Glasgow Needs to Reevaluate its Transport Policies
The need for a just and fair transition back to a publicly controlled integrated transport system is long overdue. This piece investigates the possibilities.
By Barry Dalgleish
It’s been 60 years almost to the day when the last Glasgow tram embarked on its final journey:
The final fare-paying tram left Anderston Cross for Auchenshuggle at 5pm on September 4, 1962. An estimated quarter-of-a-million Glaswegians turned out to see the last tram procession pass by later that evening.
A lot has changed since then as the tramlines were ripped up and the trams themselves used for scrap, with a few set aside in the transport museum for posterity. It was the same story elsewhere as post-war Britain fell in love with the motor car. All around the country the motorway system sprung up to form a nationwide network, a curious sight back in the 1950’s as the new network was largely underused and empty initially. That of course changed. We’re used to the sight of bumper to bumper congestion these days as the dream of free widespread unlimited travel became a nightmare of dead-slow-and-stop, traffic fumes and pollution. It wasn’t long before cities became gridlocked.
Today, air pollution remains a major problem. But another problem surfaced 20 years after the last tram ran. The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher embarked on an orgy of privatisation. Public transport would be run by private companies, leading to “lower fares, new services, and more passengers”, which would also remove “any potential future liability on the taxpayer”. Bus services in particular are a mess. So, what’s being done about it?
In 2016, grassroots campaign group Get Glasgow Moving was founded. Since then it’s been campaigning for an improved transport system in Glasgow and beyond. A few weeks ago the group highlighted the bus fares disparity between Glasgow and the rest of the UK.
They showed up at Buchanan St bus station to engage with commuters and other people using buses to get the message across.
There might be some light at the end of the tunnel though. In April 2022, the Scottish Government brought ScotRail into public ownership. And in November 2019, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 received Royal Assent. This will give powers to local authorities to run local bus services, should they choose to do so. With that in mind, what’s Glasgow going to do about it?
Glasgow City Council is currently building its Glasgow Transport Strategy. Part 1 - The Policy Framework - has just been published. Part 2 will be consulted upon. So, what’s the gist of the document? In short, GCC wants to build a transport system that’s sustainable, integrated, affordable and prioritises active travel i.e. walking and cycling. Also in the pipeline is a proposal to roll out a metro system in the city:
The Clyde Metro concept could deliver a stepchange in public transport provision in the future, complementing rail, bus and Subway services.
And concerning the bus service:
The Glasgow Bus Partnership continues to work to deliver better bus services across the city and the region. It has been successful in securing funding from Transport Scotland’s Bus Partnership Fund to explore bus priority to improve journey times and experience for passengers on several corridors in the region, city and city centre.
The Glasgow Bus Partnership comprises local authorities in the Greater Glasgow area along with bus operators as part their new alliance, GlasGo, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT). Bus passenger representative groups apparently also have an input.
As STV News reported, Jacobs UK was commissioned to the tune of £650,000 in March 2022, to produce a business case in developing ‘ “priority measures” aimed at tackling congestion on busy routes.’ But not everyone supports the GBP. The Glasgow Labour Group have criticised the plan saying that bus services should be brought under public control instead. The Group conducted a survey, which confirmed users dissatisfaction of the service. But, the GBS was initially kept under wraps until FOE Scotland upset the apple cart, as The Ferret exposes. This paints an entirely different picture of the one being illustrated by GCC and its partners. The nub of the controversy was an initial denial by Transport Scotland that the SPT existed. FoES campaigner Gavin Thomson stated:
“The Scottish Government is using this much-needed funding stream to prevent regulation and public ownership – powers which were recently devolved to councils. Councils badly need their share of this £500m bus partnership fund, so this funding criteria is effectively pushing councils away from starting up a publicly owned operator.”
It would appear that the powers that be aren't wholeheartedly in favour of bringing back public ownership. Revealingly a report by former UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston noted that:
UK privatisation of buses breached human rights because it left people unable to access basic needs such as work, education and healthcare.
In the Public Transport, Private Profit report Alston claimed the bus partnerships amount to a “failed middle ground that should be phased out in favour of public control and ownership”.
Ellie Harrison from Get Glasgow Moving stated that the Scottish Government is:
“prematurely trying to force local authorities into so-called ‘bus services improvement partnerships’ (BSIPs) – by far the weakest of the three powers in the [Transport] Act – by bribing councils through the bus partnership fund.
“This will lock us into a broken privatised system for years to come, and we will never achieve the transformation of our public transport network that is necessary to to meet our climate targets.”
Are our interests being looked after then? This paper published in the Journal of Transport Geography, Are Statutory Passenger Watchdogs Effective in Representing Passenger Interests in Public Transport? gives some background.
The paper points out that Britain was the first European country to engage in widespread privatisation of public transport during Thatchers’ tenure. Apparently this was done ‘in the best of the consumer and the public interest’. The result has been a considerable reduction in costs associated with subsidies and the running of services. However one particular consequence of deregulation has been the monopolisation of services by one particular company. That has manifested itself in Glasgow through First Bus controlling most of the routes in the region.
The paper outlines how two statutory passenger watchdogs were set up to monitor services. These are London TravelWatch (LTW) and Transport Focus (TF). TF covers services in Scotland (and elsewhere outside London). Although the study focuses on England, the results offer a reasonable comparison with local services in Glasgow.
TF was established in 2006. Its remit is to represent transport users in England, Scotland and Wales. It’s funded by the Department for Transport (DfT). TF is an independent arm’s-length body that ‘operates as a non-executive, non-departmental public body and works under a management framework agreement with DfT.’ TF has limited teeth though and relies on research and passenger testimonies to present evidence on operators. As part of that research, a bus passenger survey is conducted on an annual basis through research agencies. The surveys are funded by TF, bus operators (BOs) and passenger transport associations (PTAs). However bus operators can pay TF to be part of the survey, so there may be a conflict of interest, although there’s no evidence of manipulation of data. The most recent survey results for First Bus Glasgow is for 2018 (due to COVID pandemic):
TF doesn’t deal with bus passenger complaints. That comes under the remit of Bus Users UK, which states that:
We’re an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution body for the bus and coach industry, and the nominated body for dealing with complaints under the European Passenger Rights Regulation.
The paper indicates that bus passenger surveys influence bus operators. But that doesn’t appear to be the case in Glasgow. However given that it’s been 4 years since the last survey, an update is certainly overdue. The report does note though that TF tends to engage with BOs more than PTE’s, which might be a drawback with respect to awareness of local issues. All in, its a balancing act. TF needs to collaborate with BOs (and PTEs) effectively in order to have an influence, whilst keeping in mind customer expectations. As the paper notes:
PTAs and BOs describe passenger watchdogs as their ‘critical friends’. The watchdogs give these stakeholders opportunities to express their points of view and the rationale for their decisions. However, in cases when the parties cannot reach a satisfactory agreement on disputed matters, the watchdogs may propose sanctions on these stakeholders, for example, criticize them in public. Likewise, for those BOs who paid to be surveyed, the performance results will be placed in the public domain. However, BOs and TF might raise issue on some of the findings, especially when it comes to low customer satisfaction scores that BOs do not wish to be published. TF then allows a certain amount of time to discuss the findings with the BOs, and they can usually come up with a joint conclusion. If they are unable to come to an agreement, TF will still place the findings in the public domain. By doing so, the watchdog seeks to maintain its independence and transparency, even while following a strategy of accommodation.
Passenger watchdogs such as TF have an important role to play. But as non-executive actors they are limited as to how strongly they can exert their influence. As such, groups such as GGM have no such limitations and can engage in high pressure campaigns at the transport level as well as generating political pressure. With support from FOE Scotland and other groups, there is an ongoing campaign to change the deregulated status quo.
Further background to the state of the deregulated bus market is provided by a report (2014) from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), Greasing the wheels: Getting our bus and rail markets on the move.
A consequence of deregulation over the years has been the decline of unprofitable services. Local transport authorities (LTAs) can fund local bus services, but if funding is limited:
operators can cease unprofitable service provision rather than providing a cross-subsidy from other services. If the LTA cannot fund the service, it is lost to those who still need it.
This will come as no surprise to bus users. There are regulatory tools available to LTAs. One such tool is Quality Contract Schemes (QCSs). Such provisions are incorporated within the Transport Act 2000. As the report notes:
QCSs grant LTAs powers to regulate their local bus market in a manner similar to TfL’s. To introduce a QCS, an LTA must satisfy the following five-point test:
the proposed scheme will result in an increase in the use of bus services
the proposed scheme will bring benefits to bus passengers by improving the
quality of bus services
the proposed scheme will contribute to the implementation of the local
transport policies of the LTA
that contribution will be in a way which is economic, efficient and effective
any adverse effects of the proposed scheme on operators will be proportionate
to the improvement in the wellbeing of persons living or working in the area to
which the proposed scheme relates and, in particular, to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the other four requirements of this test.
However the implementation of QCSs has been problematic. BOs regard the process as ‘too onerous’ or even ‘toxic’. They are also costly to implement by LTAs. And there’s another provision that many bus users would find problematic. It’s the bus service operators grant (BSOG):
which is a rebate of 70 to 80 per cent of the fuel duty paid by the bus operators. It is paid to operators regardless of how many passengers they carry.
In Scotland, this was run by Transport Scotland. However in March 2022, the Scottish Government replaced the BSOG with the Network Support Grant. According to TS (emphasis added):
The NSG is a discretionary grant that subsidises commercial and community bus routes. NSG contributes to the maintenance of the nation’s bus networks for the benefit of passengers. NSG aims to keep fares at affordable levels and networks more extensive than would otherwise be the case.
The subsidy works out at 14.4 pence per kilometre, with various ‘commitments’ outlined that BOs should comply with. There’s additional temporary funding available - NSG Plus - to cover the impact of COVID. This runs until 9 October 2022, at a cost of 79.4 pence per kilometre. Interestingly additional payments are available for BOs running Low Carbon Vehicle or Low Emission Vehicle incentives.
As noted above, the loss of bus services impacts the passenger. The report cites research from the University of Leeds, whereby almost 20% of workers ‘have turned down a job because of poor-quality bus services’. This points to issues with planning policy and transport policy. In short, deregulation defeats the purpose of a public transportation system. There’s also the wider impact of austerity cuts impacting funding levels within transport. Missing in the debate is how important buses are to the economy. As the report points out, in Britain, ‘about 2.5 million workers (or 8.5 per cent of all workers) normally commute to work by bus.’ And ‘over 50 per cent of students aged over 16 are frequent bus users.’ And course, of vital importance is the climate impacts of travel:
Increasing bus use is critical to combatting congestion and climate change
This picture shows very plainly the role buses can play here:
In 2015, IPPR Scotland was established. Recently they commissioned a YouGov survey. The results published in July 2022 revealed:
2 in 3 people surveyed (66%) do not believe they are being listened to in decisions about transport where they live.
Just over 3 in 5 people (62%) on low incomes in Scotland surveyed worry about being able to afford transport.
The press release was accompanied by a paper produced by the Fair Transition Unit, Fairly reducing car use in Scottish cities: A just transition for transport for low-income households.
With transport responsible for most of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Scottish government’s aim is to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030 as part of its policy to hit net zero by 2045, through the Just Transition Commission. Transport Scotland has identified four sustainable travel policies the Scottish government must introduce. They are outlined in the following table:
Research from Sustrains shows that around 55% of people support reducing car dependency. Glasgow particularly stands out as a city that has been purpose built for the car. The statistics speak for themselves:
25% of land is allocated to roads, higher than other major UK cities
27% of car journeys are one kilometre or less (that’s a 10-15 minute walk)
50% of journeys are less than 3km
and 70 per cent are less than 5km
Other statistics flagged up, show how the system is failing low income areas, with high levels of traffic and air pollution along with associated noise levels. This generates widespread health issues related to pollution with increased vulnerability to vehicle accidents. People on low incomes depend much more on buses. But the system is set up to accommodate commuters. The paper notes:
Unavailability and unreliability of public transport particularly impacts families with young children, children with health conditions and disabled children, as alternative travel options are often scarce or unsuitable.
In short, if urban planning revolves around car journeys, it can be difficult for people without cars to go shopping and carry out other necessary journeys, especially if these people live in outlying areas (e.g. the ‘schemes’). Changing this would have a major impact on social interaction, reduce isolation and improve health and connectivity. The paper uses the term Transport poverty, which is broadly explained:
Transport poverty is not the same as living on a low income. It occurs when social disadvantage intersects with transport disadvantage to make people’s lives more difficult. Low-income households can be well-served by local, accessible amenities and opportunities; too often they are not.
The evaluations made by the paper is based on research conducted with low income groups. The main thrust is the delivery of a fair and just transition for transport, especially in rural areas. The following is a summary of the principles for fairly reducing car use:
The paper then expands upon the principles, outlining key points raised. Cost of travel and climate change were key issues, with a general consensus on the need to cut back on car use and increase provision for walking and cycling, with obvious improvements in public transport. There was also reflection on the impact of COP26. This suggests that the hosting of the event has raised awareness of climate issues across the board in the city. Yet interestingly, there was a negative reaction regarding penalising car owners by imposing costs on them e.g. increased parking charges.
One particular point that emerged was the culture of car ownership:
“like a coming-of-age thing… it’s engrained in our society… it’s just the norm”, with “getting your provisional licence a milestone growing up”.
Mentioning pollution or climate issues related to car use was like going against the grain of what was socially acceptable. The paper notes that:
These reflections sit in a context of powerful vested interests in maintaining a status quo of car ownership as aspirational – just under £2 billion is estimated to have been spent by the automotive industry in the UK on digital advertising alone in 2019.
It was inferred from this that people rarely consider the impacts of their travel choices, there needed to be someway of raising awareness of these issues.
Community engagement is an important issue, with many people feeling that this was almost non existent, particularly within vulnerable and low income groups. People felt they had no say in the delivery of services and did not feel they were being listened to. It was generally felt that decisions were made over peoples’ heads.
The general conclusion from the above is that people are aware of the need for change in the light of climate change and pollution. But people feel that decisions made are political and that if real change is to be effected it should target the business community. Poor people didn’t create the problems. Local authorities need to talk and feedback to the people and involve them in policy decisions.
A new initiative though could be a game changer. This is the Connecting Woodside project. This is a major urban improvement project that links in with surrounding areas. The first of its kind in Scotland, the project aims to:
work with the community to improve streets and public spaces for walking and cycling, rebalancing streets to reduce the dominance of road traffic.
The project is considered as having four main elements:
Place - Environmental enhancements making the area an attractive place to live and visit.
Segregated cycle tracks - Safe cycle routes and excellent public transport integration.
Permeability and connectivity - Improved walking opportunities and attractive pedestrian links.
Outreach work - At least 5% of the project budget will be allocated for outreach activities aimed at encouraging active and sustainable travel.
This links in with major improvements on the Forth and Clyde canal that includes the Claypits and improved cycling infrastructure.
The paper outlines recommendations for policy makers. Here’s a brief summary:
Set stretching targets and provide clarity on how they will be achieved
Deliver road space reallocation at pace and scale
Engagement of the public is crucial
Public transport is the key to a just transition for transport
Building capacity to deliver a transport system that works for
low-income households
The decision making process needs to be joined up and linked with other social issues, as noted by the Poverty and Inequality Commission (2019):
“Strategies for delivering housing, employment, education, health, leisure and transport services should not be developed in isolation from each other but should be considered in a connected way”.
It’s perfectly clear that the public understand that change is needed in the light of the climate crisis and air pollution issues. It’s also clear that people feel they are being ignored by those who have the power to initiate the changes needed. Glasgow in particular has the means and the capacity to generate change. In so doing, the City Council needs to priortise public view points in paramount to corporate BOs.
Inspiration can come from France, as this article from the European Cyclists' Federation highlights. In France, legislation has been brought in that ensures car advertisers must include a sustainable-mobility message incorporated within car ads. In addition, there’s a law that bans ads related to fossil-fuel energy. As a result, car ads can contain one of three messages:
“For short trips, prioritise walking or cycling.” (“Pour les trajets courts, privilégiez la marche ou le vélo”)
“Consider ride-sharing.” (“Pensez à covoiturer“)
“In daily life, take public transport.” (“Au quotidien, prenez les transports en commun“)
This is certainly a positive direction. Here at home, there’s clearly a lot of work to be done. In Glasgow, as the slogan says, “People make Glasgow”. It time for GCC to make that message literal and move beyond mere cliché.
NB: There was a misquote from the STV article above that stated that the Labour Group wanted bus services to remain privately owned. It should have stated they were in favour of public ownership. The error has been corrected.
Related: