— Final Consultation on the Regulation of Bus Bill S4 (¥4) I-am a member of the public and a bus service-user. I am a retired elderly person [over 70] and use a car currently but will shortly have to stop driving. I have been extremely active in my life and will try to continue to be so for as long as possible - transport is an integral part of my life. During the last two years I have used a powerchair In addition to my manual wheelchair which I use when in my car. [I do NOT use a mobility scooter as I am unable to do so legally and they are not allowed on buses]. I have done this in order to make the transition between car travel and bus travel before it becomes necessary for me to use buses all the time. This has been a useful transition exercise because It also represents, for me, a psychological hurdle for me to surmount, I have been a driver for 55 years and I am extremely independent; I do not readily accept having to be dependent upon others or on other services, but I know this has to come at some point. I have used bus services in my area on and off over several years, especially when living in a much more remote area than I am in now, so I do have some experience of the vagaries of bus travel “out in the sticks" and the problems which arise when buses do not arrive at all! Introduction Questions 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 - I support the general alm of the proposed Bill. When the buses were de-regulated this destabilised the efficiency of the transport services offered to the customers. Each bus company worked to its own agenda and gave no thought to the overall effect on passengers. The result was a complete lack of co-ordination between bus timetables which often led to people missing connections between one provider's service and the next connecting one. This was very disadvantageous to passengers living in the remote rural areas who depended upon services which only ran every two hours or even less frequently. 2, What would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What would be the disadvantages? The main practical advantages would be: a) proper cohesion of a much more efficient transport service provided by the bus companies b) Councils would be able to control the levels of services offered and make best use of provision. c) it would put an end to the practice of giving contracts to the company with lowest tender, regardless of the quality of the service being offered3. In what ways do you envisage re-regulation being used to improve bus services? a) b) 4) e) Councils could insist on all buses being accessible buses for the elderly, those who are wheelchair-users and Mums with pushchairs or buggies. Waiting until the Law on accessible buses comes into force in 2017 is not ideal, although 1 know it has been based upon the average "working life" of a bus. Councils could also insist that bus providers STOP putting ancient, unsafe buses on certain routes, which is what happens at the moment in some rural areas. This would lead to the provision of a better, more cohesive, comprehensive transport service in the rural areas in particular. Bus companies need to talk to each other when arranging their timetables! They must be synchronised where possible! Giving Local Authorities more power over Bus Transport Provision Would solve this. Service providers MUST synchronise their timetables so that connecting services actually connect! More thought should be given to the actual routes which are covered - in some cases the coverage Is inadequate. I use a Route Planner online and have found that there are far too many "walks" between different connecting bus routes. This is not acceptable if one Is a wheelchair-user. A 10 or 15 minute walk is unacceptable for an independent manual wheelchair-user to have to push it - it is not as bad if one has a powered wheelchair. 4, How can community transport be better utilised to serve local communities and particularly low passenger volume routes? a) b) Where community transport is available, better use could be made of it between the normal daily contractual commitments - e.g. when Council Transport Services buses are not being used for school or Day Centre runs, the community transport vehicles could be used to fill the gaps in the [often] very patchy remote rural area transport provision. Where circle routes are in operation, especially in the remote rural areas, it would make sense for a bus to run each way at staggered times so that there was less of a gap between buses. This would enable passengers to connect with other service providers in a more realistic way. 5, Do you agree that the Traffic Commissioner should be able to impose greater financial penalties on operators who a) fail to meet the terms of the franchise or b) walk away from the franchise altogether? Yes, definitely - this would deter bus companies who did not fulfil their obligations as providers of a service to customers.6, What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation? What other significant financial implications are likely to arise? As people become older and less able to use a car for whatever reasons, they will be much more dependent upon reliable bus services. This applies particularly to those of us who live in rural areas where services can be patchy. Service-users must be able to rely upon the timetables! Significant frustration has been caused recently by the constant changing of bus timetables until we don't know what is happening next. Those of us who are registered with the various bus companies' websites for updates are fortunate; some who are elderly or who are people with disabilities may not necessarily have these resources. It is important the we are not forced into social isolation because of a lack of suitable transport. Financially, a reliable and efficient bus service would improve my own financial situation as I will no longer have to rely on the use of a car for certain journeys, thus it would free up some of my income. This could apply to many other people on limited incomes, Too many people have had to become reliant on a taxi service to get them to the more inaccessible places because they are not on bus routes. 7. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided? If this Bill is implemented properly, this should have a positive implication for equality! This ought to mean equality of service for ALL - this includes all strata of society - ie, the elderly, people with various disabilities, people who are wheelchair-users and people who have pushchairs and buggies. ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT FOR ALL should be the aim! There should be NO negative implication for equality! Proper and efficient provision of transport services should benefit all. 8. Do you have any other comment or suggestion that is relevant to the need for or detail of this Bill? a) With regard to transport for people with disabilities who use wheelchairs ~ some thought needs to be given to the fact that there is only one wheelchair space in any bus - if that space is full, a wheelchair-user has to wait for the next bus, On more than one occasion I have had to let two or even three buses go by before I can get on one. Some of these buses have NOT been accessible buses. This means that buses must be more frequent or I could have to wait for an hour for the next one to arrive [which I have done in the past] b) Transport for London [TfL] is mentioned in thé Consultation document. TfL was privatised but NOT deregulated. I use Transport for London bus services when I am in London. It is efficient and reliable and it works! Because I don't live in London and therefore do not qualify for a Pensioner's Concessionary Card I usean Oyster Card; it is not too costly and may be topped up at any time online or at a suitable Pay Point. I mention this because, even if It Is found necessary to reduce-or cease Concessionary Fares for the elderly and those with disabilities, there could be an alternative put in place, Our current Smart Card could be used if necessary as one which may be topped-up. This may not be welcomed by many, but it may be an option which could be considered. There are many people who have Concessionary Cards who could well afford to pay for their own bus fares. There are also those who could not; the problem lies in "where to draw a reasonable line" between them. Maybe those who could afford to pay might opt NOT to apply for their Concessionary Card? Jain Gray MSP, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh EH99 1SP Tel: 0131 348 5901 Fax: 0131 348 6359 Email: bus.bill@scottish.parliament.uk Please indicate whether you are a private Individual or an organisation. Tam a private individual. Dr Rebekah Gronowski