Service Information Operators Must Provide

The consultation paper explained that the 2019 Act provides that Scottish Ministers are to prescribe in regulations the service information that operators are to provide to LTAs. 

Question 28: What considerations might need to be taken into account when determining what revenue and patronage information an operator should be required to provide to an LTA under new section 6ZA(2) of the 1985 Act?

Twenty-nine respondents answered this question. A majority opted to list various information types purported to enable an LTA to determine appropriate actions in response to variations and cancellations of services; almost all other comments took the form of more general observations about information provision.

The following information types, which would enable an LTA to analyse travel patterns and do trend analyses, were put forward:

  • Operating costs
  • Profitability breakdowns
  • Revenue (but with occasional references to patronage being more useful than revenue)
  • Fares data
  • Ticket types
  • Passenger types
  • Boarding and alighting points / origin and destination data (broken down by Monday-Friday, Saturday and Sunday figures)
  • Patronage figures
  • Capacity figures
  • Continual improvement initiatives (not specified)
  • Nature of routes and timetables
  • Reliability of services
  • Seasonal variations

A large minority of respondents urged operators to provide all data necessary for planning, and anything an LTA needs to know to make a sustainable, integrated transport system; others desired a broad range of information that should be subject to Freedom of Information requests and requirements to avoid operators hiding information through confidentiality issues. However, a few respondents cited that reasonable and proportionate information requests should be adhered to, but that confidentiality clauses can be inserted regarding sensitive information. A representative body and an operator requested that the level of detail should not be too onerous.

Finally, a few respondents thought the only data required should be that relating to the section of route, day or time(s) of day when the service in question is proposed to be modified or withdrawn.

Question 29: Do you have any views on what specific information should be prescribed?

Twenty-one respondents replied to this question. Respondents in general made more references to patronage-related information than revenue-related information.

A large minority of respondents gave examples of patronage information with the most commonly quoted elements being time-categorised information (i.e. broken down by daily patterns, Monday-Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, per week, yearly per month, and seasonally) and route information (e.g. local geography, distances covered by vehicles and unusual operating conditions such as extra road gritting for hilly routes in winter). Origin and destination data in terms of boarding and alighting points was also highlighted by several respondents.

Other patronage-related information was suggested by smaller numbers of respondents and incorporated ticket usage data (e.g. types of tickets or use of multiple services with the same ticket) and consistency of timetable keeping.

A significant minority of respondents gave reasons for prescribing these types of patronage-related information as follows:

  • To determine actions to be taken in response to bus service variation / withdrawal
  • To determine the tendering of replacement services
  • “…to identify the potential net cost of a replacement” (Operator)
  • To determine on-vehicle passenger counts, passenger types and demographic information

Fewer respondents gave examples of revenue-related information; small numbers suggested each of the following:

  • Bus fare revenues
  • Off-bus ticket sales revenue
  • The portion of revenue derived from taking part in multi-operator ticketing arrangements
  • Concessionary travel arrangements
  • Revenue per passenger type
  • Profits (from any private bus service provision and / or overall corporate profits)
  • Subsidy amounts through the contract period (e.g. subsidy per passenger mile)

Reasons given for prescribing these types of revenue-related information revolved around helping to achieve best value procurement for replacement services.

Other sundry types of information to be prescribed were specified including vehicle-related information (in terms of types of vehicle used, age and emissions), by an equalities respondent and a trade union / campaigns respondent; and investments or improvements carried out by the bus operator. A small number of respondents said the prescribed information should be that covered by the 2019 Act or the categories described in the new section 6ZA(3) of the Transport Ac 1985.

A few respondents commented more generally that operators need to provide all data necessary and that LTAs should have discretion to request anything seen as relevant for analysis or planning purposes, or the same information they would be entitled to in considering a bus partnership; however, two local authorities and a regional transport partnership reflected that commercial confidentiality grounds should be allowable to protect sensitive information (but this could be subject to independent review if challenged by the LTA).

Question 30: Do you have any views on what specific information should not be prescribed?

Eighteen respondents commented at this question; most of these made generalisations rather than citing any specific types of data that should not be prescribed.

The majority of respondents felt that all data should be prescribed, including commercially sensitive information. However, only slightly fewer respondents thought all data except commercially confidential or sensitive information (e.g. operating cost data, operator’s revenue, specific ticket and passenger types) should be prescribed.

A few respondents envisioned that information provision should be GDPR-compliant, meaning that no information that could identify individuals or passengers should be released, as exemplified by a local authority:

For example if a fare stage was a farm road end and therefore the travel patterns from that fare stage may identify the passenger.

Finally, a small number of respondents thought it important that flexibility is maintained on what can be requested (appropriate to the circumstances).

Extent of Permissible Disclosure

The consultation paper noted that Section 39 of the 2019 Act inserts a new section 6ZB into the 1985 Act which sets out the limited circumstances in which information obtained by an affected authority may be disclosed.

Question 31: What other persons do you think patronage information should be disclosed and why?

A total of twenty-four respondents commented on this question. The most widely cited view – by a large minority of respondents – was that patronage information should be publicly available and accessible; reasons given coalesced around the public being entitled to know the details for services being cancelled or altered since they are the customers, and operators gain from having public subsidies.

There were a few mentions that some information could be made available in a generic format to protect commercial sensitivities and confidentiality. To this end several respondents suggested that LTAs should have an agreed format for information-sharing. Specific content recommended included restricting information to subsidy per passenger or a percentage-based format, or total passenger journeys over a significant period of time (e.g. a calendar year).

Aside from the above, the groups recommended for information disclosure which elicited most mentions from respondents were regional transport partnerships and local authorities (in addition to LTAs, to assist in strategy development and carbon monitoring); prospective tenderers or bidders (assuming they have signed non-disclosure agreements) or those marketing the service; community groups (e.g. community councils, bus user groups); and other governmental bodies (e.g. health boards, Transport Scotland).

Single mentions were also made about making information available to adjacent or neighbouring LTAs (for integrated transport policy) or for research and policy-making purposes.

Caveats to information disclosure were made in the form of single mentions of this being in agreement with relevant partners, and operators remaining fully in control of their own information, who it is disclosed to, and why.

Further Provision and Consultation

The consultation paper explained that the 2019 Act inserts new section 6ZA into the 1985 Act to allow the Scottish Ministers to make regulations to provide further detail about the duties and processes. The consultation questions went onto ask:

Question 32: Under what circumstances might the application of new section 6ZA of the 1985 Act be excluded or modified?

Fifteen respondents replied to the question. A few of these could not envisage any circumstances under which the application of the new section might require to be excluded or modified.

Several local authority and regional transport partnerships however did foresee two situations under which the new section might require to be excluded or modified: firstly, exceptional circumstances where legal proceedings would be a factor, and secondly, exceptional circumstances relating to financial or commercial considerations in order to avoid negative impacts.

A small number of respondents felt that required information should never be excluded or modified in cancellation situations, but believed that in situations involving only minor variations which didn’t require assessment by local authorities (e.g. retiming a bus journey by five minutes, where the variation would result in no significant loss to the public), there could be the facility that information could be excluded or modified.

Single mentions were also made regarding possible exclusion or modification under the following two circumstances:

  • Changes in operating conditions brought about by changes in legislation regarding disabilities, emissions, etc.
  • Where the LTA is considering running a service in direct competition with a commercial operator, then the application of the new section may need to be excluded or modified

Question 33: Should operators be required to keep records of information and if so, what information should they keep?

Twenty-two respondents made comments regarding this question. All these respondents indicated that they thought operators should be required to keep at least some records of information; a large minority cited all prescribed patronage and revenue information or all information that they are required to send to LTAs (i.e. any information specified through application of the proposed measures), albeit with a few respondents noting that confidentiality concerns should be addressed. An operator noted that they are already required to keep data on patronage under their obligations to complete STATS100 returns annually to the Department for Transport; and two respondents were concerned that operators should not be obliged to change record-keeping methods on the off-chance that an information request may follow.

A wide variety of specific types of information were put forward as needing recorded, each by very small numbers of respondents as follows:

  • Ticket information (date, type, fare paid) / concession card use
  • Boarding / alighting points
  • Complaints and compliment information
  • Route and mileage information (where services are partially or completely cut)
  • Locations where there are regular delays, or delays due to council road closures, breakdowns or accidents
  • Journey reliability and punctuality and details of prevailing mitigating circumstances
  • Time keeping records to monitor improvements in services
  • Employee-related information (working conditions, etc.)
  • Vehicle information (availability, reliability, investment in vehicles, etc.)
  • Reasons for decision-making regarding changes to services

A few respondents went on to consider suitable time periods for keeping records; there was no consensus about this as shown below:

  • Six months minimum (after the date of the service revision or after the change takes effect)
  • Twelve months minimum after the date of the service revision (in case of further service provisions, or to support implementation of bus provisions in the 2019 Act)
  • Three years minimum
  • Five years minimum (for obtaining robust travel patterns)

Question 34: Do you have any views as to the form and content of the information operators may be required to provide under new section 6ZA of the 1985 Act including how it should be delivered?

Fifteen respondents commented about the form and content of information provision. Most respondents made general remarks about information formats as follows:

  • Information should be in a format agreed by bus operators and LTAs
  • Information should be in a form as requested by the LTA which is reasonable, practical, affordable and efficient
  • Information should be in a standardised or consistent format (so that operators with services in multiple local authorities do not have to provide information in a different format to each local authority)

A few respondents recommended that information should be provided via a standard spreadsheet format (e.g. MS Excel) as this was best for detailed interrogation. Suggestions were also made that information should be provided in the operator’s standard electronic reporting format to avoid additional costs; however compatible electronic formats generally between the operator and LTA were also mooted. Other remarks maintained it was best not to be too prescriptive on the issue as there are a variety of IT systems in use in both operators and LTAs.

Finally, two respondents reinforced that no information should be unreasonably withheld in order for there to be sufficient records to enable interpretation of the data.

< Previous | Contents | Next >