Bus Service Improvement Partnerships
The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of partnership working between LTAs and operators to help improve and expand bus services. The 2019 Act provided for a new type of statutory partnership in the form of Bus Service Improvement Partnerships (BSIPs). To commence the provisions on BSIPs set out in the 2019 Act and make these operational, regulations are required to further develop certain aspects of the model and this consultation invited views on a number of key additional features of BSIPs to be provided for in forthcoming regulations and guidance.
Before a decision is taken to proceed with a BSIP, the LTA should consider the range of options available to them to ensure they choose the best for their local circumstances. A BSIP would be underpinned by a partnership plan, which is formulated by the LTA with the operators in their area, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. The new provisions outlined that a partnership scheme or schemes should be made alongside the plan to assist in its implementation and the plan should make reference to how this will help in achieving its objectives. The next consultation question asked:
Question 3: Do you have any further comments in relation to the form and content of plans and schemes?
Forty-four respondents commented on this question. A large minority (consisting mainly of local authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs)) generally welcomed the form and content of plans and schemes and the broad range of provisions which can be included in a BSIP, though most of these added the caveat that there was a need for flexibility to accommodate local and regional circumstances. A desire for comprehensive consultation across the community (in particular in local areas) was expressed; it was also suggested that passengers should be involved in decision-making.
There were a significant number of remarks (mainly from local authorities) about the suggestion in the consultation document that an LTA should consider all the options available before taking a decision to proceed with a BSIP. The act of assessing other options was regarded as an unnecessary and costly exercise, particularly when considering franchising. One local authority commented:
“There appears to be nothing in the 2019 Act which requires an Authority to consider all the options available before making a BSIP. Clearly it would be common sense not to introduce a BSIP if the Authority was considering a franchising arrangement for the same area in the near future, but given that a BSIP does not preclude other tools from being used, and has less impact on the market than franchising or (potentially) introducing in-house services, there should be no need for this requirement to be formalised.”
However, a significant minority of respondents (particularly trade union or campaigning organisations) stated that they preferred franchising or local authority run bus services and that proportionate funding should be made available. Furthermore, there were suggestions that LTAs should be able to revoke a partnership scheme (e.g. due to poor performance), without bus companies having a right of veto, if they are creating a franchising scheme or other new operating model. It should be noted that the consultation highlights that the 2019 Act includes a specific provision about the change of operating model allowing for the LTA to revoke a partnership scheme if they are making a franchising scheme without complying with the requirements in Schedule A1.
A significant minority of respondents (again, mainly trade union or campaign organisations) viewed BSIPs in a negative light, suggesting they were flawed, would maintain the policy of bus deregulation, and would keep private companies in the driving seat regarding control over routes, fares and timetables. Other perceived negatives were that BSIPs would not address high fares and lack of services to underserved areas, and would result in a wasteful, fragmented and unaccountable system.
Other comments about BSIPs, partnership plans and partnership schemes were only made by small numbers of respondents as follows:
- Requests to make BSIPs time-limited (in order that parties avoid being locked in to the initial agreement if performance objectives aren’t being achieved); a trade union / campaign organisation commented that “The final box in the flowchart says that BSIPs can end “subject to agreement from operators”. This is incorrect. This is neither in the Act or the explanatory notes to the Act and must be removed from the Guidance without fail. Partnership schemes can include provision for the revocation of the partnership, setting out what will happen when the operators do not meet specified expectations (a ‘prenup’ agreement)”.
- Requests for further clarification on the distinction between partnership plans and partnership schemes; although the consultation suggests a scheme is not an essential accompaniment to a plan, an operator suggested that without a scheme, service standards cannot be imposed on the plan.
- Requests for schemes to be properly costed, so that operators can make informed decisions on the feasibility and sustainability of them (Regional Transport Partnership).
- Requests for more information on the interface with existing bus partnerships or the Bus Partnership Fund, with some disquiet expressed about adoption of the BSIP as being the main criteria for accessing the Bus Partnership Fund.
- A need for BSIPs to be fully transparent, with a suggestion to include the Traffic Commissioner in the accountability framework.
- A need to measure scheme/plan performance (e.g. by benefits accrued, anti-poverty measures, climate change effect, monetary value).
- Concerns about further BSIP regulation making the content of plans and schemes restrictive.
- Concerns about perceived government preference towards BSIPs than for other types of bus schemes (e.g. questions in the current consultation being geared towards BSIPs).
- Concerns about a perceived threat of unfair competition from local authority operators on existing commercial operators (e.g. benefitting from public money, unequal playing field for tendering of services, etc.).
Finally, there were a few more general requests for bus service improvements: these included fare reductions or restrictions to fare increases; catering for poorly serviced rural areas; further integration of transport networks (e.g. buses with trains); and investing in bus infrastructure such as traffic signal priority and smart technology.
Preparation, variation and revocation of plans and schemes
The consultation paper noted that a new schedule A1 outlined the procedures to be followed in relation to the preparation, making, variation and revocation of plans and schemes, including requirements for consultation and the publication of notices. Respondents were then asked:
Question 4: Do you have any additional comments relating to the procedures for the preparation, making, postponement, variation and revocation of plans and schemes? Please include any comments on matters that may be helpful to consider for inclusion in secondary legislation.
A total of 33 respondents chose to comment on question four. A relatively small number of respondents made specific remarks relating to parts of the procedures for plans and schemes; most made either more general comments about BSIPs or restated their preferred positions regarding bus services.
A significant minority of respondents, comprised of local authorities and regional transport partnerships, welcomed or reinforced the need for flexibility in the procedures, emphasising that plans and schemes need to be dynamic to meet unforeseen changes in circumstances. A local authority stated a need for sufficient flexibility within the description of consultees for LTAs to add in additional consultees if desired; and a local authority and a regional transport partnership desired to enable changes to the objectives and measures in line with due process and agreement of BSIP members. In similar vein, a few respondents were against further BSIP regulation as it was felt this would be too restrictive.
A small number of local authorities, regional transport partnerships and operators requested guidance on the appropriate duration of a BSIP, in order to ensure continuity of transport provision and minimise disruption for local communities in the event of changes to plans and schemes; almost the same respondents requested information about timescales for monitoring or reviewing a BSIP’s progress.
A small number of respondents, belonging to the sub-groups detailed below, made specific comments about the procedures for revocation of plans and schemes. The following opinions were given by one or two respondents each:
- All partners involved in making the plans should be able to have a say on revoking them / all need to agree on revoking or making major changes. (Local Authority and Operator)
- LTAs must be able to revoke a partnership scheme if making a franchising scheme or new operating model without the agreement of operators. (Trade Union/Campaign organisation)
- Partnership schemes should set out the conditions in which revocation should be considered and place a time limit on the life of the partnership should performance expectations including public interest objectives fail to be achieved. (Trade Union/Campaign organisation)
- It may be useful to have some examples of where the revocation of a scheme could be considered. (Local Authority)
On variation procedures, only a couple of remarks were made, as follows:
- A concern to keep as much negotiating power as possible with local authorities to avoid locking LTAs into weak deals. (Trade Union/Campaign Organisation)
- A concern that the conditions for variation within the scheme should ensure the same level of engagement and consultation “as that required under PART 2 of SCHEDULE A1 and associated with a change promoted under section 3H”. (Regional Transport Partnership)
Additionally, a couple of respondents said that consideration should be given to any existing commitments (e.g. investment in service improvements, bus fleets) which may be unduly affected by any major changes, variation, postponement or revocation to plans or schemes.
Significant numbers (consisting of mainly trade union/campaign organisations and individual respondents) stated that they were opposed to the BSIP statutory partnership proposals in full, reasoning that they were representative of a perceived failed voluntary partnership approach and may become a barrier to their preferred options of franchising or direct local authority control of bus services. A few respondents also reiterated fears that BSIPs would leave control over routes, fares and timetables with private operators. These points were also raised in campaign responses.
Other remarks were made by individual respondents on a number of topics including improving bus infrastructure; making powers to enforce operators who resist changes to put on the relevant services; prioritising the benefits of bus provision (e.g. equality, health, climate change and human rights); and ensuring providers have health and safety measures in line with government requirements.
There is provision at section 3B(10) that gives LTAs the power to set out bespoke circumstances for the variation or revocation of the scheme as suited to local circumstances, and procedures set out under the scheme should be followed in this case. Scottish Ministers can make regulations about the conditions that may be specified in a scheme for its variation or revocation.
Question 5: Do you consider any conditions which are necessary for the variation or revocation of a scheme (where the scheme itself makes bespoke provision for this)?
As shown in table 3, opinions were split: a narrow majority overall (18 saying no vs. 14 saying yes) did not consider any conditions as being necessary for the variation or revocation of a scheme. However, Local Authorities who responded almost unanimously did not consider any conditions as being necessary (nine saying no vs. one saying yes).
| Respondent Group Type | No. Groups | Yes | No | Not answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equalities | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Local authority/Organisation Representing Local Authorities | 12 | 1 | 9 | 2 |
| Operator | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Political party/regional party groups | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Representative body | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Regional Transport Partnership | 6 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Third sector | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Trade Union / campaigning organisation | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Total organisations | 42 | 8 | 13 | 21 |
| Individuals | 25 | 6 | 5 | 14 |
| Total | 67 | 14 | 18 | 35 |
Q5a: Please provide further information, including what conditions, if any, should be specified and why.
Twenty-three respondents elected to give further information at this question, a significant minority of whom simply reiterated their opposition to the BSIP statutory partnership proposals in favour of franchising or local authority-run bus services.
Amongst those who considered conditions are necessary for the variation and revocation of a scheme, the following points were made by very small numbers of respondents:
- Variation or revocation should be subject to the same requirement for consulting local groups as when the scheme was set up.
- Major change in the network (e.g. related to emergency roadworks or an unforeseen incident) should be a condition.
- “Additional provisions should be made for a mandatory review of a scheme where external factors such as additional, relocated or removed housing provision, education, employment or health facilities have a significant effect on travel demand and/or patterns” (Operator)
- Suggestions about placing a time limit on the life of the partnership or instigating a yearly review should performance expectations including long term and public interest objectives fail to be achieved.
- Consistent guidance on conditions for variation or revocation would be helpful.
In addition, a small number of respondents including two third sector organisations advocated that any variations that have been shown to adversely affect local communities (e.g. health, pollution, deprivation, abrogation of human rights, passenger safety, removal of lifeline bus services or a scheme failing to meet accessibility needs), must not be allowed to proceed.
However, a couple of respondents raised concerns that revocation or variation of schemes in which operators had made commitments or investments in service improvements would leave them more heavily impacted than a local authority, which would have the scope to cancel or amend its plans.
A few respondents who did not consider conditions as necessary for the variation or revocation of a scheme also made comments; these focused on the need for flexibility to accommodate unforeseen circumstances; and a desire (by two local authorities) for clarity on any timeframe where additional operators who were not part of the original BSIP could be barred from operating on the route.
Notices
Procedures relating to the making, variation and revocation of partnership plans and schemes include a range of notice requirements. The 2019 Act inserts new provision into the 2001 Act which outlines the content of notices. The consultation document outlined that taking into account the wide notice requirements, Transport Scotland considered that there was adequate provision set out in the 2019 Act for LTAs to follow in relation to the form and content associated with notices and does not intend to make further detailed provision at this stage. In addition, the consultation noted that Transport Scotland considered that LTAs will be best placed to decide on the most appropriate way of publishing notices in their area taking into account the size and scope of the BSIP proposals. The next question in the consultation then asked:
Question 6: Do you have any further comments on the content, form or publicising of the notices listed in Table 1?
Only fifteen respondents chose to comment at this question. Two voiced their approval about consistency, saying the process was similar to that required for other processes such as LEZs, so helping to reduce the need for additional administration resources; one respondent approved of the lack of prescription as to where notices should be displayed, but there were also a couple of requests for guidance as to how and in what format published notices should be presented.
One respondent requested that a full report on the preceding consultations should be published before the date of making, variation or revocation; another thought all meetings and minutes regarding BSIPs should be a matter of public record. An individual respondent thought that user groups may need a forum on which they can be informed or consulted.
There were also a couple of requests for consideration to be given to an emergency provision to accommodate immediate revocation, or revocation within the suggested notice periods detailed.
Again, a few respondents took the opportunity to restate their opposition to the BSIP proposals, with comments that they overlap with England’s bus services Act which was regarded as inadequate.
Facilities and measures
The consultation paper noted that, as part of the making of a partnership plan and scheme, the LTA must outline their commitment through investing in at least one facility or measure. Facilities will typically take the form of an investment in infrastructure, such as providing improved bus stops, while measures relate to taking actions, such as restricting the number of times in a year that local authority roadworks occur on key bus corridors. A definition of facilities was provided:
Facilities are associated with the investment in infrastructure, including bt not limited to the provision of improved bus stops and bus priority measures such as bus lanes, gates and corridors, and guided busways.
Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the above definition of facilities?
As shown in table four, a majority of those answering agreed (22) with the given definition of facilities compared to 10 who disagreed.
| Respondent Group Type | No. Groups | Agree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Not answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equalities | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Local authority/Organisation Representing Local Authorities | 12 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Operator | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Political party/regional party groups | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Representative body | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Regional Transport Partnership | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Third sector | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Trade Union/campaigning organisation | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Total organisations | 42 | 13 | 8 | 1 | 20 |
| Individuals | 25 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 10 |
| Total | 67 | 22 | 10 | 5 | 30 |
Question 7a: If you disagree, how should this be amended/what should this contain?
A total of eighteen respondents made comments regarding this question, including several who either agreed or did not answer the preceding question. Almost all respondents made suggestions for expanding the definition of facilities or suggested additional examples of facilities. A few expressed a desire for the definition to be flexible.
As part of a more expanded definition, several respondents wanted to include more generic investments in infrastructure, such as traffic management and signal equipment for priority signalling and real time passenger information. Other suggestions focused on enhanced bus station provisions, such as layover facilities, information booths, travel shops and improved facilities for drivers.
Other observations were made by single respondents as follows:
- There is a lack of consideration given to rural areas (e.g. no bus stops or bus priority areas).
- Facilities should include a regular, useful bus service that makes taking the bus a viable alternative to driving.
- There should be an overriding concern to quantify investments with a view to comparative cost-benefit analysis under different operating models.
Finally, a small number of respondents reiterated their opposition to the BSIP proposals.
A definition of measures was also provided to respondents:
Measures should be regarded as actions associated with improving bus travel times, including but not limited to, restriction of road works on key bus corridors and priority signalling.
Question 8: Do you agree or disagree with the above definition or measures?
As shown in table 5, more respondents (18) disagreed with the definition of measures than agreed (11); regional transport partnerships and local authorities almost unanimously disagreed.
| Respondent Group Type | No. Groups | Agree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Not answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equalities | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Local authority/Organisation Representing Local Authorities | 12 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| Operator | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Political party/regional party groups | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Representative body | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Regional Transport Partnership | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| Third sector | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Trade Union/campaigning organisation | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Total organisations | 42 | 4 | 17 | 1 | 20 |
| Individuals | 25 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 12 |
| Total | 67 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 32 |
Question 8a: If you disagree, how should this be amended/what should this contain?
Twenty respondents made further comments. The vast majority of remarks encompassed suggestions for either broadening the definition of measures or adding examples of measures.
Several respondents each suggested broadening the definition of measures by the following means:
- Changing the text to “improving bus services generally” to help ensure all potential measures could be included.
- Changing the text to “any actions, other than infrastructure investments, which the Authority can take to incentivise or improve the attractiveness of bus services”.
- The definition should not be restricted to improving bus travel times only but also encompass a need to ensure consistent, punctual and reliable bus journey times (e.g. by reducing congestion).
- Focusing on any measures which improve the attractiveness of bus travel.
Single respondents suggested the following other alterations:
- Changing the text to “actions that improve the operation of the bus network”.
- Including measures for multi-modal integration in the definition.
- The definition should include investment in other infrastructure which benefits bus services (e.g. traffic management system upgrades).
Respondents suggested including a variety of examples of measures in addition to those given in the definition, as follows:
- Changes to parking policy (e.g. car free streets that are only for buses).
- Enforcement activities relating to parking and to bus priority measures.
- Increased parking charges and controls.
- Improved ticketing arrangements.
- Bus stop information.
- Joint (partnership) investments in ticketing/marketing/training/vehicles.
- Investments in EV charging infrastructure.
- Intelligence gathering.
- Improved customer service training for drivers.
Additionally, a few respondents noted that Transport Scotland’s existing guidance note on BSIPs states that a measure can be classed “as another improvement, such as parking policy to incentivise bus use”. Two respondents saw a need for more clarification between definitions of measures and facilities, perceiving an overlap in terms of priority signalling, for instance; a regional transport partnership maintained that this should be a facility, given that it is infrastructure even if technology-based. Single respondents made a point stating that the reference to roadworks should relate to planned roadworks as opposed to emergency roadworks; and a suggestion to remove the word ‘including’, as this suggests at least one example must be included in the scheme.
The consultation paper then went onto explain the Existing Facilities in Quality Partnership Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2001 that make provision for existing facilities to form part of a quality partnership scheme, which specifies that existing facilities may form part of a quality partnership scheme where they were provided for no more than five years before the scheme is proposed. Additionally, existing facilities which were provided between 5-10 years before the date the scheme is proposed may form part of a quality partnership scheme, but only where the consent of all bus operators using those facilities has been obtained.
Question 9: Should existing facilities form a part of a partnership plan/scheme?
As shown in table six, a majority (22) agreed than disagreed (12) that existing facilities should form part of a partnership plan or scheme. Most of those who disagreed were individual respondents (9).
| Respondent Group Type | No. Groups | Yes | No | Not answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equalities | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Local authority/Organisation Representing Local Authorities | 12 | 11 | 0 | 1 |
| Operator | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Political party/regional party groups | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Representative body | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Regional Transport Partnership | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| Third sector | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Trade Union / campaigning organisation | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Total organisations | 42 | 19 | 3 | 20 |
| Individuals | 25 | 3 | 9 | 13 |
| Total | 67 | 22 | 12 | 33 |
Question 9a: If yes, should there be a time restriction and why?
Twenty-nine respondents responded to the second part of the question. The main viewpoint was that there should be no time restriction, albeit with the caveats that facilities need to be fit for purpose and meet a standard agreeable by all parties; furthermore that facility conditions are reviewed and maintained regularly. A small number of respondents (consisting of local authorities, regional transport partnerships and an operator), however said that five years prior to the scheme’s proposal seemed a reasonable amount of time, but that this should only include facilities of direct relevance to the scheme.
A significant minority of respondents, comprising local authorities, regional transport partnerships and an operator, considered it more important that the facility is relevant and meets the scheme’s aims over the scheme’s lifetime for it to be included; thus, a time restriction would be irrelevant.
Similar numbers thought it inappropriate to exclude facilities given the award of BPF grants to introduce them prior to the finalisation of BSIP regulations (i.e. that facilities may potentially be delivered with BPF funding before BSIPs are entered into).
A very few respondents also cited the following points supporting the inclusion of existing facilities:
- Facilities’ inclusion will help ensure that there is an increased scope for their maintenance and improvement through the plan and/or scheme.
- It is difficult to see what benefit there would be in excluding existing facilities, in areas with almost no competition between operators, from a plan and/or scheme.
- Inclusion will help maximise the value of the investment (of either partner) in existing infrastructure.
A few respondents who did not think existing facilities should form part of the partnership plan or scheme also responded to the question; these were largely concerned that operators’ prior investments (e.g. fleet services) are included on a parity basis with those of the LTA; otherwise facilities should only be included from the beginning of a BSIP.
Several respondents again reiterated their opposition to the proposals (including Quality Partnership Schemes) with the aim of protecting local authorities’ investments in bus services and reinforcing the perceived merits of public control.
< Previous | Contents | Next >