus services. Whilst the current
bus market is generally effective at meeting mainstream demand (i.e. commuters) there are a number
of deficiencies that have become more apparent in the current economic climate as service levels
have contracted - i.e. absence of evening & weekend services, access to healthcare and serving new
development areas. With constraints in the public purse, the ability for local transport authorities to
intervene by providing tendered services is limited. Legislation that gives the local transport authority
the ability to regulate bus services within their area and to the benefit of the passenger should
alleviate current deficiencies. With the significant sums of public funding support being provided to
the bus industry in the form of concessionary travel and infrastructure (e.g. Streamline Quality Bus
Corridors), legislation should also be updated to take account of the need to demonstrate best value.
2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What would be the
disadvantages?
Minimum level of service
The provision of a minimum level of service should address the primary passenger concerns relating
to the absence of evening and weekend services on certain routes, especially in outlying areas that
can become isolated to those residents without access to a car. By setting a minimum level of
service, the need for local transport authority intervention could be reduced and allow these released
funds to redirected to the funding of other socially necessary but wholly unprofitable services and
infrastructure across the route network. Creating a stable route network and level of service would
also give the public greater confidence in buses, where the current system of regular changes can
create confusion to potential customers - services should ideally be registered for a minimum of 6
months, and for changes no more than 4 times a year. Whilst operators may see a commercial
disadvantage, a consistent and reliable level of service throughout the week could persuade car
drivers to consider the bus as an option - thereby generating additional patronage and revenues for
the bus operators, as well as according with local and national polices to reduce car usage / carbon
emissions.
Financial penalties
Certainly greater financial penalties should be applied to operators that fail to meet service
obligations, which would act as a deterrent to those operators that fail to provide an appropriate
service to the public.
Removing the need to prove market failure
The power for a local transport authority to take control of a local bus market currently exists in
legislation, through the auspices of a Statutory Quality Contract, providing it can be demonstrated to
the Scottish Ministers that there is market failure. Proving market failure is subjective and difficult
to prove - a primary reason why to date no Statutory Quality Contract has been introduced in
Scotland, England or Wales. There are many areas of Scotland where there is no real competition,
which removes any incentive for the incumbent operator to focus upon service enhancement /
passenger needs. In these locations there should be greater transparency and partnership with the
local transport authority to ensure that public sector funding is meeting best value. However with the
need to comply with competition law, it is envisaged that some form of test will still be necessary.

/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/253612656.doc

Provide scope for transport authorities to run services as they see fit
Local transport authorities should be able to develop and if necessary implement bus route networks
for their areas that meet the social and transport needs of their local residents, which can form the
basis of partnership working with local operators to achieve the desired outcomes. As profit is the
primary focus of the operator, the social dimension is often diminished and risk adverse practices are
normally adopted that do not result in passenger growth. In the case of new development areas,
where bus operators are normally reluctant to introduce new or diverted services, the local transport
authority should have the ability to introduce new services (the funding of which could be fully or
partially supported by the developers). Mechanisms that allow these services to revert to the bus
market when profitable should be achievable once the original set up costs have been recouped.
Franchising profitable and non-profitable routes
The main disadvantage relates to the ability, in legal and financial terms, to bundle profitable and
non-profitable routes. Whilst the London model of franchising appears to be the best model for crosssubsidisation, there are significant costs and risks for the public sector. A preliminary review of Quality
Contracts / bus franchising was undertaken by the consultant AECOM for SPT in March 2012. This
study identified the higher levels of public subsidy for buses in London (690M in 2009/10) that is
unlikely to be achievable for Scotland in terms of competing pressures for public funds, as well as the
additional staffing / management costs to the local transport authority. Operators would no doubt
seek financial compensation for the loss of one of their key assets and source of revenue - the routes.
The typical dominance of a single operator in a particular area is also likely to be a barrier in attracting
competitive bids from new operators - the incumbent operator has the advantage of an established
fleet, staff and depots that any new operator would generally have to set up or bring into a new area.
Further work is needed to assess and minimise the level of risk being transferred from the private to
the public sector. For each local transport authority area, detailed study of the demand for passenger
transport is needed - from this an ideal route network can be determined. The franchising of
individual routes (based upon the identified route network) may be more appropriate as an initial
measure than the bundling of routes and enable the primary problem of evening & weekend services
deficiencies to be tackled with less resistance from the incumbent operator. However cross
subsidisation methods need to be investigated further.
Service Stability
A key problem the Council currently faces is when a bus route is removed and no bus service
operates along a section of route. This leaves the Council with infrastructure, lining, flag, shelter, high
access kerbs, etc. The decision then has to be taken if this infrastructure is removed at the Councils
expense or remains with the hope that a service is provided but then provides an impression to
members of the public that a bus route operates along a route.
3. In what ways do you envisage re-regulation being used to improve bus services?
In Glasgow, the Statutory Quality Partnership (SQP) jointly developed by the City Council and SPT for
the Citys Streamline Quality Bus Routes has greatly improved the quality of service. In partnership
with the bus industry, new buses and associated facilities have been procured that has improved the
attractiveness of buses to the public. However, the SQP does not allow the public sector to have
sufficient input towards the routes and frequency of service during the various peak / off-peak periods.
Regulation that makes the implementation of these Partnerships easier and more transparent would
enable these benefits to be rolled out across the network and justify / deliver a greater return on public
sector investment.

/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/253612656.doc

4. How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities and particularly low
passenger volume routes?
For low passenger volume routes and niche services, community transport can be more effective (in
terms of cost and passenger experience) than traditional tendered services. The challenge is one of
funding, which primarily comes through the local transport authorities. Where a community transport
service takes over the evening or weekend service remit of a single or multiple commercial daytime
service(s), a mechanism to draw down funding support for the local operators could address the local
transport authority funding issues. Potential shared service working between the local transport
authority, council social work and NHS patient transport service fleets could further reduce operating
costs and provide better integration.
5. Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to impose greater financial penalties on
operators who a) fail to meet the terms of the franchise or b) walk away from the franchise altogether?
Yes to both points.
6. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your
organisation? What other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
The adoption of a London style franchising model would generate significant costs to the public purse.
Additional funding would be required for the local transport authorities to regulate the bus network and
deliver the infrastructure to support partnership working with the bus industry. A mechanism to extract
funding from profitable routes could ease the burden but would no doubt be challenged by the
operators.
7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it
is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
Improving accessibility and connectivity through renewed regulation should have a positive implication
for equality - e.g. low income, disabled and the elderly who can suffer exclusion due to the absence of
evening and weekend bus services.
8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for or detail of this Bill?
Reference should be made to the following Council / SPT committee reports for additional background
information:
http://www.accessglasgow.org/councillorsandcommittees/submissiondocuments.asp?submissionid=59437
http://www.accessglasgow.org/councillorsandcommittees/submissiondocuments.asp?submissionid=57678
http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/sp230312_agenda10.pdf
http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/op090312_agenda8.pdf
http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/rtp100212_agenda7.pdf
http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/rtp091211_agenda10.pdf
http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/op110311_agenda11.pdf

/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/253612656.doc