*Currently UK transport policy is a complete mess.*

In this damning situation there lies the greatest opportunity for Scotland to overtake the rest of the UK by using its devolved powers to establish a constructive 21st century transport policy that will see much needed investment in public transport infrastructure come forward at an accelerated rate, substantially raising the economic fortunes of Scotland. Namely, Scotland needs to reform the transport act to allow major schemes (such as the tram) to come forward with speed, through funding from the private sector, that can be justified through the increase in land-values that the infrastructure will induce.

The purpose of any transport system is to serve the economy and support sustainable development patterns / preferred land-use policy. However, in recent times land-use policy has looked towards supporting the viability/efficiency/value-for-money of the transport network. This has caused a vast element of confusion of the role of transport, propelling it at times to an very awkward status of being an end in itself. This status, if left unchecked can have diabolical consequences to the planning of this essential service.

The role of public transport in all this is the most complex, since these services run in the main as commercial operations, and therefore need to operate in a viable way, and therefore from an operators point of view transport CAN be easily seen as an end in itself - with passengers viewed as consumers of a travel product.

The private sector arm of the public transport industry has for the last 10 years seen large growth in this market. This is thanks to a consumer-led approach to transport planning within the private sector, by large operators such as Stagecoach and First. Through this approach they have created new transport markets and achieved through their efforts a much greater "mode-shift" to public transport than any of the initiatives used to dissuade car use. The biggest challenge the operators have are in working under the competition commission, who have made co-operation between different operators to establish an efficient network an illegal act. How perverse that we have legislation that forces private operators to compete over the same routes and cause unnecessary traffic, such as that seen on Princes Street. In other city centres we have seen effective quality-bus-partnerships which have seen local authorities help the industry grow their markets further by reconfiguring the highways network to solve reliability problems related to traffic jams. London is the only city that has a regulated transport system, that means operators do not compete over the same routes. In London, the introduction of the pre-pay Oyster card has significantly speeded up bus operation times, and this card also opens interesting further opportunities to link the card to retail purchases.

There is much more room for improvement to city bus networks, and one of them includes better planning for shoppers. Many networks are "optimised" to manage the journey-to-work peaks. However, without building a good "off-peak" market, the business case for routes can suffer.

The link between public transport accessibility and retail performance in metropolitan/city areas is undeniable. Many retail property investors and operators recognise this, although for some time they have lacked the equivalent location planning tools for public transport as they do for assessing drivetime based accessibility.

However, whilst access by PT is crucial, heavy bus traffic causes problems for both pedestrians and cyclists. For cyclists, buses cause dangerous visibility issues, and are a commonly cited reason for people finding cycling through cities a stressful experience. For pedestrians, buses block views and add to the traffic and associated pollution problems. We wouldn't plan a runway through the commercial district of a city, so nor should we drive unnacceptable levels of bus traffic through the core retail pitch of a centre.

Latest transport policies have seen the development of site-specific and area-wide "green" travel plans, as a tool to reduce the carbon footprint of a residential neighbourhood, office or retail centre. Whilst well-intentioned, these travel plans can be generally developed with little empathy for the users of the site or area and the need to support the viability and vibrancy of the location - thus, with regards to retail, conflicting with the stated objectives of PPS6 for putting town and city centres first over out-of-town developments. For example, an anti-car policy for a town and city centre simply displaces trade to unsustainable out of town locations, which have far easier access by car, but less effective public transport alternatives. Such policies, whilst apparently reducing the CO2 footprint of the city centre, are infact generating greater CO2 emmissions through the diverted trade they create to less sustainable locations.