4. Will any consideration be given to the economic viability of public transport services?
5. Will the new Scottish administration give sufficient attention to transport?
6. Will the new Scottish Parliament do a better job of scrutinising transport?
6 Questions for '26
transform.scot/2026/01/12/6...
1. Will we see even one mile of new bus lane laid down during 2026?
2. Will we see a national campaign put in place to deliver road traffic reduction?
3. Will we see any movement on traffic demand management anywhere in Scotland?
Following widespread speculation that the Chancellor will announce plans for a pay-per-mile charge for electric vehicle use in tomorrow's UK Budget, here's the article initially written for @transform.scot's 'Ideas for Investment' report.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-im...
Why Fly website home screen reads: Why Fly? Flying is the most carbon-intensive mode of transport. We want Scottish businesses and public sector organisations to commit to choosing train over plane for UK trips.
Bar chart illustrating carbon footprints of air (177 kg of CO2 per passenger) vs rail (28 kg of CO2 per passenger)
Today we’re proud to launch Why Fly? – a new website which asks #WhyFly when rail beats air on comfort, carbon, and value to Scotland?
Explore our 20 year-long campaign: whyfly.scot
Trains emit up to 90% less CO₂ than flights, provide more comfort, and contribute more to Scotland’s economy.
Image of Life in the Bus Lane project report cover
🚍 NEW REPORT: Public backs bus priority—now it’s time for action
Today, we launch ‘Life in the Bus Lane’, revealing strong public support for bus priority measures—even from non-bus users 👇
transform.scot/our-work/our...
🧵 Read on for key findings & what needs to change
[1/5]
Yes, spot on. Let's see the £10m *only* spent on delivering bus priority. Five years of buggering about and, as far as I can see, precisely no new bus lanes on the roads.
Bus Partnership Fund reported as having been "concluded" by
Transport Scotland according to Route One magazine.
So concluded only c. £473m short of the £500m originally committed.
We wait to see how the replacement £10m Bus Infrastructure Fund will work.
www.route-one.net/news/bus-inf...
I don't think so.
Having now looked at the Level 4 figures, this may be a non-story. It states there that "The [£107.5m] reduction in [rail] capital funding relates to the timing of lease renewals for fleet and, as a technical accounting adjustment, has no practical impact on operational delivery."
I won't waste my time on them. The UKCCC have repeatedly made it clear that they are not prepared to scrutinise the SG's road-building programme. It seems that in their world, climate change scrutiny is only about things that *might* cut emissions, not things that *will* increase emissions.
So the £500m Bus Partnership Fund has indeed been cancelled, not "paused", as Transport Scotland claimed earlier this year.
But it has been replaced by a £10m 'Bus Infrastructure Fund'.
www.gov.scot/binaries/con...
Unclear whether this new fund comes at the expense of active travel investment.
This table suggests a value of £10m for the Bus Infrastructure Fund.
www.gov.scot/binaries/con...
So rather less than the £500m previously promised for the -- now-definitely-cancelled, not-paused -- BPF.
The mystery of 'Low Carbon Programmes' is lifted at Level 4:
"ScotZEB 2, LEZ Support, Freight Facilities Grant, HGV Residual Value Support Grant, and EV Infrastructure Fund"
plus new "HGV Residual Value Support Grant, Rural & Islands Infrastructure Fund and Transport Just Transition Skills Grant"
Strange that this new Fund didn't get a mention in the budget -- not least as it would have answered the budget calls of quite a few folk.
We'll have to wait to see what it comprises -- and what impact it has on active travel investment.
Interesting that a 'Bus Investment Fund' now being put in place from funds that were previously (mainly) allocated to active travel investment.
bsky.app/profile/spok...
I've now found the Level 4 disaggregations, courtesy of @spokeslothian.bsky.social
www.gov.scot/binaries/con...
The above is of course a 'errors and omissions excepted' job.
It's difficult to provide informed public policy scrutiny when the information is presented so opaquely.
Only the cynics would suggest that this may be deliberate!
Secondly, the 'Regional Transport Partnerships' line increases from zero last year back up to £12.4m.
This may be the reinstatement of some capital funds which were cancelled last year.
But again, would a basic explanatory note have been too difficult for the government to include?
Table 8.08 'Grants to Local Authorities' contains a couple of interesting points:
Firstly, the 'Cycling, Walking & Safer Routes' line, zero last year, increases back up to 23.9m.
That combined with the £164.8m on p74 does total to £188.7m.
But not all of the latter will be on active travel.
'Support for Ferry Services' (10% up) and the 'Vessels and Piers' budget lines (53% up) both see large increases.
Good to see investment going up in ferry infrastructure, as it has been known for years that systematic underinvestment here led to the service unreliability suffered in recent years.
The A9 dualling programme was justified in the Cab Sec's speech on grounds of safety.
But there appears to be no budget for road safety itself. The last time that this featured as a separate line in the budget was in the 2023-24 budget, when the total value fro the rest of Scotland was £25m.
The roads spending lines remain reliably obscure.
One of the few specific projects isolated in the document is "£112 million to progress the dualling of the A9" (p12).
The spectacularly opaque 'Low Carbon Programmes' increases from £36.0m to £54.4m (a 51% increase).
Does anyone know what this is spent on, and whether it actually reduces climate emissions from transport?
Page 9 refers to "£188.7 million in a range of active and sustainable travel measures". This doesn't match the figures set up on p74, but again must be mostly on active travel.
Whatever the number, this is less than half of the 10% of the transport budget promised for investment into active travel.
The 'Support for Active and Sustainable Travel' budget line (p74) falls by £20.6m (from £185.4m to £164.8m).
As ever, there's no explanation of what this budget line is actually spent on, although most of it must be on active travel.
Absolutely no reference to 'bus priority' in the #ScottishBudget, and certainly no indication of the reinstatement of the Bus Partnership Fund.
Very strange 'climate emergency' priorities for £100m+ to be found for A9 dualling but not a cent can be found for bus priority.
The 'Support for Bus Services', which I presume is the Network Support Grant for bus operations, falls steeply (by 9%) from £55.5m to £49.5m.
That'll make it more difficult for bus operators to provide services. So let's just hope that there are some services left for bus users to travel on.
The 'Concessionary Fares' line rises substantially (12% up), from £370.4m to £414.5m.
There's no explanation in the document, so are we to presume that this is a result of continuing uptake of the under-22s free bus scheme?
In terms of the 'Rail Services', I'm not sure I ever understood why it rose so much last year (from £878.0m to £1,004.2m).
I'm certainly unclear why it now bounces back down to £897.6m.
Can anyone else explain this?
While the Cab Sec spoke about new rail rolling stock in her speech, p70 clarifies this as "commenc[ing] plans to replace ScotRail’s Intercity fleets". As the £43.8m increase (p73) in the 'Rail Infrastructure Improvement and Rolling Stock Projects' line wouldn't buy one many new trains.
Looking at the Level 3 disaggregations:
