Smart cargo bikes are becoming the new “street infrastructure"

When people talk about ambulance performance, the focus is usually on response times, staffing, and the vehicles themselves. But one of the biggest levers for fleet availability is much less visible: the facilities and workflow that keep vehicles prepared, maintained, and ready to deploy. That is why a recent South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWAST) award for “Ambulance Vehicle Preparation” (AVP) is worth paying attention to. The published notice shows a total contract value of £658,792.61 (excluding VAT), a conclusion date of 20 January 2026, and the contractor listed as T Clarke Contracting Limited. What AVP means in practice AVP is the unglamorous part of running a modern emergency fleet. It can include the space and infrastructure needed for: vehicle prep and turnaround refurbishment or fit-out work basic readiness checks managing downtime so assets return to service quickly If AVP capacity is tight, you often see it in the numbers: more vehicles unavailable, slower turnaround after maintenance or repairs, and higher operational pressure because the fleet has less slack. Why this matters to private providers supporting NHS transport Many private providers touch the ambulance ecosystem: patient transport operators, conversion and fit-out firms, fleet support services, telematics suppliers, and estates contractors. AVP investment is a signal that trusts are still putting money into the system around the vehicle, not only the vehicle. For suppliers, it also highlights how procurement can land. The SWAST notice references a framework route. That matters because framework delivery is often faster, but it places even more weight on clear scopes, practical timelines, and minimal disruption to live operations. The commercial takeaway: uptime is a system, not a line item When fleet contracts are priced, uptime is sometimes treated as “maintenance plus good intentions”. In reality, uptime is a chain: estates capacity workflow and scheduling parts and equipment availability access to bays and specialist facilities handover quality between teams If one link is weak, you lose availability. If you invest in the weakest link, the whole chain improves. AVP projects are often exactly that: targeted work that prevents small delays turning into big operational problems. What to watch next If more AVP-related awards appear, it will likely reflect a wider push to protect utilisation as fleets become more complex (more onboard kit, more diagnostics, more integration with digital systems). The “vehicle” is only getting more sophisticated, so the supporting infrastructure has to keep up. Bottom line Ambulance performance is won in the basics: readiness, turnaround, and keeping vehicles in service. AVP contracts are not flashy, but they are often where real improvements start.

ScotZEB3 (Scottish Zero Emission Bus Challenge Fund Phase 3) is open, but the tone of this round is changing. A recent industry report highlights that per-vehicle subsidy thresholds have broadly been reduced compared with the prior phase, with Transport Scotland describing this as a reflection of a more mature zero-emission bus market. Why the subsidy cap matters A lower maximum grant per bus changes the shape of a project. It pushes more cost and risk into the operator and their delivery partners. That is not necessarily bad. It can bring sharper planning and better value. But it does mean that “good intentions” will not survive contact with grid connections, depot civil's, and delivery timelines. Transport Scotland’s argument is straightforward: if the sector can deliver zero-emission buses at scale and attract private investment, then public subsidy should go further across more vehicles and more operators. What it signals for ScotZEB3 bids If you are preparing a ScotZEB3 application, treat the funding cap as a forcing function. It rewards bids that are deliverable, not just desirable. In practical terms, that usually means: Depot-first planning: confirm power availability, connection timelines, and the physical layout before you lock vehicle numbers. Phasing: a staged rollout (vehicles and chargers) is often more credible than a single “big bang”. Cashflow realism: supplier payment terms, build milestones, and drawdown timings need to match how the project will actually be paid for. Operating proof: the bid should show how duty cycles, range, and charging windows work on real routes, not on idealised assumptions. Single-operator bids: a quiet but important change One point worth noting from the coverage is that ScotZEB3 allows bids from single operators, not only consortiums. That could lower friction for smaller or more agile operators who want to move quickly. It also increases the need for strong delivery partners, because you may be carrying more of the project management and integration risk yourself. The wider context: infrastructure is now the constraint The hardest part of decarbonising bus fleets is often not the bus. It’s the depot and the grid. That’s why Transport Scotland confirming £85m for EV charging infrastructure is relevant even when it is not labelled as bus funding. It points to political and budget backing for the infrastructure side of electrification, which can strengthen the delivery case for depot projects that are ready to proceed. What to do next If you want to be competitive in ScotZEB3, focus on deliverability and value for money. A strong bid is usually the one that has already done the boring work: site surveys, power discussions, a practical timeline, and a finance structure that can cope with delays. The message in the lower subsidy caps is not “stop applying”. It’s “plan better”.