Reduces inequalities
The first Spotlight session focused on the NTS priority of Reduces Inequalities, and its agreed aims were to:
- Explore what this priority, and its three outcomes, meant to participants.
- Identify desired impacts relevant to policy making.
- Understand participants’ ideas for delivery - including unintended consequences.
Will Provide Fair Access to Services we Need
NTS explains this outcome as:
We have a duty to reduce inequalities and advance equality of opportunity and outcome, including the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. We will ensure that our disadvantaged communities and individuals have fair access to the transport services they need. The transport system will enable everyone to access a wide range of services and to realise their human rights.”
Table 3 summarises the materials used within the session to stimulate discussion.
| Topic | Materials utilised |
|---|---|
| Overall aim | Discussion Guide |
| Protected characteristics | Video - Equality and Human Rights Commission |
| Delivery Areas | Discussion Guide |
Participants broadly agreed that everybody should be able to access public transport; however some raised concerns about the logistical implications and barriers faced by those with protected characteristics. Participants shared experiences of times when they or their relatives and friends had found access an issue.
In discussions, participants focused upon the protected characteristics of age and disability.
Participants raised concerns that the areas designated for wheelchair users were limited on public transport. Furthermore, space needed for bringing on buggies and bikes was important, but often the same designated space.
People were on with buggy and were asked to get off so a wheelchair user can take their place.”
The designated area for wheelchair users tends to be the same area as the bike rack, areas on trains haven’t been thought out.”
Participants thought that fair access should mean those with protected characteristics should not be competing for space. They also related fair access to broader policy including social mobility and expanding horizons. For instance, getting people out of their local area to be able to access wider opportunities for work and education or training.
To ensure everyone has fair access to services, participants reflected on the approach to transport investment and management at a national level. In summary, they desired that:
- In order for our transport system to be fair for everybody, transport provision needed to be less concerned about financial profit.
- Profits from transport to be reinvested in the services provided.
- Public transport is funded from the ‘national budget’, so should be designed as a nation-wide service.
The concept of Bus Priority Infrastructure was introduced to participants, and some members had experience of the types of infrastructure in Dublin, Inverness and Dundee.
Participants with experience of Bus Priority Infrastructure felt that no difference was made to their journey, it did not speed the journey up as all buses had to go on the same route, which increased congestion, particularly in city areas.
It would only work properly if you separate the route from the road entirely. Buses shouldn’t share signals with the other traffic.”
There was a worry of clashing with the active travel and Spaces for People initiative as bus lanes are typically wider. Participants acknowledged that multiple modes in limited space was a difficult challenge to solve.
How do you get round everyone competing for the same space?”
Awareness of the current scheme on free bus travel was high, but understanding of the full detail of eligibility criteria and applications processes was not. Exceptions included older members who had free bus travel, and they understood the provision for their age group. One participant with a disability was very aware of the current provisions for people with a range of disabilities.
There was broad support for concessionary travel for older and disabled people. Participants were supportive of the initiative as they linked bus travel to reducing isolation. Some participants aired support for the scheme expanding to allow access to people on Universal Credit.
It would make much more sense if people who were receiving Universal Credit had access to free travel because these are the people who could benefit from a free transport system to get into work and pay money back into the economy.”
The post session evaluation gave participants another opportunity to make suggestions on this aim. Fairness was seen to be associated with where people lived in Scotland, and rural/urban divides were raised by participants.
Living in a city gives folks fair access to most services but more could be done to improve services for those in rural communities.”
One participant aired their frustration at the booking systems for taking bikes on public transport.
Stop hiding behind covid excuses e.g., can't take bike on train without pre-booking so puts people off trying unless super-organised.”
Will be Easy to Use for All
NTS explains this outcome as:
People have different needs and capabilities. Our transport system will recognise these and work to ensure that everyone can use the system with as few barriers as possible.”
| Topic | Materials utilised |
|---|---|
| Overall sub-theme | Discussion Guide |
| Easy to use example | Video - Sweden |
| Delivery Areas | Discussion Guide |
Stimulus material (see Table 4) prompted discussion on this aim. Ease of use was seen by participants as related to different parts of the travel journey:
- time of booking- to be able to plan travel
- payment method - should at least be the same method, if not in one transaction
- ease of use for people with mobility needs
- good facilities whilst waiting for transport, for example shelters and buildings that feel warm and safe.
The main consideration for participants was not having to wait too long between integrated services. There were several anecdotes about people missing connections due to delayed services. The Scottish weather was cited as a main concern for those scenarios, and also the time wasted was another factor for those who desired improvements.
Make it simple for people who need to use more than one form of public transport to reach their destination. If you need a ferry then a train make it easier to buy a connected ticket, or a ticket with transfer options.”
The post session evaluation gave participants another chance to make suggestions on this outcome. Participants raised integrated tickets again. However, one participant pointed out that easy to use for all did not necessarily mean technology for all.
Don’t just use new technology. Let people use older methods of paying for transport too.”
Another new point was safety concerns with using public transport in the dark. Train stations were highlighted by a few participants as modes of travel where improvements could be made.
Accessibility to be at the forefront of all new stations or upgrades ensuring that all stations are accessible by wheelchair without the fuss that is currently required by a certain date”
Will be Affordable for All
NTS explains this outcome as:
People have different incomes, and our transport system will not exclude people from mobility by making it unaffordable. We will target actions to deliver the Strategy towards those needing most help, including those living in poverty.”
| Topic | Materials utilised |
|---|---|
| Overall sub-theme | Discussion Guide |
| Free public transport example | Video- Luxembourg |
| Delivery Areas | Discussion Guide |
Prompted by open questions in the stimulus materials (see Table 5) there was a consensus that public transport must be affordable, safe, reliable and fast. Participants desired for public transport to be a pleasure to use and must work for everyone, so that everyone can afford to travel.
There were concerns raised about both affordability and value for money of public transport in Scotland. Participants raised concerns about the price of train fare in comparison to car usage.
Train prices are prohibitively expensive. I’d gladly, if there was an incentive there, I’d gladly do the journey on the train but when it’s cheaper and quicker in the car then the decision is already made for you.”
Affordability is perceived to be a barrier to public transport. At the same time, it was difficult for the participants to articulate what ‘affordable’ meant. There was also awareness of people having different levels of income and the cost of living rising.
I would definitely be more inclined to take public transport if it were more affordable.”
Participants did compare transport provision where they live, to places they visit.
When you go abroad you just see such a difference in their transport facilities. It seems slicker, cleaner, on time, faster and you just get left with this feeling like why are we so behind other countries?”
The stimulus material included a video describing the introduction of free bus travel in Luxembourg and, while participants agreed that the scheme would be a good idea in theory, most struggled to understand how wide scale concessionary travel is feasible.
Free transport is very appealing, but I think most of us think would it ever be possible? [...] just can’t see transport ever being free.”
It’s really hard to understand how this would be affordable for everyone. We have to get people out our cars so it needs to be as close to free as the country can make it.”
Alternatively, there was support for rewarding those who travel on public transport at busy times of the day by offering a heavily reduced or free service.
An initiative to provide free bikes to school children who cannot afford them was also discussed and broadly supported. Contrary to bus travel, funding for this initiative was not raised as an issue by participants. Indeed, road safety was the biggest concern for participants thinking about young and adult cyclists.
There were a few concerns raised about cycle infrastructure and the condition of current cycle routes. There was a worry that cycle lanes would not support children using bikes to get to school, with passing traffic bringing too great a risk of danger.
Bikes for school kids is a great idea but that’s the end of the story. You need to have good infrastructure, like cycle lanes, in place first.”
There was an agreement that roads must be safer for all road users before thinking about implementing such schemes.
It sounds like a great idea to help children get healthy but so many parents are so afraid and so protective of their children. Which is not a reflection of the parent but a reflection of the world we live in.”
Participants also felt a wider culture change must happen for the scheme to be a success.
The approach of the parents needs to change. In my arguably small village all the children have bikes, but the roads are so busy with cars because the parents don’t want to let them walk or cycle to school.
Looking back at the poll results for this session (see Table 1), the only delivery area below the mid-point was ‘providing affordable bikes to school-age children’.
Participants were also fully supportive of the new scheme that has been introduced to give free travel to all young people under the age of 22. The scheme was seen to expand horizons for young people who may be entering work for the first time or entering further education.
The cost of travel for young people going to university or college is really quite expensive, and most students do not work so it will be really beneficial for them to be able to travel into class.”
However, there were some concerns raised about how this scheme is being funded and questions were raised regarding how this could be widened to incorporate more people. The most popular areas for reducing inequalities in public transport were concessionary travel for older people and investment in technology and innovation.
The post session evaluation gave participants another chance to make suggestions on this aim. There were more calls for reduced prices, or even free transport for all ages, and more modes of transport.
Make buses and trains and boats free to all”.
Participants commented that they felt under 22 year olds and over 65 year olds were being shown favouritism in transport policy and that reducing prices overall could benefit more people.