09 Clackmannanshire Council

8/12/2019 09 Clackmannanshire Council

1/5

Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill - Consultation by Ian Gray MSP

Draft Response on behalf of Clackmannanshire Council

Please consider and respond to the following.

1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate yes/no/undecided and

explain the reasons for your response.

Yes. Our experience suggests that deregulation has not worked well in our area, for reasonsexplained later in this submission. We would expect the measures proposed to meet thegeneral aim of achieving a better system.

2. What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What would bethe disadvantages?

Proposal Advantages Disadvantages

Franchising profitable andnon-profitable routes

Would allow the planning ofa bus network which

provides services across anarea, instead of commercial(operator-planned) andtendered (Council-planned)services operating at armslength from each other.

May lead to reduction ofservice frequencies in

densely-populated areas inorder to provide moreopportunities for othercommunities and therebyreduce profitability andincrease subsidy levels.

Minimum level of service

Would address communityand council aspirations(including encouraging amodal shift) and ensureprovision of services at less-popular times.

May reduce profitability andincrease subsidy levels.

Financial penalties

Would help to ensurenetwork stability by inhibitingoperators from poorperformance of, or prematurewithdrawal from, franchises.

Increases operators financialrisk, which may result inhigher tender prices.

Removing the need to provemarket failure

Would remove a majorimpediment to securingbalanced service provision ina given area.

Commercial operators likelyto see this as a majorconstraint on commercialfreedom, which may makebus operation less attractiveas a business activity.

Note that the advantages are both social (see above) and economic (the economic cost ofcongestion and the cost to the public purse of alternative solutions to congestion and socialexclusion), whereas the disadvantages are predominantly economic. There seems to be apolicy issue heredo we wish to secure a bus network that will meet the needs of thegreater part of society, supports social inclusion and encourage a modal shift to publictransport, or, given the current economic climate, do we wish the bus network to provide thebest level of service that can be achieved within current subsidy levels?

3. In what ways do you envisage reregulation being used to improve bus services?

In Clackmannanshire, we would envisage using the proposed powers to ensure a more

equitable distribution of services between communities and to remove a number of networkanomalies, evidence for which is given in response to Question 8. However, this would bedependent upon sufficient budgetary provision being available to meet aspirations.


2/5

These powers are likely to be more useful to authorities whose area contains a mix of smallurban and accessible rural areas than to authorities in densely-populated urban areas orisland and remote rural areas (see response to Question 8).

4. How can community transport be better utilized to serve local communities and particularlylow passenger volume routes?

Community transport comes in a number of different forms, ranging from voluntary carsharing to Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) services operating under local or transportauthority contracts. The kind of community transport that will work best in a given area isdetermined by a number of factors, such as geography, population density, availability ofskills, willingness to engage in voluntary work and historical provision. The main provision ofcommunity transport in Clackmannanshire has been door-to-door transport specifically fordisabled people. However, in partnership with Perth & Kinross Council, we are examiningDRT provision in the Muckhart/Kinross area and are also involved in discussion with severalother agencies on a more general provision of community transport in the area.

5. Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to impose greater financialpenalties on operators who a) fail to meet the terms of the franchise or b) walk away from the

franchise altogether?

Yes. Financial penalties create incentives for operators not only to ensure properperformance, but also to avoid under-pricing bids in order to win contracts that they may notbe able to fulfil within the price they have tendered.

6. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or yourorganisation? What other significant financial implications are likely to arise?

Achievement of a more balanced and attractive public transport system will come at a cost.In the current economic climate, that cost may have to be met by reducing or rebalancingcommitments across other areas of capital and revenue transport spending, such as roadmaintenance or construction or concessionary fares.

In doing so, authorities must again consider the costs to the public purse of the alternativesto a bus network which does not meet the needs of the community, that is:

the costs of congestion to the economy;

the cost of increasing social exclusion; and

The cost of finding alternative solutions to resolve the above.

Decisions on allocation of scarce resources are essentially political. It is for the legislature toset the framework for the kind of society that we wish to see and for the executive to

implement measures to develop that vision.

7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications forequality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimisedor avoided?

There are two main implications for equality:

(a) geographical equality; and

(b) social inclusion, especially in relation to young people, elderly people and disabledpeople.

The measures proposed are likely to increase geographical equality, that is, to ensure thatmost people have a minimum level of service, irrespective of how small or remote theircommunity may be. This effect is generally positive.


3/5

The measures proposed may have both positive and negative implications for socialinclusion. On the positive side, a more equitable distribution of bus services is likely to helpsocial inclusion by benefiting groups of people who tend to be highly dependent on publictransport. The main negative effect would come in the event that decisions were made torestrict benefits or entitlement for concessionary passengers, in order to release funds forinvestment in the network.

8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for or detail of thisBill?

The responses above are based upon a particular view of the successes and failures of thederegulation of bus services in relation to the geographical characteristics of different parts ofScotland. See Appendix 1: Population Density, Settlement Pattern and Bus service provisionin Scotland for data on which this analysis is based.

We believe that deregulation has mainly been successful in:

1. Densely populated urban areas (>5 persons per hectare), accounting for around 45% ofthe Scottish population; and

2. Islands and remote rural areas (


4/5

commercial services along main roads in these communities. This network of commercialservices is predominantly planned and controlled by First Scotland East Ltd and MackiesCoaches of Alloa, who operate competing services along the main corridors.

The historical ribbon development of some of these communities has encouraged publictransport provision along main roads only. However, most of these communities have areasof 1960s/70s Council-built housing and more recent private developments that lie further

away from main roads. These areas are served by Council-subsidised services. However,these services are of much lower frequency than the commercial main-road services andtheir routes are meandering in parts, in order to avoid competition with commercial servicesalong main roads.

Cambus and Glenochil: these communities, like the parts of Alloa, etc. lying further awayfrom main roads, are served by low-frequency Council-subsidised services takingmeandering routes.

Dollar and Kennet: these communities are served by low-frequency Council-subsidisedservices and also by low-frequency commercial services primarily providing inter-urbanStirlingDunfermline and Stirling - St Andrews links.

Forestmill: this community lies within a low-density rural area that currently has no publictransport provision.

New housing areas: in recent years, several new housing areas have been developed inand around Alloa. These have proved difficult to serve unless they lie along existing busroutes. Commercial operators are generally reluctant to extend or divert their services intothese areas, as they fear that passenger uptake will be low (due largely to an expectation ofhigh levels of car ownership in these areas) and existing passengers may be lost if journeysare lengthened or made less direct. Any Council-supported service would have to avoidcompeting with commercial services, which is not easy to achieve in a small urban areawithout devious routes or stopping restrictions.

Some common themes run through all of these examples:

1. No single organisation or partnership plans and controls the overall bus service network.

2. Competition law inhibits operators and local authorities from adopting a partnershipapproach, as opposed to a purchaser-supplier relationship.

3. The disjointed nature of the deregulated network can prevent adoption of the bestsolutions, as these are dependent upon the ability to plan the network as a whole. Inparticular, subsidised services are obliged to take long, meandering routes in order to linkcommercially unserved areas and avoid competition issues on the main corridors.

David BrownStirling & Clackmannanshire CouncilsPublic Transport UnitBus Station, Goosecroft Road,STIRLING FK8 1PF

31 July 2013


5/5

Appendix 1: Population Density, Settlement Pattern and Bus service provision in Scotland

Local Authority

Populationdensity(number

of personsper

hectare)1Share of

population

Predominantsettlement

patternBus serviceprovision

Effect ofderegulation

Glasgow City 32.93

44.5% Dense urbanPredominantly

commercial

Successful -generally one

dominantoperator plansand controls

bulk of network

Dundee City 24.35

Edinburgh, City of 17.01

Aberdeen City 11.42

North Lanarkshire 6.83

Renfrewshire 6.62

East Dunbartonshire 6.20

West Dunbartonshire 5.88

Inverclyde 5.25

East Renfrewshire 5.14

Falkirk 4.88

48.2%Small urban

and accessiblerural

Mixedcommercial and

tendered

Unsuccessful -no one agencycontriols bulk of

network. Mix ofcommercial and

tenderedservices has

resuled in sub-optimal service

provision

West Lothian 3.71

Clackmannanshire 3.03

Fife 2.64

Midlothian 2.29

South Lanarkshire 1.71

North Ayrshire 1.53

East Lothian 1.33East Ayrshire 0.95

South Ayrshire 0.92

Angus 0.50

Moray 0.39

Stirling 0.39

Aberdeenshire 0.36

Perth & Kinross 0.26

Dumfries & Galloway 0.23

Scottish Borders 0.23

Orkney Islands 0.19

7.3%Island and

remote ruralPredominantly

tendered

Successful -generally localauthority plansand controls

bulk of network

Shetland Islands 0.15

Argyll & Bute 0.13

Eilean Siar 0.09

Highland 0.08

SCOTLAND 0.65 100.0%

1 Source:www.scrol,gov.uk,Table UV02 Population density
http://www.scrol%2Cgov.uk/http://www.scrol%2Cgov.uk/

Documents

09 Clackmannanshire Council