Annex A – Options not being progressed

A long list of potential policy options were developed, either drawn from pre-existing commitments made by Ministers, options that Ministers have requested are assessed, are in response to representations from stakeholders, or otherwise informed by the Initial Appraisal of the Problems, Opportunities, Issues and Constraints in relation to the costs and availability of public transport.

An appraisal was undertaken whereby options were assessed under an overarching multi-criteria analysis framework for decision making against National Transport Strategy (NTS) priorities and the First Minister Policy Prospectus priorities for public transport (more available, affordable and accessible), also feasibility of options, timescales to implement, and consideration of the risks and sensitivities of delivering the options.

This Annex provides a summary of each option assessed not to be suitable for progression at this time.

Option 1

Universal expansion of NCTS to rail, light rail, and ferry for those groups eligible for the existing NCTS.

Rationale for not progressing

Whilst this option scores well on most criteria it is a relatively untargeted policy measure to achieve government outcomes. 

The NCTS scheme and reimbursement rate for operators is based on the current deregulated bus system (with a large number of private operators). Extending the scheme to other modes (at scale) would distort the existing system (reducing the impact in terms of overall efficiency and impacting potentially negatively on existing measures).

On this basis, the estimated cost of £200m per annum and increasing over time was rejected on VfM and affordability grounds.

Option 2

Expand eligibility for NCTS to CHFS and NIFS networks for all island residents aged under 22 (or full-time volunteers aged up to 26) on the same basis as the YPS for bus.

Rationale for not progressing

The option is neutral (or potentially slightly negative) in terms of climate change. 

There are significant cost, implementation and affordability issues for full network roll out. The inter-island option being taken forward, see recommendations, is more comparable with local bus services to which the current eligibility applies.

Option 3

Expand eligibility for NCTS to rail/Scotrail train services

Rationale for not progressing

For much of the population, the bus network provides better general connectivity than rail, especially for shorter journeys. The NCTS scheme and reimbursement rate for operators is based on the current deregulated bus system (with a large number of private operators). Extending the scheme to other modes (at scale) would distort the existing system (reducing the impact in terms of overall efficiency and impacting potentially negatively on existing measures).

Where rail is a clear alternative to bus, extension of the NCTS to rail will impact negatively on the bus network with negative consequences for those who rely on it.

Estimated cost to include rail travel in existing NCTS is £65-135m per annum and is not considered financially sustainable in current SG fiscal environment so was also rejected on affordability grounds.

Option 4

Expand eligibility for NCTS reimbursement to services operated by Community Transport operators under a Section 19 permit.

Rationale for not progressing

Overall, our analysis has shown that the tweaks to expand NCTS to additional groups will not deliver the strategic policy objectives of the Fair Fares Review or help to address wider bus sector issues of availability, accessibility and affordability. In relation to community transport specifically, services are often not open to the general public and many do not charge a “fare” in the traditional sense. It would be inappropriate and complex to include them in a statutory and universal fares scheme and could fundamentally change the nature of community transport in Scotland.

Option 5

Expand eligibility for the YPS to everyone aged under 26 instead of under age 22 as at present.

Rationale for not progressing

Overall, our analysis has shown that the tweaks to expand NCTS to additional groups will not deliver the strategic policy objectives of the Fair Fares Review or help to address wider bus sector issues of availability, accessibility and affordability. In light of the ongoing challenging budgetary conditions and discussions relating to a focus on better targeting of services rather than further extension of universal provision, we do not recommend the YPS is extended in this way.

Option 6

Expand eligibility of NCTS to include unpaid carers

Rationale for not progressing

The complexity of defining eligibility for unpaid carers’ reduces the deliverability of this option. Overall, our analysis has shown that the tweaks to expand NCTS to additional groups will not deliver the strategic policy objectives of the Fair Fares Review or help to address wider bus sector issues of availability, accessibility and affordability. In light of the ongoing challenging budgetary conditions and discussions relating to a focus on better targeting of services rather than further extension of universal provision, we do not recommend that NCTS is extended in this way.

Option 7

Expand eligibility of NCTS to include students

Rationale for not progressing

Extending the NCTS in this way would not target those most in need of support. Additionally, many colleges and universities have their own hardship funds, disbursed to students based on need, including for travel costs. And many students qualify for the U22 scheme (for at least part of their studies). Setting up a scheme for the minority who do not is not a good use of resources in this context.

Overall, our analysis has shown that tweaks to expand NCTS to additional groups will not deliver the strategic policy objectives of the Fair Fares Review or help to address wider bus sector issues of availability, accessibility and affordability, such as the recent high-profile loss of services in Dunfermline and West Lothian. Therefore, our advice is that options which would expand eligibility to unpaid carers, community bus services, all those under 26, unpaid carers and students and apprentices are not taken forward.

Option 8

Access to half price bus and rail travel for students and apprentices

Rationale for not progressing

Extending the NCTS in this way would not target those most in need of support. Additionally, many colleges and universities have their own hardship funds, disbursed to students based on need, including for travel costs. And many students qualify for the U22 scheme (for at least part of their studies). Setting up a scheme for the minority who do not is not a good use of resources in this context.

Under 22’s free bus travel provides free public transport option for most students and apprentices. Discounted rail fares are provided via the Young Scot card and through the 16-25 railcard (which is also available to students over 25). As such, the impact of this option would be relatively minimal with relatively high administration and processing costs.

Option 9

Expand coverage of NCTS to include rail, for all disabled card holders

Rationale for not progressing

This proposal would also likely provoke calls to extend free rail travel to all eligible NCTS cardholders such as over 60’s and would further increase the proportion of the population who qualify for free rail & bus travel. Estimated cost of £5-15m per annum to extend free rail travel to eligible disabled NCTS cardholders is not considered financially sustainable in current SG fiscal environment. 

Option 10

Expand NCTS to include SPT subway and Edinburgh Trams, also considered for U22s only

Rationale for not progressing

This option focuses support (£5m-£15m) within Edinburgh and Glasgow which have strong bus systems and so is not considered a good use of resources compared with other options as it would have a more marginal impact. In addition, Edinburgh Trams already provide concessionary travel to Edinburgh residents.

Option 11

Introduce a monthly/ annual fee to access NCTS

Rationale for not progressing

This option is not being progressed in favour of options that have been assessed as better options for delivering the strategic objectives of the Fair Fares review. This option would be operationally complex to deliver, carries significant risks and in general scored poorly against all objectives particularly as it would impact most negatively on low income groups.

Option 12

Introduce a financial cap for journeys that can be made under NCTS

Rationale for not progressing

This option which would place a limit on the number of journeys (based on cost) that users could make under the scheme is not being progressed in favour of options that have been assessed as better for delivering the strategic objectives of the Fair Fares review. This option would be extremely operationally complex to deliver, difficult to understand and manage for users, carries significant risks and in general scored poorly against all objectives.

Option 13

Introduce financial means testing for access to NCTS

Rationale for not progressing

This option would be operationally complex to deliver (both initially and as incomes of card-holders change over time), is likely to introduce unwelcome ‘cliff-edge’ effects and carries significant risks and in general scored poorly against all objectives. This option is not being progressed in favour of options that have been assessed as better options for delivering the strategic objectives of the Fair Fares Review.

Option 14

Removing use of NCTS at peak times

Rationale for not progressing

This option would be operationally complex to deliver, carries significant risks and in general scored poorly against all objectives. It would impact particularly negatively on the U22 component of the scheme (as U22s are more likely to need to travel at peak time) whilst potentially saving relatively little money through the ODPS component (as journeys could more likely be taken off peak). This option is not being progressed in favour of options that have been assessed as better options for delivering the strategic objectives of the Fair Fares Review.

Option 15

Increasing eligibility of NCTS Older persons scheme, to be in line with pension age.

Rationale for not progressing

This option would increase the costs of accessing bus services for those within this age cohort which is currently eligible to use the National Concessionary Travel Scheme (NCTS) at a time when they are already facing inflationary pressures due to the Cost of Living crisis. This could consequently impact on bus patronage and on individuals` ability to access bus services.

Option 16

Introducing a flat fare for NCTS.

Rationale for not progressing

This option would increase the costs of accessing bus services for those who are currently eligible to use the National Concessionary Travel Scheme (NCTS) at a time when they are already facing inflationary pressures due to the Cost of Living crisis. This could consequently impact on bus patronage and on individuals` ability to access bus services.