Transport and the Accessibility of Public Services

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

Transport and the accessibility of public services

Written evidence

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee for the inquiry into Transport and the accessibility of public services and accepted as written evidence are included

List of written evidence

Page 1 Plymouth People First 4 2 Age UK 5 3 Derek Halden, DHC 13 4 Norma George 25 5 Professor Noel Smith, University Campus Suffolk 27 6 Lancashire LINk 32 7 Lynn Curnow 34 8 Oxfordshire Rural Community Council 37 9 Little Green Bus 38 10 The Local Government Technical Advisers Group, the Planning Officers Society, and the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation 45 11 Mr Ray Brookfield 55 12 ASLEF 56 13 Campaign for National Parks 58 14 Professor Karel Martens 65 15 Bus Users UK 69 16 Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 73 17 Dr Karen Lucas 82 18 British Youth Council 88 19 Pteg 91 20 Lincolnshire County Council 98 21 Campaign for Better Transport 101 22 Local Government Association 110 23 Mencap 116 24 Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) 120 25 Unite the Union 131 26 Stockport Child Poverty Board 135 27 Professor Roger Mackett and Dr Helena Titheridge, UCL 137 28 Professor Peter Jones, UCL 140 29 Transport for All 148 30 RMT 154 31 Sustrans 168 32 Cllr Patsy Ormrod, Wyre Council 177 33 Simon Trevan, Support Worker, Plymouth City Council 179 34 The Government – Department for Transport 185 35 The Mayor of London and TfL 216 36 Consumer Focus 222 37 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport 227 38 RAC Foundation 233 39 Community Organiser for High Green and Chapeltown 237 3

40 Cambridgeshire County Council (supplementary evidence) 240 41 Merseytravel (supplementary evidence) 246 42 Department for Education (supplementary evidence) 249 43 Department for Work and Pensions (further supplementary evidence) 250

Written evidence submitted by Plymouth People First

1. Plymouth People First is a speaking up organisation that supports adults with a Learning Disability to self-advocate on different life issues. Transport, in particular bus usage, is an issue strongly felt and discussed by our members.

2. Plymouth City Council distributes free bus passes to many different community groups within our locality. People who are blind or over the age of eighty may travel for free on the buses from any time; adults with a learning disability have to wait until 9:30 in the morning to use theirs and cannot use it after 11pm.This has a serious effect on people wishing to access training or employment opportunities. Most employers want their staff to start at 8:30 or 9:00 in the morning, not after 10am. Many of our members live off benefits and paying travel costs before 9:30 uses a lot of their weekly income.

3. The terms and conditions of the bus pass’ usage are set by the local authority. They have said changing the terms will cost them five million pounds. The Government set out in the white paper Valuing Employment Now (2010) aims to get people with learning disabilities into paid employment. Limiting the terms of when the pass can be used when other community groups have freer rein contradicts this.

4. Our local bus company, Plymouth Citybus, is also removing numerous services from around the city. This is affecting many of our members who cannot access the community after 5pm as that is when their last bus home runs. This impacts adults with a learning disability being seen as active citizens as they cannot go out at night or work until 5pm as they have no way of getting home independently.

5. For a short while Plymouth Citybus offered our users cheaper bus travel before 9:30 if they showed their bus pass but this was quickly rescinded. Plymouth People First self-advocates would like to see free bus passes made available to adults with a learning disability or bus companies offer reduced fares to particular groups that will enable more people to travel independently and access new life opportunities.

24 July 2012 5

Written evidence submitted by Age UK

The Environmental Audit Committee has launched an inquiry into ‘Transport and the accessibility of public services’. This inquiry will reflect on the progress that has been made to improve accessibility since the Social Exclusion Unit’s 2003 report “Making the Connections”, which detailed the link between transport and social exclusion. The Committee is particularly interested in the implications of Government funding cuts and increases in public transport fares. They want to understand whether this agenda has been sidelined and if so the future role of Government policy.

While the inquiry rightly focuses on access to vital public services, it should not be forgotten that many private services are also essential, particularly banks and supermarkets. Age UK has therefore included evidence that refers to both public and private essential services in this response.

Key points and recommendations: • The government needs to make social isolation a priority in public transport policy and funding, alongside their priorities of economic growth and cutting carbon emissions. They should encourage greater co-operation and coordination across public, private and community transport providers. • The national bus concession must remain free and universal. • All local transport authorities must make the most of accessibility planning in transport planning, particularly when spending decisions are being made. They have to be able to react to the needs and views of older people and promote co-operation between all potential transport partners, including community transport and active travel. • The health sector should consider transport when they are planning services. Accessibility planning should be part of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. • National government should assess the implementation of accessibility planning and set a standard to ensure local authorities are meeting their transport duties. • The relationship between transport and poverty needs to be better understood and acted upon by all levels of government. • The internet has an important part to play in providing a range of services but it should be seen as complementary and not as a way of reducing investment in our well established transport infrastructure.

How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services?

The government’s transport strategy prioritises economic growth and cutting carbon emissions1. Alongside these aims they need to make reducing social isolation a priority in public transport policy and funding. This means making transport planning decisions that take into account the accessibility of essential services for vulnerable people, including older people.

There are 1.2 million people over 50 who are severely excluded2. Often referred to in terms of being cut off from the mainstream of society, the term recognises disadvantage is not just about being poor; but also being unable to access things in 6 life that most of society takes for granted. This includes having a properly equipped, well maintained home; close friends and regular company; stimulating activity; and easy access to important services such as GPs, shops and post offices.

Being able to get out and about is what makes many of these activities possible. Transport is vital to leading an active and independent life and for those without access to a car reliable public transport is essential.

Older people and younger people on average make proportionately more trips by public transport (bus, coach and rail) than other age groups. For older people this coincides with a decline in the number of people holding a car driving licence with age. They are therefore disproportionately affected by the Government’s public transport policy.

Buses are the most popular form of public transport for older people and they are used frequently. Thirty-nine per cent of people over 60 take a bus at least once a week3. The Government’s commitment to the national bus concession in primary legislation and recently in Parliament is an important cornerstone to accessibility of public services for older people.

Free bus travel has been a success and remains very popular with older people. In 2009, 76 per cent of people aged over 60 in Great Britain had received or registered for a concessionary pass4. Age UK research found that the concession allows older people to reach key services without having to make difficult financial decisions, as highlighted in the quotes from older people in Box 1. Notably, ownership and use of the concessionary bus pass is highest for those on the lowest income5.

Box 1: Comments from Age UK’s report Getting out and about: keeping buses free and reliable:

Male, 61 ‘I couldn’t afford to travel by bus every day before. I would have bought one ticket for one day and be done with it, but now I find myself just using it whenever. Now I am not concerned about getting value for money’

Male, 77 ‘Now I have free bus travel, I don’t need a car. I gave it up… and all the costs and worries of it breaking down and all that’

However, for those people that rely on public transport it can still be more difficult to access key services if you do not have transport readily available. A significant percentage of people perceive difficulties getting to amenities without a car: 44 per cent said they had difficulty getting to the doctor/hospital; 23 per cent getting to the corner shop/supermarket; and 18 per cent getting to the post office6. In addition, the availability of public transport differs significantly between communities. In urban areas the percentage of people who live within 13 minutes of a regular (hourly) bus is around 95 per cent, in rural areas it is 50 per cent7. These figures do not reveal whether the regular services available take people to where they want to go.

The availability of bus services has been affected by public spending cuts, which is likely to widen the accessibility gap in some communities. Research from the Campaign for Better Transport shows that 70 per cent of local authorities made cuts to bus provision in 2011/12 and they are concerned about further cuts in the future8. Some local authorities have also argued they have not been given sufficient funds from national government to reimburse bus operators for concessionary fares. Bus operators will also see the Bus Service Operators Grant reduced by 20 per cent from 2012/13. When taken together, all these changes could have an impact on the sustainable provision of bus services.

Age UK contacted older people to hear their experience of changes to bus provision in their local area. The comments in Box 2 show the stark implications that losing public transport can have on older people’s lives, with people seriously considering cutting down on their contribution to the community or even moving home.

Public transport should not be changed without giving local people a chance to have their say and without alternatives being put in place. Age UK would like to see the Government encouraging local authorities to take their duties to improve the bus network seriously, in particular their duty to consider the transport needs of older people when developing policy and practice.

In many places the bus pass has additional benefits or alternatives. This is at the discretion of the local authority. The generosity of these alternatives varies across England; from free all day travel on all public transport in London; accepting the concession on community transport, or a simple extension of the bus concession start time to 9am in other local authority areas. These additional benefits are particularly important if bus travel is not available, accessible or is needed outside of peak hours, such as for hospital appointments. Where private travel is not possible and the public transport system does not fully serve the needs of older people, the Government should encourage local authorities to provide flexible alternatives such as financial support towards community transport or taxis.

At European level, there are now EU regulations establishing passenger rights across all transport modes, with specific requirements to meet the needs of passengers with reduced mobility. The proposed European Accessibility Act will also be an opportunity to improve accessibility of transport and other public services.

The complex governance, regulations and delivery arrangements for public transport means it can be difficult to implement accessibility improvements. Responsibility crosses national and local government, the private and community sector, and overarching EU regulations also apply. The government’s transport policies need to incentivise greater co-operation and co-ordination across public, private and community transport providers to improve public transport for older people. This will also mean listening and acting on the views of people in later life themselves.

Box 2: Older people’s experiences shared by older people’s forums and local Age UK’s

Female, 77 years old. Bus routes 9a, 9 and 13 are being stopped. Bus changes are making individual depressed as she will be forced to move house. She will no longer be able to live in her current home as she will have a problem with getting to her doctors.

Female, 76 years old. Removal of buses 9, 9a, 13 mean taxis are the only option now. She fears she will become isolated and is uncertain how shopping is going to get done. Social life will be affected and she will have to stop her volunteer work at her church.

Female, 74 years old Mrs E has terminal bowel cancer and her husband has heart problems. Currently they are able to drive to get about, but due to their health problems they don't think they will be able to do this for much longer. Now that the local bus has been discontinued they have no alternative means of transport. Due to the risk that they will soon become isolated in their home they have to look at warden supported accommodation for the future.

Female, 87 years old The bus that served the Hornby Court Area has now been stopped. The positioning of the bus stop is no good, it is up a hill and too far to walk, especially for those with breathing difficulties. The paving is incredibly uneven and dangerous also. Taxis are coming one after another and there is no consistency in the prices. The cost of paying for the taxis is in effect doubling the cost of the shop.

Wife, 75 and husband, 77 Bus service has been reduced to weekdays, one a day before 7am and there are no buses to the doctor in the next village. She cannot drive but her husband can. However, he suffers from bouts of illness that mean he cannot drive. Also, she feels being able to get on the bus gave her some freedom, she doesn’t want to rely on him he has his own life. “I used to toddle off on the bus, now the onus is on him”.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment?

Transport should not be seen in isolation from other policy decisions as something which can be slotted in after other decisions have been made. Age UK has received a number of responses from local Age UKs and older people’s forums (see Box 3) that show how decisions about public service provision, in particular healthcare, have not taken account of the limited transport options for some older people. Accessibility 9 is necessary not only for patients, but also for carers and family that are all an important part of recuperation.

More needs to be done to work across sector boundaries and see accessibility as an integral part of all service provision. It should not be assumed that transport providers will automatically address these needs and fill new gaps, for instance when a health care unit is centralised or relocated.

There are opportunities in existing processes to ensure appropriate transport is provided for these essential services. In particular the health sector should incorporate accessibility planning as part of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. Health and Wellbeing boards should also take accessibility into consideration as part of their strategic planning.

The National Planning Policy Framework and Local Economic Partnerships will also have an impact on transport planning and location of services at a local and sub- regional level. Again the emphasis in national policy is on economic growth and more needs to be done to make sure accessibility and the implications of social isolation have priority in the current system.

As previously mentioned, the forthcoming European Accessibility Act should present opportunities to improve the accessibility of public services. AGE Platform Europe are also developing a strategy to promote age-friendly environments across the EU, including through a proposed Covenant of Mayors. Age UK hopes that local and national authorities throughout the UK will engage positively with these processes.

Box 3: Older people’s experiences shared by older people’s forums and local Age UK’s.

“I live in a village in a rural area with very limited public transport, ie a once a week bus... However the 'local' hospital is over 30 miles away and there is no public transport there. The only way to get to outpatient appointments or to visit someone in hospital is to drive or be driven. As you can imagine, that can be very difficult at times, eg for an older couple one of whom is in hospital… We depend on our friends and neighbours for lifts and a round trip to the hospital takes half a day, so it is a lot to ask of people. A taxi, as you can imagine, would be prohibitively expensive.”

“The NHS are progressively concentrating specialists into "Regional Centres of Excellence" therefore by definition this means that for many, like Tendring residents - travel is "challenging" to some of these. Public transport is simply NOT a viable option over the long distances especially when seriously ill. Very challenging for Outpatient appointments.”

“An elderly lady in a wheelchair wanted to visit her son, being treated at Preston Hospital, three times a week. Not eligible to use Patient Transport, as she wasn't the patient. Unable to use public transport. No support available from Community Cars. Return trip by taxi costs £70.”

“Older man living in Cockerham had a stroke and was referred for physio treatment at Salt Ayre Active Health Team. Unable to use public transport and not eligible for PatientTransport. Return trip by taxi costs £50.”

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working?

Accessibility planning should offer a way of looking at transport options in the round to find practical solutions to meet the accessibility needs of residents, particularly those groups at risk of social isolation. Where commercial bus services are not viable, this may mean local authority tendered services. It may also mean that other more flexible services provided by the council or the voluntary sector (e.g. Dial a ride) are more sustainable. Accessibility planning should give local authorities a process by which they are able to react to the needs and views of older people and promote co-operation between all potential transport partners, including community transport, walking and cycling.

This is particularly important at a time of public spending reductions. Local transport authority spending decisions on public transport should require an impact assessment that takes into account older people and social isolation. The responses Age UK gathered from older people (see Box 1 - 3 above) reinforce our belief that bus services should not be changed without giving local people a chance to have their say and without alternatives being put in place.

It is unclear whether accessibility planning has been implemented consistently or effectively across all local authorities. National government should assess progress to date and set a standard to ensure local authorities are meeting their transport duties.

Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy making and if so how should it be defined?

Transport and access to services should certainly be recognised as related to poverty. The term “transport poverty” needs to recognise both the cost of travel and the availability of services. For instance, the bus concession provides older people an affordable means of transport. However, this needs to be matched with appropriate services that are nearby, regular and go where people need them to go9.

For some older people public transport in itself presents accessibility problems. The Life Opportunities Survey10 found that 74 per cent of adults with an impairment had difficulty with at least one mode of transport, which meant they did not use it at all or less then they liked. Long distance rail and coach were the modes most reported as difficult and the main barriers were cost and anxiety or lack of confidence. There were also 34 per cent of adults with an impairment that cited buses as difficult to use. Other than cost, the main reason cited was difficulty getting on and off transport.

Finding a definition for transport poverty that balances both cost and access may be difficult, but the relationship between transport and poverty needs to be better understood. Age UK research has found that limited public transport is one of the factors that makes it much harder for older people on a low income to manage financially as well as practically11. For instance, poor transport choices could mean that people are unable to shop around for the cheapest food that allows them to meet a small budget.

There are 1.7 million pensioners living in relative income-poverty, which represents 16% of a total of 11.5 million pensioners12. It is also important to understand that pensioners are on a fixed income. This means their experience of poverty is unique because they have less means of escaping poverty through work than people of working age13.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to assess public services.

The internet has an important part to play to provide a range of services but it should be seen as complementary and not as a way of reducing investment in our well established transport infrastructure.

The Government’s ‘digital by default’ agenda indicates the future direction of service delivery. This means that the primary way to access information and services will be online – whether it is claiming benefits (e.g the new Universal Credit), renewing car 12 tax or making a complaint. The Government Digital Service (GDS) has acknowledged that delivering services online will enable considerable cost savings to be realised, but have not yet said how much these will be or exactly where they will come from.

While this will provide an accessible service for some, the policy does not take account of the significant numbers of people, many of them older, who are unable, or unwilling to get online. Among those aged 65-74, only 55 per cent have internet access at home and only a small minority, 26 per cent, of those aged 75+ have the internet at home. This compare to around 85 per cent of those aged 25-54 who do14. For many older people telephone or face to face contact will still be necessary and provision will have to be made to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not further disadvantaged by the move to digital by default.

It follows that however efficient the delivery of services becomes through the internet, it will not mitigate the need for current transport infrastructures to be maintained. In any event, there are other reasons why transport, whether local or national, will continue to play an important part in both the social and business needs of citizens. As has been raised earlier in this response, bus networks can provide a lifeline to older people, allowing them to access shops, doctor’s surgeries, hospitals, friends and relatives. The risks of social exclusion, loneliness and isolation all increase with age and being able to access reliable and safe forms of transport are vital in maintaining health and wellbeing in later life.

28 August 2012

1 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon. Department of Transport, 2012. 2 Out of Sight; Out of mind. Age Concern 2007 3 Getting out and about: Keeping bus services free and sustainable. Age UK 2012. 4 Office for National Statistics' Omnibus Survey June 2008 5 Getting out and about: Keeping bus services free and sustainable. Age UK. 2012 6 Measuring Progress: Sustainable development indicators, Defra, 2010 7 National Travel Survey Department for Transport, 2009. 8 Save Our Buses campaign, Campaign for Better Transport, 2012 9 Getting out and about: Keeping bus services free and sustainable. Age UK 2012. 10 Life Opportunities Survey, Interim Results 2009/10 Office for National Statistics, 2010 11 Living on a low income in later life. Age UK 2012 12 Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95-2010/11, DWP, 2012 13 The implications of government policy for future levels of pensioner poverty, PPI, 2012 14 Communications Market Report, Ofcom, 2011 13

Written evidence submitted by Derek Halden, DHS

1.0 Summary ¾ There remain many market and policy pressures that lead to poorer access for some people. Markets serve majority populations better than minorities, and accessibility benefits are often sacrificed by public agencies and service providers to achieve single sector efficiency goals. Despite these difficulties, accessibility goals have increasingly become more explicit in policy over the last decade, and progress has been made checking that accessibility needs are being met, and tackling identified problems. ¾ The implementation of accessibility planning as envisaged by the SEU in 2003 is still work in progress1. Faster progress could be prompted by changing how transport investment decisions are made, and nurturing new professional practices. ¾ The transport industry views improving accessibility as its core business, but is often unclear about who has benefitted from transport investment, and for what trip purposes. More auditing is required to ensure that accountability is clearer. Only a minority of transport authorities have so far embraced the opportunities of accessibility planning, and the general culture of transport planning and delivery continues to be focused on promoting more mobility, which does not always lead to greater accessibility. ¾ Accessibility planning in the transport sector, parallels similar evidence led, people focused, partnership delivery initiatives in other sectors. Initiatives for people and patient focused care in health, and child centred learning in education, adopt very similar principles, and have faced similar challenges. People focused approaches should be distinguished from client and customer service improvements, since non users can be the main beneficiaries. ¾ Transport related social exclusion is still widespread. Despite improving accessibility being the policy rationale for investing in transport, the current public funding of £20bn+ for transport each year may still be making more impact on growing travel demand than improving accessibility; perhaps also creating more exclusion than it solves; and compounding land use changes which continue to make some essential services less accessible. ¾ Without the improvements made through accessibility planning over the last 20 years, accessibility in the UK would be worse, the economy weaker, society more unequal, and there would be more emissions from transport.

2.0 Evidence base for this response 2.1 This response draws evidence from experience over 20 years of accessibility planning, and has been prepared by DHC founder, Derek Halden. Derek helped to introduce and implement accessibility policies within the Scottish Office between

1 The recommendations DHC and University of Westminster made in 2003/4 to DfT on how to deliver accessibility planning have still only been partially executed. 14

1991 and 19922, and subsequently researched the theory and practice of accessibility planning at the Transport Research Laboratory until 1995 at a time when the concept was gaining ground within policy3. Since 1996 DHC has pioneered many aspects of the practice of accessibility planning. DHC developed guidance for the Scottish Executive between 1998 and 20024 and subsequently along with University of Westminster developed accessibility planning processes in England from 2003 to 20055. Since 2006, DHC has been helping DfT to prepare the national accessibility statistics referenced in the call for evidence6. References are made to some of this work, as footnotes. 3.0 Q1 ‐ How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services? Access to services is very much better than it might have been, but the implementation of accessibility planning in transport policies is still work in progress. 3.1 The case for government action is greatest where there is market failure. With levels of accessibility falling for many people as travel times and costs rise, tacking these problems is probably the greatest market failure in transport. Yet transport investment and delivery still tends to emphasise market pressures, such as road congestion, rather than market failure, such as the inability of people and businesses to meet their travel needs. 3.2 Since 20037, when a new cross governmental co‐ordinating role on accessibility was allocated to DfT, there have been two distinct transport sector roles in improving accessibility: • As a champion for cross‐sector action for better accessibility; and • Delivering improved accessibility through transport. 3.3 The first role could potentially be led by a non‐transport government department, and this was considered by the SEU in 2002/3. Government is seeking to redefine its role as a champion for the needs of citizens, rather than just a provider of public

2 Scottish Office 1992 – Roads Traffic and Safety stated that ‐ “it is not the government’s policy to meet all travel demand but rather to ensure that the accessibility needs of people and business, including for tourism, are met” 3 E.g. Labour’s 1997 manifesto “Consensus for Change” committed government to basing future investment priorities in transport on their accessibility benefit rather than simply responding to the demand for travel. 4 DHC 2000. Guidance on Accessibility Measuring Techniques and their Application. Commissioned and Published by the Scottish Executive. Further work was also undertaken to draft transport appraisal and land use planning requirements with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance being first published in 2003 and National Planning Policy Guidance NPPG17 and Planning Advice Note 57 being revised in 2005. 5 The main report from this work is the final report by DHC and University of Westminster 2004 – Developing and Piloting Accessibility Planning still available from http://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/accessibility_developing.pdf 6 National Accessibility statistics for 2006‐2011 are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility‐ statistics‐2011/ 7 The Social Exclusion Unit recognised that to deal with a cross sector problem there would need to be cross sector action led by DfT – see SEU 2003. Making the Connections. 15

services8, so transport was selected as the sector best suited to championing accessibility change. The transport sector as a champion for better accessibility 3.4 Although the theory of accessibility planning can be perceived as complex, the practice is actually very straightforward. Accessibility planning checks that needs are being met, and organises solutions to the identified problems. In 2003 the SEU noted that no government department was formally responsible for either checking or organising, and as a result other pressures were leading to a decline in accessibility for many people. Transport’s wide ranging remit and covers issues like checking that, when land use changes or public service delivery is re‐organised, citizens can still access the new sites, and then ensuring that transport and other complementary changes are made to secure access for all. Some elements of this have worked better than others. 3.5 Becoming responsible for accessibility requires that there must be some accountability for failure if accessibility gets worse. However few people working in transport yet perceive their role as critical in checking that health departments do not inadvertently make accessibility worse when they re‐organise service delivery, or education authorities do not inadvertently build new schools in inaccessible locations, or that land use planning authorities avoid permitting developments which lead to the closure of local accessible grocers. The pressures on accessibility have continued to increase since 2003, and the transport sector has only partially checked the impacts of the changes, or organised solutions to identified problems. 3.6 Practical progress has been achieved by DfT championing the cross sector agenda through the annual publication of accessibility statistics. DHC has calculated these for DfT each year since the statistical series started, and we have observed the encouraging use being made of these statistics by many government departments and campaign groups9. Examples can be identified where decisions of the Departments for Health, Work, Justice, and other departments have been influenced by accessibility statistics, and have delivered more accessible solutions as a result10.

8 E.g. in a 2010 speech on public sector reform the prime minister said “if politics is about anything, it’s about focusing on those things people really care about – and making them better”. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime‐ministers‐speech‐on‐modern‐public‐service/ 9 A recent review of the uses of these indicators by DHC is at http://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/useandabuseonline.pdf (also published in Research and Transport Business and Management Volume 2 by Elsevier). See also the Forum for the Future Sustainable Cities Index http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/sustainable‐cities‐index/overview which used the indicators but has been discontinued due to lack of funding. When funding is restricted cross sector initiatives like sustainability are more vulnerable than narrower core agendas such as campaigning for cycles, trains and cars. 10 See the review of the uses of indicators above. 16

3.7 In the call for evidence, the committee refers to these statistics11 and summarises some results for populations that were considered to be within ‘reasonable’ travel time thresholds. As far as we are aware, when publishing these statistics the Department for Transport has always avoided making judgments about ‘reasonableness’. DfT is responsible for checking for change, and prompting co‐ ordinated action, so the indicators are used to support these roles. DfT has sought to ensure it does not inadvertently blur the clear accountabilities for accessibility within each tier and sector of government12 so has used continuous indicators for monitoring. For example access to health is a statutory Department for Health responsibility, but transport authorities can usefully prompt action by health authorities if checks on accessibility reveal that the travel time or cost of reaching health services is increasing. 3.8 Much more could be done. If transport departments nationally and locally were formally required to report annually to their colleagues in other departments and sectors their concerns about accessibility issues, then this might prompt more action. This is discussed below under local transport planning, but the same principles apply nationally. A cross sector reporting requirement would prompt DfT to raise issues with other departments and help to keep accessibility planning on national agendas. The 2003 SEU conclusion, that accessibility would continue to be seen as a secondary order problem by all departments unless specific action was taken, is pertinent. 3.9 The national analysis is based on travel time. Time is a necessary condition for access, but is only one of many parameters. In the future it should be possible to add more dimensions to accessibility statistics, but in the meantime other dimensions of access can be considered in more local analyses and include the personal capabilities of each group of people. 3.10 The travel time to local services and facilities is regarded internationally as a factor of increasing importance when determining the livability of a place. The DfT statistics are seen a pioneering example, since they include not just drive times to facilities, but walk, cycle and public transport travel times. Ensuring that each resident of the UK can walk and cycle to as many local services as possible is not just good socially and economically, but ensures that local access choices are competitive with longer distance travel. Transport authorities have achieved many successes securing local access improvements as part of place making, regeneration

11 http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility‐statistics‐2011/ 12 Although the SEU 2003 report used the term ‘reasonable’, when we applied this theory to practice we demonstrated that reasonableness was a subjective viewpoint. For the design of accessibility planning as applied by DfT, continuous indicators have always been used. Further details are in DHC and UoW 2004 – Developing and Piloting Accessibility Planning http://www.dhc1.co.uk/projects/accessibility_developing.pdf and the DfT Statistical Guidance describing how the indicators should be used http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/accessibility‐statistics‐guidance.pdf 17

and neighbourhood planning agendas. The new focus on accessibility has provided a policy framework for this joint working. Research has shown that previously roads and public transport managers had found it difficult to relate their job description to these wider goals and accessibility planning has helped to overcome these joint working problems. 3.11 Using statistics requires care. The national statistics have shown a steady increase in the travel times to hospital which is partly misleading, as only some hospital services have been centralised, with others now being delivered from more accessible local health centres. The statistics challenge practitioners to ask relevant questions, to prompt further action. Delivering better accessibility through transport investment 3.12 If we ‘follow the money’ then most transport practitioners have little incentive to support accessibility planning. When local shops and services close, people need to travel to more remote locations, so the transport sector grows with financial benefits for all those that work in the transport industry. One of the aims of giving accessibility planning responsibilities to transport authorities was to ensure that accountability was clear for delivering better accessibility for all – not just more transport. 3.13 However, policy statements about improving accessibility are often vague, and delivery often does not optimise accessibility benefits for all citizens. Some have argued that separate funding is needed to deliver accessibility plans providing a funding incentive, but, other than for training and pilot project development, this is not either what the SEU suggested in 2003, or what we recommended in 2004 to DfT on how to implement accessibility planning. With £20bn+ of public funding being invested in transport each year, a relatively small fund to support accessibility improvements would make only a small impact compared with re‐aligning mainstream transport investment to be consistent with accessibility plans. We therefore recommended accessibility audits of all transport investment, to ensure that transport delivery is consistent with accessibility aims. 3.14 These audits could be part of requirements that all government funded transport investment should be consistent with NATA (New Approach to Transport Appraisal). Many improvements to transport appraisal have been made to NATA since 2003/4 but transport appraisal remains poorly integrated with accessibility planning for the following reasons: • Transport appraisal remains focused at growing the transport economy, rather than the wider economy and society, and wider issues are considered only as factors for mitigation13.

13 E.g. Social and distributional impacts are appraised rather than social and distributional aims from local accessibility plans. Transport is designed primarily to serve narrow transport needs rather than starting from 18

• In NATA, mode shift from car to walking is regarded as a negative economic effect, as it transfers value from the transport economy to the wider economy. Instead of looking at opportunities for access by walking, NATA uses the concept of severance to demonstrate how road and rail infrastructure might make local walking trips more difficult rather than valuing walking trips in their own right. • Transport efficiency is measured in the economic appraisal, but transport effectiveness in delivering accessibility improvements is only partly covered and even this relies on a complex proxy measure called ‘transport option value’. This was introduced in 1998 and we have yet to see an example of this type of analysis being performed successfully outside major rail projects. As a result NATA notes that the transport option value criterion remains in draft. • The recent introduction in 2012 of the personal affordability appraisal requirement is extremely welcome, but has not yet had time to work its way through into widespread practice14. This new 2012 requirement also reports the consistency of transport investment with local accessibility plans which also for the first time recognises local accessibility planning as relevant to transport investment decisions. Personal affordability is not the only NATA criterion that needs to be better grounded in local accessibility plans. 3.15 A corollary of not understanding the benefits for people, is that technical appraisal is less useful than it should be in supporting decisions by elected representatives15 and voters. For example, transport minister Norman Baker alluded to this when he highlighted the Alloa railway project as an example of how transport delivery happened despite, not because of, transport appraisal rules. Just as child centred learning in education needs to use techniques that can be used by parents, teachers, social workers and health professionals, so the transport planning toolkit needs to change to support more integrated delivery approaches. For example, the current DfT analysis and reporting requirements, despite their recent revisions, would do little to help the transport sector work well with Job Centres to improve access to work16.

wider social, economic and environmental aims and identifying the best transport investment to deliver these wider aims. 14 A more general requirement to appraise personal opportunities for travel was introduced in Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance in 2003, so there is some experience showing how appraisals of other factors can be successfully undertaken. 15 In 1998 the social and economic opportunities of re‐opening the Alloa railway were analysed using accessibility analysis, but the scheme was not viewed as a priority by Government since official appraisal techniques did not recognise the benefits of the wider social and economic consequences of the re‐opening. The benefits forecast by the accessibility analysis were realised when the scheme opened demonstrating that these approaches were a better guide to the impacts of the scheme than the official government appraisal approaches. Refer to Local Transport Today Issue 548 25 June 2010 “Baker kneads local transport into shape for a world with less dough”. 16 For example like the design, development and promotion of wheels to work schemes to provide discounted loans or assisted purchase of motorcycles and cars to help people take up types of work which demand greater personal mobility than can be achieved by public transport. 19

3.16 If the most common trips made by UK residents to access local stores and services by walking are still regarded in transport appraisal as being of no value to the transport economy, it is of no surprise that high streets are starved of the transport investment needed to make them pleasant attractive places to visit. Local walking trips are the most environmentally sensitive, socially inclusive and economically efficient ways to ensure good access. 4.0 Q2 ‐ Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment? Core business is viewed in narrow single sector terms with cross sector concepts like accessibility being regarded as secondary issues, but clear public accountability for all sectors is assisted by the publication of evidence of accessibility change 4.1 Most public service providers have statutory responsibilities for ensuring that all people can access their services. Most aim to discharge that responsibility by concentrating on their core values in health, social services, education, leisure services, employment services, legal services, and other provision, and informing transport providers about the transport difficulties. However transport departments could not possibly fund all the transport needed without a massive increase in transport budgets as they currently spend far less on revenue support for transport than other sectors like health, social services, and education. Accessibility planning has sought to deliver better value joint approaches, but tactical budget dumping has undermined progress. Better accessibility is an overlapping policy aim between transport and other policies, but turning these shared policies into jointly funded solutions has been more difficult. 4.2 A classic situation which has been repeated many times across the country has been as follows. A health authority wishes to build a new hospital and selects cheap land since this makes better use of the health budget. Planning agreements then often fail to secure the long term investment in transport needed to compensate for moving the health services from an accessible to an inaccessible location, and transport authorities are faced with picking up the costs of dealing with support for public transport, congestion on the road network, and social exclusion amongst health users unable to access healthcare. There have been examples where transport authorities have used their accessibility plans to change NHS plans, but these remain the exception. 20

4.3 Accessibility audits of land use plans were introduced to land use planning policy in 199517 and most planning authorities continue to support development in more accessible locations. When we reviewed the practice on this in 1999 we found that a few enthusiasts had used the opportunity of the new policies to apply accessibility planning, but this practice was rarely seen as core business by local authorities. Core business was viewed in narrower single sector terms. For example, a senior authority staff member summed up the accountability challenge, by noting that “nobody loses their job because accessibility gets worse, but if the potholes are not filled then there is trouble”. Therefore when the SEU started to look at the topic a few years later we highlighted accountability as a key issue. 4.4 The new approaches since 2004 for accessibility planning have sought to make it easier for employment, health, education, social services, environment, and planning departments to invest more efficiently and effectively in accessibility for staff and clients. However there is far more failure of these partnership schemes than success. Where joint cross sector schemes have been established, it has not taken long for each sector to seek to tactically withdraw their funding in the hope that other sectors will pick up more of the costs. 4.5 This race to the bottom continues to be damaging for both accessibility and the environment. Less accessible services mean that people travel further and use more resources. This longer distance travel congregates particularly on networks such as motorways and railways, leading to a growing list of infrastructure investment requirements for transport departments to fund. Some longer distance travel choices add value to accessibility, but catering for these choices within limited budgets at the expense of local investment is a false economy. 4.6 It is clear that greater support is needed from Government if accessibility is to be improved. There is evidence of public demand for such action, with public protests being common when changes are made to the locations of public services. As predicted by the SEU in 2003, there is less clamour within government to be accountable for such a complex issue as accessibility. Although transport authorities were given responsibility for leading accessibility planning, they cannot ultimately be accountable if a land use planning, health, education, or other authority makes a decision that causes accessibility problems, since ultimate accountability must follow the more narrowly defined legislation. Transport department objections to decisions in other sectors based on accessibility concerns are rarely viewed as commanding sufficient significance to change policy, and are not often made with sufficient force to secure the investment in accessible solutions. This blurring of accountability means that accessibility continues to be regarded as a secondary issue by both transport and non‐transport departments who continue to focus on

17 Department of the Environment, 1995. Policy and Procedure Guidance: A Guide to Better Practice – Reducing the Need to Travel Through Land Use and Transport Planning, PPG 13, HMSO, London, UK. 21

issues where they can be held more directly to account. The accountability problems identified by the SEU in 2003 still apply, and this continues to be a difficult issue to resolve. 4.7 Declining accessibility is viewed as an inevitable problem by some stakeholders, but there is a gap between public expectations of accessibility and current delivery which must be tackled. As we noted in 2004, there are few easy answers, given the polycentric power structures of a modern democracy, but if mandatory annual audits of accessibility are published as discussed above, then a more constructive dialogue with the public and between public authorities should deliver such solutions as are practical. 5.0 Q3 ‐ Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda? The scale of culture change in transport has been underestimated, and future success requires stronger leadership and incentives for short term delivery. 5.1 Local transport plans do not in themselves determine what happens but help to manage, structure and co‐ordinate diverse investment programmes. Local authorities that view the need for a local transport plan purely as a legacy of a system where they used these documents to bid for national capital funding will probably not deliver anything useful by following an accessibility planning process. 5.2 In our recommendations to DfT in 2004, we highlighted that one of the main barriers to progress would be the culture and skills in the transport profession. There had been concerns in the Cabinet Office about giving an agenda like accessibility planning to transport professionals, since the profession was known for its strong analytical skills and modal passions, rather than its interest in people and their needs. Staff with people skills would be more likely to choose professions other than transport. 5.3 However we argued, as did many others, that transport was not unique in having a better track record of operational delivery than people focus. Similar changes were taking place in other professions to deliver more people centred services. However managing such culture change in transport was a substantial undertaking. DfT has made a start in nurturing the change, but a step change is needed in the scale and scope of action, if accessibility planning is to thrive in all parts of the country. Currently only a few leading authorities are delivering accessibility planning as envisaged in 2004. 5.4 The best performing transport authorities will succeed largely without help from DfT. Managing culture change relies on spreading good practice across the country. In 2004 we recommended top level communications about the new policy focus, and a parallel support system to foster change across the profession. The top level 22

communications about the new accessibility planning requirements were supported by senior DfT staff visiting every transport authority to explain the changes. This was very helpful in raising the profile of the initiative, but the practical support for the profession was restricted to a small training programme which ran between 2005 and 2007. The sessions were not typically attended by professional leaders and little attempt was made to get the professional institutes on board, who set professional standards in the industry, or to change the education of transport professionals. 5.5 Confusion about the new top down policies for accessibility planning was compounded as commercial marketing of software filled the gap in the need for more training. The transport industry has a strong business and training infrastructure to support modelling and analysis of transport systems, so the new accessibility planning market was targeted as a business growth opportunity. As a result most professionals across the industry were offered sales pitches and training on software. Although accessibility planning is an evidence based approach, and modelling can be part of that, within a few years many professionals confused accessibility planning with modelling. This was also comfortable for the transport profession, re‐interpreting the new requirements in terms of existing analytical skills, rather than the new people and partnership focus which had been intended. 5.6 It is interesting to observe that accessibility planning for the Olympic Games in London has demonstrated best practice and lessons about how to manage change. The needs of each group of people were systematically considered, and by working in partnership, ways of meeting each need were planned through a range of transport and non‐transport interventions. Translating this success into wider accessibility planning, requires a similar time limited focus, with an expectation that failure will not be acceptable. 6.0 Q4 ‐ How should the transport‐related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision‐making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy‐making (and if so, how should it be defined?) If each tier of government measures what it values then the prospects for delivering what is valued are much improved. 6.1 There are few right or wrong answers about how to measure accessibility. However it has been shown repeatedly that attempts to measure such a complex concept with a single measure fail. In defining these measures the following key points may be helpful: 23

• As relatively simple supply side measures showing opportunities for people, accessibility indicators are modally agnostic about transport systems, can include the impact of telecommunications networks as alternatives to travel, and can be adapted to fit a very wide range of situations. They are therefore well suited to help focus on people, and manage the modal tribalism that can make transport a politically unstable sector. • The flexibility of the measures is their strength, but also a weakness if inappropriate indicators are used tactically to misrepresent benefits, e.g. to secure investment or planning permission18. • Once a focused aim is clear (e.g. reducing the costs of travel to further education in xxx for 16‐19 year olds by 50%) then a suitable accessibility measure can be defined to represent the policy. Policies should drive indicators, not vice versa. • Sustainability requires a balance between social, economic and environmental perspectives. Pursuing any of these goals in isolation is unsustainable. Accessibility indicators have proved to be one of the most practical types of measure to help planners manage the trade‐offs to achieve sustainable development including transport systems. However accessibility indicators have been widely abused in support of plans for transport schemes. It is important to recognise that transport investment should serve accessibility goals for people, not vice versa. • Emotive measures like ‘fuel poverty’ have a place in motivating action, but concepts like poverty of access are difficult to define if adverse unintended consequences are to be avoided. Relative accessibility for different mobility groups is usually the safest way to define inequality. For example ratios of accessibility for car and non‐car available access are helpful. The Institution of Highways and Transport has recommended ratios of travel time by car and public transport to implement the accessibility requirements in planning policy19, and ratios of cost are similarly revealing. 6.2 It is important to avoid unintentionally setting ill‐defined policies through accessibility measures. To ensure clear accountability at each level of government we recommended in 2004 that accountability for accessibility should be resolved internally within each level of political authority. However there was pressure from the local authorities on the central and local working group on accessibility planning (CLWGAP), for stronger national leadership to assist with the local promotion of the new national policies. The local authority representatives felt that they could more easily create momentum for a new programme if there was a mandatory national requirement – e.g. to ensure that everyone living in an urban area lived within 10 minutes travel time of a grocer. The indicators adopted by DfT respected both positions, with thresholds in the national indicators to illustrate reasonable benchmarks for urban areas, but with performance monitoring based on continuous

18 E.g. unsubstantiated claims about access to jobs were identified to be more common than robust measures of accessibility in SACTRA. 1999. Transport and the Economy. The Standing Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. UK HMSO. 19 Institution of Highways and Transportation 1999. Planning for Public Transport in Developments. 24

indicators to avoid setting unintended targets. These principles should still be valid for future accessibility measurement. 7.0 Q5 ‐ The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services Electronic networks are already included good accessibility planning practice 7.1 Broadband networks and the internet are changing many aspects of transport provision. It is common to focus on the substitution of transport access with electronic access, but most of the evidence shows that the complementary effects will be at least as important as the substitution effects20. Future planning of transport and electronic networks needs to be as closely integrated as possible to ensure complementary benefits for access. As noted above, accessibility analysis lends itself to a common treatment of transport and electronic networks to describe the connections between people and places. Accessibility planning therefore supports practical decisions to ensure cost effective opportunities for all, whether or not the improvements are to transport or electronic networks.

29 August 2012

20 E.g. DHC 2006. Scoping the Impacts on Travel Behaviour of E‐Working and other ICT Changes. Final Report for Scottish Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/123922/0029823.pdf

Written evidence submitted by Norma George

• Location of Tilton on the Hill • Current public transport • People experiencing difficulty leaving the village for work, education, shopping, socialising. • Reasons the present services are not used. • Suggestion to alleviate problems (probably at no extra cost). • A personal perspective

1. Tilton is located almost equidistant from Leicester, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray and Oakham. It has no school or Post Office but does have a Church and Public House. The nearest village, Billesdon is 3.2 miles distant and on the main A47, Leicester to Peterborough Road.

2. Currently there is a weekday commuter bus and another in the middle of Wednesday to Leicester. Also on Wednesday there is a bus to Melton Mowbray. It has been mooted that these services will be greatly reduced soon.

3. Most inhabitants of Tilton have a car but there are some who have not. These include students and young workers, teenagers and pensioners, some in poor health. Unless their parents are able to give them a lift young people cannot travel to college or work or to socialise with their friends.

When our Post Office was closed an outreach service was provided for 8 hours per week (Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays). However the equipment is not designed to be moved so it breaks down and then there is no way to access the various services, most importantly to obtain cash. . 4. From the beginning, reliability has been an issue. Some buses just do not arrive and there is no alternative except to beg a lift from a kind neighbour. One person began using the early morning bus every Monday but had to give it up as the bus did not always arrive. On return journeys the driver has been known to change his route as he had not picked anyone up on the inward journey. Very occasionally a passenger has wanted to use the return service having been given a lift on the outward journey, perhaps to visit a friend in another village. They are then stranded.

Another reason the service is not used is that the destinations are not what many people want. Many residents would like to shop at Oakham or Market Harborough but have no way to get there without a link to Billesdon.

5. If the morning bus to Leicester went through Billesdon before travelling to Houghton as at present it would be possible to get to the Doctors’ surgery although we would need a return service. The Leicester to Uppingham service which runs along the A47, the one to Peterborough and to Market Harborough runs from Billesdon on certain days: Residents from Tilton would have access to these services too if only they could get to Billesdon.

A personal perspective

Although Tilton is not a pretty village it is a great place to live. It has wonderful views across rolling Leicestershire. It is on a busy cross county route with over 5000 vehicles passing through the village daily which is a drawback as speeding is a problem. However there is a great sense of community spirit. I have not been in the best of health in the last couple of years and then my husband died recently. Neighbours have been so supportive in many ways—with lifts, shopping, bringing me nutritious cooked food and making sure that I was OK on a daily basis. However the lack of public transport is a real problem and I feel I cannot rely on others always. I do feel isolated when I cannot get to visit friends but have to rely on them visiting me. I am not making any decisions yet but sometimes think I need to consider moving to a village with a bus service.

Conclusion.

Whilst appreciating the need for savings and the fact that the current service is little used, I hope I have not only shown reasons for this but also suggested a viable way to improve matters without spending any more money.

1st September 2012.

Written evidence submitted by Professor Noel Smith, University Campus Suffolk

1. Summary • Focus groups in Joseph Rowntree Foundation research suggest that, in 2012, families outside of London which could previously rely on having minimum transport needs met by bus services could no longer do so and that a car had become a necessity. • The reasons for this change are unclear, but it is likely that it at least partly reflects research participants’ perceptions of reduced bus services and increased bus fares. • The research suggests that reductions in public transport can lead to sharp increases in costs for families. For example, a change from using buses to running a car increases the minimum gross annual earnings required by a working, couple parent family with two children by £5,300. • Arguably, these increased costs can be associated with undermining the financial well-being of families, increasing risks of social exclusion and eroding access to key services and opportunities.

2. The UK Minimum Income Standard 2.1 This submission relates to Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) research to establish the income required by households in order to afford a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living. The first Minimum Income Standard (MIS) represents the income required to afford a basket of goods and services necessary for a minimum living standard in the UK today. The basket includes a very detailed list of everything a household requires for subsistence and social inclusion. 2.2 Full details of the research findings discussed in this submission are available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/MIS-2012 2.3 The MIS is constructed through research with groups of members of the public, with input from experts on technical issues such as nutrition, heating and transport. MIS budgets are constructed for a range of household types: single and couple adult households, pensioners, working-age households, and households with children, including a range of families in terms of the number and age of children. The main MIS budgets are based on households living in urban areas. 2.4 The MIS is updated annually. Every other year, the MIS is updated through research with new groups of members of the public. In intervening years it is uprated in line with inflation.

3. MIS and transport 28

3.1 In the original research published in 2008, the groups’ overall decision was that while having a car was desirable it was not a necessity. That is, a car was not an essential requirement in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society. Instead, minimum transport needs could be met through using buses, supplemented by occasional taxi journeys (e.g. for emergency and late night trips). 3.2 Consequently, MIS budgets included the cost of bus passes for children and working age adults. (Pensioners have bus passes). Budgets for all households (including pensioners) included allowances for taxi fares. 3.3 This model was agreed in research with new groups of members of the public for the 2010 MIS update. Groups decided that the taxi budgets required for pensioners and working-age groups needed to be increased but that the 2008 allowances for families with children just needed to be uprated by inflation. For example, the 2010 transport budget for a couple parent family with two children (a preschool aged child and primary school aged child) was £39.38 a week. This included the cost of bus passes for the parents and half-fare bus trips for the primary school aged child based on the actual price of bus services in a town in the Midlands, and £9 for taxis. 3.4 When new groups were consulted for the 2012 uprates, pensioners and working age adults confirmed the 2010 transport model. Pensioners increased the taxi budgets; working age adults made no changes. However, for the first time, groups representing households with children decided that families needed to be able to afford a car in order to achieve and maintain a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living. 3.5 A car was said to be essential in order to meet the needs of both parents and children, particularly in relation to employment and extra-curricular opportunities.

I’m a strong believer that every household should have a car because if the father needs it for work it broadens the aspects, it doesn’t limit them to where they can go or what jobs he can take. – Parent, Loughborough

If you think about a primary-school child, obviously we want him to walk to school if possible, but if he takes part in a couple of activities is it a luxury to be able to drive Tom to swimming lessons? I couldn’t take my children, I couldn’t walk with them. If I didn’t have a car, they wouldn’t be able to swim. – Parent, Derby

Public transport was seen as being inflexible, particularly in terms of juggling school, childcare and employment commitments. Bus fares were considered expensive. Discussions suggested that, although there were costs involved in owning a car, it could offer better value for money than public transport.

3.6 While groups since 2008 had often hotly debated the need for a car, the 2012 research marked a qualitative shift in perspective, a tip in the balance of 29

opinion. It was beyond the scope of the research to fully explain this change. It may partly reflect long-term trends in car ownership. The DfT’s National Travel Survey shows that, in the past 15 years the proportion of households with no car has fallen from about a third to about a quarter, and the opposite has happened to the number with two or more cars. These trends stabilised in the middle of the last decade, but such changing norms can take time to feed into social expectations. Other potential causes include the increasing cost of bus fares and possibly decreasing availability of services. 3.7 Buses have become much more expensive relative to the cost of running a car. In the past 15 years, for example, the cost of motoring has risen 50 per cent but the cost of bus travel has increased by 100 per cent, according to the Retail Price Index (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1 The relative price of bus and car travel, 1997 to 2011

400 RPI index value: 1987=100 350 Bus fares Motoring 300

250

200

150

100 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Retail Prices Index, annual averages

3.8 In terms of the availability of bus services, evidence suggests that services in many areas of the country have been in long-term decline, and this appears to be speeding up as a result of current public sector cuts. For example, between 2010/11 and 2011/12, non-metropolitan councils reported the loss of about one in five supported bus services as a result of the cutting of the Bus Services Operating Grant. Moreover, 74 per cent of councils plan to make further cuts between 2011 and 2013 (Campaign for Better Transport, 2011 and House of Commons Transport Committee, 2011). 3.9 The 2012 groups decided that families with children required one car. Two- parent households also included one bus pass, as the car would be shared and one person would still need to use public transport. With a car, allowances for taxis would be unnecessary. The vehicles described as meeting the minimum acceptable standard would be modest vehicles purchased second hand: a Ford Focus for families with one or two children 30

and a Vauxhall Zafira for families with three or more children. Transport costs for the MIS were calculated by taking into account the purchase and replacement of the car, motor insurance and tax, maintenance and MOT, breakdown cover, car seats for children, and fuel. As well as these fixed costs, variable running costs for different types of household were calculated by a) identifying the type and number of trips required for a minimum living standard, as agreed by the research groups, and b) average distances to services estimated from National Travel Survey data.

4. The impact of transport costs on household budgets

4.1 Adding costs for a car increases the budgets families need in order to achieve a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living. For a couple with two children, car costs increase the requisite household budget by £29 a week. That is, £29 more than would be required if the family could have its transport needs met by buses and occasional taxis. 4.2 Annually, this increases the net income required by this family by £1,508 to a total of £35,622 (assuming full time childcare and social housing rent). 4.3 However, increases in this family’s budget requirement (what they need to be able to spend) feed through into a proportionately much larger increase in the amount that the family needs to earn in order to be able to afford the budget. This multiplier effect is due to the sharp withdrawal of a family’s additional income through taxation and reduced tax credits. For example, even though a couple with two children with enough to afford the MIS has income much too high to be eligible for Housing Benefit, the combined effect of being on tax credits and paying income tax and National Insurance creates a withdrawal rate of 73 per cent, meaning that it takes £3.70 of additional earnings to produce each £1 of extra take-home pay. This means that in order to have enough to be able to spend an additional £1,508 on transport, this family (with both parents earning) would need to earn an additional £5,300.

5. Conclusions 5.1 Over the four years of the MIS research programme it would appear that, from the perspective of the groups of members of the public which participated in the research, bus services are increasingly unlikely to provide a minimum acceptable level of service. It is important to be clear, however, that it was beyond the scope of the research to examine whether to what extent groups’ perceptions reflect actual changes in services. 5.2 What the research does highlight is that, when considering questions of affordability, it is vital to consider not only the cost of transport but also the income requirement to meet those costs. This is necessary for a substantive understand of affordability and the impact of transport costs on living standards. 31

5.3 For example, our research demonstrates that a family changing from reliance on public transport to running a cheap, second hand car (used carefully to minimise mileage) would need a substantial increase in gross income. Obviously, in practice, many families would be unable to simply increase their income to meet these costs, and so they would have to be met through one or a combination of accruing household debt; reducing spending on other household needs; or reducing access to services and employment and educational opportunities.

6. References

Campaign for Better Transport (2011) ‘New figures reveal cuts to 1 in 5 council bus services’, press release, 13 October 2011. Available at: http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/13-oct-1-in-5- buses-cut [Accessed 28 May 2012]

Department for Transport (2011) National Travel Survey 2009/10. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/ statistics/tables/nts9902

House of Commons Transport Committee (2011) Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth report of session 2010–12. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/ cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf

3 September 2012

Written evidenced submitted by East Lancs Board Members of Lancashire Local Involvement Network (LINks)

Question 1) No people cannot get to key services at a reasonable cost in a reasonable time and with reasonable ease. If someone has a free pass cost is obviously not an issue but for fee paying passengers costs are unreasonable. Transport links are poor and services i.e. bus and rail services are not joined up.

Question 2) Yes other policies are affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment. The various agencies do not speak to each other when plans are at concept stage i.e. Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust is planning a new build in Blackpool (The Harbour) and will include provision of specialist in- patient beds for the whole of Lancashire. Some areas of East Lancashire already have inadequate transport links which are expensive and for some people having a relative in hospital in Blackpool will be a step too far for them resulting in less frequents visits to their loved one at a time when a patient is in unfamiliar surroundings and at time when they need the comfort and reassurance of family and friends who the patient is familiar with. A round trip to Blackpool from Bacup is approximately 100 miles.

We are also advised that under European legislation all bus drivers have to undergo disability awareness training by 2015. It appears that a lot of operators are choosing to delay training their staff as late as possible resulting in problems for some people with disabilities.

Question 3) No not all public services are in places easily accessible by public transport. Due to funding issues some organisations i.e. Job Centre’s have closed down in smaller areas of East Lancs and moved to larger towns. Some residents of East Lancs who need to access these services are already struggling financially and do not have money to take longer, more expensive journeys to where the organisation has relocated.

Question 4) No, environmental impacts are not considered by planners or organisations when planning where to build /position public services but we recommend that it should be. The example as given in the answer of question 2 above is also a good example of where environmental impacts are not considered.

Question 5) No we do not think that accessibility of public services is considered when planning local transport links and we do not believe that the Department of transport has taken forward the accessibility agenda. For example the transport organisations who appear to be deliberately delaying training staff re disability awareness training as outlined in answer to question 2. Some passengers would be afraid to voice their concerns for example to a bus driver for fear of being asked to leave the bus. This is not just about people with a disability; it is the elderly, young mothers with shopping and a small child in a pram and people in general who use public transport. 33

Question 6) The measure of how accessible public services are by transport is that no one person is penalised by not being able to use public transport for what ever reason i.e. disability, young mother with a child in a pram, the elderly etc etc.

Question 7) We see no evidence that social and accessibility needs are considered when planning transport infrastructure and see no reason why either would conflict if consideration was given at the planning stage.

Question 8) Yes a measure would be useful. This would include wide scale surveying. Consideration should also be given regarding cost of travel i.e. looking at all types of transport the public use and looking at the average cost of travel versus the average family income in different areas. Lots of people who use public transport are on minimum wage or unemployed making the cost of using public transport a major consideration for them.

Question 9) Absolutely not, the question pre-supposes that everyone has access to the internet which they do not.

3 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Miss Lynn Curnow

Background:

I am a female, of age group 45 - 55. I live in Porthleven, Cornwall. I don't drive, never have, therefore have mostly relied on public transport for getting to and from other areas. The service provider in this wide area is First Devon & Cornwall. ('First' by name, but, sadly,not by nature, in my opinion!)

I am unemployed and use the service for both shopping and appointments in the nearby town.

I use the bus, on average, at least once a week, and have done so from two rural areas and one town, that I have lived in during my adult years. Mostly, though not always, I use it to get to the nearest town, which is Helston.

Helston town is approximately 2 & a quarter miles from the bus stop I use in Porthleven.

Unfortunately my findings on the service are all somewhat negative.

Reliability: The service mostly runs hourly. 2 hourly on Sundays.

I find the service to be unreliable a lot of the time. Often running late, not only in the summer when the tight time schedule they run is nigh on impossible with all the extra summer tourist traffic on the roads, but also during winter months.

Sometimes buses don't turn up at all.

Late buses cause a lot of problems to people who have an appointment in town. I have in the past had to cancel a dental appointment because of my bus not turning up within 35 minutes of its due time, and had to plead with the dental practise not to charge me the cancellation fee.

Many times, because the buses are often running late, they get to Helston too late for passengers to connect to a connecting bus to take them on to their further destination, (to the train station for instance), meaning a wait of anything up to an hour – an hour and a half, for another bus to that destination.

Example: An example of this happened recently and was the last time I used the bus:

My bus was approximately 20 minutes late arriving at Porthleven, nothing new there.

When talking to a person who had boarded the bus at Penzance Station, (First's base station and where the bus had started from), she told me the reason it was 35

late was due to a problem on the roads that was not of the driver or providers fault. However she also told me that she was one of many passengers who had been at Penzance Station waiting for a bus that was due to leave there an hour earlier than the current one we were on. (Most of those passengers were still on the bus when I got on).

The lady added that the earlier bus they had all been waiting for at Penzance Station had been cancelled. I asked her if the office there at Penzance had, at the time, announced the cancellation at the station and given an explanation. She replied that no, they hadn't, so several people had asked the driver of the bus we were on, and he had told them the previous bus had been cancelled. Until that point no one knew why their bus hadn't picked them up. No explanation was offered.

I have to say I found that shocking and quite disgraceful that a base station did not have the courtesy or respect for the passengers awaiting a bus to inform them their bus wouldn't be running, let alone offer them an explanation. Disgusting.

Quality: The buses we have down here are, to a very large extent, old ones, some very old indeed. Very slow and rattly and, more often than not, are filthy, inside and out! You are lucky if you can actually see very clearly through the windows they are that dirty. To rest your elbow on the inside narrow ledge running along the windows is a no-no unless you don't mind a filthy elbow as the ledges, floors, etc are covered in dust and general dirt. Often there is quite a bit of litter on the floors also. Yet the further you go 'up the line' throughout the country where First buses are the service providers, the newer the buses are and they are kept clean and tidy.

The drivers generally have, or show, no customer service skills whatsoever. Even when you smile at them and greet them, or when you disembark and thank them, they just ignore you and remain looking miserable. Not many at all respond in kind. Very rare indeed.

Bus timetable: The bus timetable was released in April. It had a few mistakes in it on times and days running. I queried these with the company who were unaware of the mistakes. On 23rd May a new timetable was introduced. A lot of bus times had been changed as were some routes, and some buses were taken out/no longer running. This information was only put up at some bus stops, not released in printed form for passengers to be able to use. So, within little over a month, there were quite a few changes to the timetable released in April. The company's response to this is that people need to check online when they are planning a journey. Fine for someone with a computer and internet access, but a lot of people don't have that.

Funding/Fare payers: My last observation, point of view is the funding of the buses.

I consider this: The company is part funded by the Council, but who actually pays for the service/pays the fares to offset the rest of the funding needed? : . Students get free travel. . OAPs use their fare exemption card. This card is only permitted to be used for single journeys, NOT return journeys, hence making more money from the funding of them, for the company as two separate fares are cheaper than a return fare. . Workers don't use the buses due to their unreliability and time it takes to get to their required destination due to the buses not being direct. (Buses made me late three times in the first two weeks of my employment some time ago, resulting in me receiving a verbal warning about my lateness!) . Therefore the main (or only) fare payers are the unemployed, having to use the service to go into town to the job centre, or go shopping, etc.

Very unfair, and making it even more difficult for those already struggling financially.

This makes the fares very expensive. A return fare to Helston from Porthleven is a minimum of £3.85. That is travelling for 4 and a half miles. A single fare is only about 50p cheaper. If you wish to travel on to the supermarket, another minute’s ride on the bus, that cost me an extra 50 pence, and that was many months ago now.

I am owed 5 pence on my last journey by the company and was given an 'i.o.u' ticket, a credit voucher, by the driver of the last bus I used, because he was apparently short of change. That bus had left the base station only about 45 minutes before! I was incredulous and did think to myself 'I’m sure they wouldn't allow me to owe them 5 pence on a journey if I was short of that!'

All in all, to summarise, I find the service awful, unreliable, dirty, overly expensive and a fairly miserable experience having to use it.

3 September 2012 37

Written evidence submitted by Oxfordshire Rural Community Council, Community Transport Adviser

• Reduction in subsidised bus services – not ring fenced and no guidance given by government on what local transport authorities should be doing. The Supporting Community Transport Funds is not the only solution to meeting as many of the varied transport needs in rural areas • Policies in health do not take into account the significant need for transport in rural areas. There is a strong need for joint working to meet the access needs of health services that are no longer locally placed. Financial support of community transport is not considered, yet in many cases nearly 90% of all volunteer car scheme journeys carried out for health related purposes. • Oxfordshire has a high percentage of low floor buses, but very few of them are accessible in rural villages owing to uneven ground, route and timing. Local Transport Plans are only as good as the funds available to carry out the work. LTPs are predominantly aspirational only e.g. improving travel plans cannot be met unless there is good public transport to support them. Rural areas always suffer from a lack of good public transport. • Social impacts should be taken into account – transport poverty can be the simple definition. One should also take into account rural isolation as part of transport poverty not just cost. • Rural broadband is poor and therefore cannot be wholly relied on.

Oxfordshire statistics on accessibility: Post Offices:‐ Households more than 4K from a PO are in Otmoor, Watlington, Fringford, Wroxton.

Dentists:‐ more than 8k from a dentist in The Astons and heyfords, The Bartons, Milton u W, Ascott and Shipton

Doctors;‐ more than 2 k from GP = Longworth, Kingston bag with Southmoor, Standlake, Aston and St Harcourt, Otmoor, The Astons and Heyfords

Primary School:‐ highest % more than 4k from a Primary School = Watlington, Cropredy, Kingham, Rollright and Enstone, Alvescot and Filkins, Ambroseden and Chesterton

Secondary School:‐ Highest % of households more than 8k from Sec School = The Astons and Heyfords, Charlbury and Finstock, The Bartons

Job Centres:‐ 510 h/holds are more than 20k from a Job Centre (less than 1% of h/holds are less than 2k from a Job Centre)

4 September 2012 38

Written evidence submitted by Little Green Bus

Little Green Bus is a small local charity that operates door-to-door transport (community transport) services for individuals and groups within the Ribble Valley and surrounding areas.

The organisation delivers the county council’s dial-a-ride services in the borough as well as providing bespoke services for individuals and groups who cannot access public transport, either because it does not exist or because they have mobility problems.

In June 2011 Lancashire County Council took a decision to discontinue the use of the NoW Card on Community Transport Services and tried to dictate a pan- Lancashire dial-a-ride pricing policy. For 85% of the passengers of Little Green Bus who, through no fault of their own, live upto 12 miles from their nearest supermarket, health centre or Post office this would have meant them paying £8 to £10 each week to access vital services. In an area where rural isolation and exclusion is a real problem, this was seen by the Board of Little Green Bus as being exploitation of the most needy members of society and they therefore introduced a flat fare of £2 per journey which resulted in sizeable revenue losses for the organisation.

The Manager of Little Green Bus now spends the majority of her time bidding for grant funding to subsidise what was previously a county ‘paid for’ service.

If Community Transport were to be included in the Transport Act as a statutory service, with specific eligibility criteria then the playing field would be levelled for all people above the age of 62? who have a NoW Card (bus pass).

It cannot be judged as fair and equitable that a person of 62 who is perfectly capable of getting to the local bus stop has more right to free transport than another person of the same age who cannot access the same service through mobility and health issues, and therefore needs a door-to-door service.

• Q1—How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services? Can people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease?

A—The Current Transport Act does not include Community Transport as a statutory service. In a political and economic climate where austerity measures have resulted in cuts in funding ‘across the board’, in June 2011 Lancashire County Council removed the use of the NoW Card on community transport services. This resulted in the most needy and vulnerable members of the community in the Ribble Valley having to pay to access vital services 39

each week. Had Lancashire County Council had their way this would have cost individuals £8 to £10 per week. Little Green Bus provides door-to-door services for these individuals and even though the equality impact assessment carried out by LCC showed that a negative effect would result from the above decision, the county council still went ahead with it. If the Transport Act were to include Community Transport, then everybody over age 62? would get free transport, not just those that are mobile enough to access the public bus stops/public transport. Eligibility criteria for patient transport has also changed making it virtually impossible for many individuals to access transport to medical appointments.

• Q2—Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment?

A—It appears to be the case that when major plans are put in place, that there is no joined up thinking or coordinated approach. For example, when planning industrial sites where employment will be provided, transport links are not taken into consideration. Rurality appears to be rarely taking into consideration and to give an example, when the Royal Blackburn Hospital was opened and all major medical services placed there, little attention appeared to be paid to the fact that residents of the Ribble Valley, who could not access public bus services through mobility issues or lack of transport in their village, would find it extremely difficult to access medical services when patient transport was also becoming increasingly difficult if not impossible in some cases to access.

• Q3—Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect the public transport that is in place to allow people to access them?

A—Yes—see answer to Q2. The Ribble Valley is seen as an affluent area that can afford to access services. This is not the case for many elderly residents who cannot access public transport either because it does not exist or because they are not mobile enough to access it.

• Q4—Are environmental impacts considered when planning where to build/position public services? e.g. if a hospital is built far away from public transport links, do you think planners consider the environmental impact of people using cars/taxis to access it? How significant do you think this is to deciding where public services should be?

A—Not enough consideration is given to the environmental impact of building and planning public services. E.g. the new Royal Blackburn Hospital has necessitated more people travelling much further to access medical services. The situation of the hospital also causes major backlogs in traffic at certain 40

times of the day in an area that was already overcrowded with traffic. The environmental impact of such a situation is immense yet does not appear to have been considered.

• Q5—The Government has asked that the accessibility of public services is considered when planning local transport links, do you think this is working? Do you think that the Department for Transport has taken forward the accessibility agenda?

A—Accessibility of public services is only working for those who are fully mobile. The accessibility agenda does not appear to have been taken seriously particularly when dealing with elderly people. It still appears to be the case that when you reach a certain age you become less valuable to society.

• Q6—How should you measure how accessible a public service is by public transport?

A—Can those that are likely to need the service the most get there? E.g. elderly people are far more likely to need some public health services than younger people. Can appointment systems and venues be taken into consideration when planning these services. Rural issues seem never to be considered at all.

• Q7—When planning transport infrastructure, do you think the social and accessibility needs conflicts with environmental considerations?

A—It appears that political impact is given priority consideration i.e. as long as politicians can say ‘there is a service’ it does not appear to matter where the service is from and to or how easily accessible the service is.

• Q8—Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy- making? If so, how do you think it should be measures?

• A—Policy should take into account the demographics of areas as well as locomotor disability data. The Ribble Valley has an higher than average elderly population yet many problems exist relating to access to services and these are continually outlined in all key borough strategic documents.

• Q9—Do you think that having broadband networks and the internet is lessening the need for transport infrastructure to access public services?

• A—The Ribble Valley experiences problems with quality and speed of broadband links. Together with an elderly population, some of whom either 41

cannot or will not use IT this does not lessen the need for transport infrastructure to access public services. Elderly people need social interaction to keep them physically and mentally fit. The use of IT for everything would render some of them ‘prisoners in their own homes’ with no social stimulation.

4 September 2012 42

Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Technical Advisers Group, the Planning Officers Society and the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The concept of transport deprivation or difficulty causing people to have restricted access to a wide range of activities is not new. Studies since the 1970s have shown that people without access to a car could reach fewer activities and services. The move to edge of town locations has made access disproportionately more difficult for people without a car.

1.2 For nearly two decades planning policies have aimed to curtail edge-of-town and out-of-town developments, but these developments have continued. An indication of the extent to which local services and facilities have been reduced is that since 1985 the number of journeys by all modes of transport that are shorter than 1 mile has halved from 335 to 187 per person per year.

1.3 The main anticipated policy that would affect the provision and cost of local bus services is the reduction in revenue support for tendered services. To date, central government spending on local public transport in real terms has been relatively flat and local government spending increased between 2005/06 and 2008/09. However, since 2009/10 there are reports of the kind of reductions in bus services that would be expected if funding was being cut.

1.4 Older people are disproportionately likely to live in low-density areas where they are more likely to be car dependent. The proportion of people of retirement age falls from over 30 per cent in some low-density areas to about 10 per cent in high- density inner city areas. As people age past seventy they reduce the amount they drive and progressively give up driving licences, which causes difficulties accessing services.

1.5 The paper concludes with a number of suggested recommendations in the following areas: • Access difficulties and the consequential risk of social exclusion caused at least as much by land-use planning as by the transport system. • Design layouts for new development to make travel by sustainable means easier and more convenient than by car. • Additional incentives to encourage the reuse of previously-developed sites in sustainable locations • Government policies and decisions on the provision and management of public services

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 The concept of transport deprivation or difficulty causing people to have restricted access to a wide range of activities, including public services, is not new. In the 1970s and early 1980s Transport and Road Research Laboratory and Policy Studies Institute each published a number of studies which showed how transport difficulties, and particularly lack of access to a car, affected access to a range of activities. These included employment, education, health care and recreation (see bibliography). The studies also examined particular issues for children and for elderly people. All these studies showed that people without access to a car could reach a smaller number of opportunities for activities and services. They also showed that the move to edge of town locations for activities and services, such as shopping, leisure and offices, as well as secondary schools, hospitals and even town halls, has made access disproportionately more difficult for people who did not have a car available.

2.2 Since the 1980s, car ownership has increased, as has the holding of car driving licences (see Figures 1 and 2 from National Travel Survey, an invaluable source of information on topics such as this). These will be discussed later.

2.3 It is necessary to distinguish between access, which is the ability to reach and make use of a service or facility, and mobility, which is the ability to move. They are inter-related, but separate concepts. Increasing mobility, as by becoming a car driver, enables a person to reach more opportunities. It will almost certainly lead to the person travelling further, in search of greater choice and higher quality. Access may not require physical movement, as in the case of shopping on-line, but in general requires a person to travel to the location of the service or facility. Improved mobility makes access easier, but better locations for services and facilities improves access without requiring better mobility. Operational decisions on aspects such as opening times, car parks and prices, and the behaviour of staff towards clients or customers, can affect access.

2.4 Policies that affect access to services, particularly for those without a car, are those which influence the distribution and location of activities and services, including housing, and those which affect the provision and cost of local bus services. While other forms of public transport are important in some areas, in 2010/11 local buses in Britain carried 5,160 million passenger journeys compared with 1,107 million by London Underground and 210 million by light rail and tram systems. In addition, the local bus route network is much denser than the light rail network and serves many more destinations.

2.5 The Social Exclusion Unit study ‘Making the Connections’ (Social Exclusion Unit 2003) concluded that problems with transport provision and the location of services can reinforce social exclusion. These problems prevent people from accessing key local services or activities, such as jobs, learning, healthcare, food shopping or leisure. The effects of road traffic also disproportionately impact on socially excluded areas and individuals through pedestrian accidents, air pollution, noise and the effect on local communities of busy roads cutting through residential areas.

2.6 The study commented that historically, nobody has been responsible for ensuring that people can get to key services and employment sites. As a result, services 44

have been developed with insufficient attention to accessibility. Before 2000, the social costs of poor transport were not given any real weight in transport project appraisal. Land-use planning policies in the 1980s and early 1990s allowed more dispersed patterns of development. People with access to a car did not find this difficult, but people’s travel needs became more complex and public transport did not adapt. Thus people without access to a car were disproportionately adversely affected.

3 POLICIES THAT AFFECT ACCESS 3.1 Location policies

3.1.1 For nearly two decades planning policies have sought to encourage more sustainable patterns of development and the location of activities and services in town centres and at hubs served by public transport by encouraging:

• the reuse of previously-developed land, especially for new housing;

• locating developments that generate a large number of trips in places, such as town centres and close to public transport, that encourage access on foot, by bicycle and by public transport, rather than by car; and

• local centres as the focus for the provision of local services for maintaining or creating more sustainable neighbourhoods or walkable communities.

3.1.2 These policies were set out in the following Planning Policy Guidance notes, some of which have been superceded by Planning Policy Statements: • Planning Policy Guidance 13 Transport, • PPG 6 Town centres, followed by PPS6: Planning for Town Centres and then PPS4: Planning for Economic Development, • PPG 3 Housing (and then Planning Policy Statement 3); • PPG1/PPS1 which sets out the general principles for planning for sustainable development.; and • PPG 12 (then PPS12) Development Plans which advise local planning authorities on how to draw up their local plans.

3.1.3 In March 2012, all of these documents were replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This new document, in seeking to simplify and shorten national policy, does not spell out the principles as clearly or fully as the original planning policy documents, and may lead developers to deduce that policy has changed. It has not, but it is no longer clearly set out, and it is now even more important than before that local plans spell out the principles and policies they adopt for pursuing more sustainable patterns of development and guiding the location of development. In doing so, local authorities, in the absence of further guidance, will need to draw upon advice in the documents that the NPPF has replaced, such as PPG13.

3.1.4 Despite policy aiming to curtail edge-of-town and out-of-town developments, these have continued. There are several main reasons for this. Major shopping developments and business parks seek sites with space for car parking and relatively low land cost. Activities such as hospitals, secondary schools and local authority offices often need larger single sites than are usually available in town centres. Both health authorities and education authorities can fund the redevelopment by selling an original central site for development, whilst off- loading both the increased cost and difficulty of access onto their clients. These pressures have substantially reduced the effects of central government planning policies to support central locations. Indeed other central as well as local government strategies for other services including transport have not been wholly supportive of the planning policies.

3.1.5 An indication of the extent to which local services and facilities have been reduced is the number of journeys people make that are shorter than 1 mile (Figure 3). Since 1985 the number of journeys by all modes of transport that are shorter than 1 mile has halved from 335 to 187 per person per year. This shows clearly that people now have to travel further to reach a variety of facilities, services and activities. Figure 4 shows the trends in the average lengths of trips by purpose.

3.2 Policies for public transport

3.2.1 The main anticipated policy that would affect the provision and cost of local bus services is the reduction in revenue support for tendered services. This would lead to routes being cut short, operating hours reduced (fewer or no evening and weekend services) and fare increases. To date, central government spending on local public transport in real terms has been relatively flat and local government spending has increased between 2005/06 and 2008/09 though dropping slightly in 2009/10 (Table 1). Table 1 also shows public spending on the Bus Service Operators Grant and concessionary fares. However, since 2009/10 there are reports of the kind of reductions in bus services that would be expected if funding was being cut.

Table 1 Revenue support for local public transport in real terms £ million 2010 prices

Year Central government Local government Bus Service Concessionary current spending current spending Operators Grant Fares 2005-06 517 1,691 505 539 2006-07 780 1,781 489 571 2007-08 830 1,891 520 600 2008-09 730 2,301 520 650 2009-10 767 2,139 541 637 46

Source Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011 Table tsgb0117

4. WHAT THE TRAVEL PATTERNS TELL US

4.1 The reduction in the number of journeys shorter than 1 mile shows clearly that people are choosing to satisfy fewer of their requirements at local facilities. This is largely due to the move to larger facilities – whether for shopping, leisure, education or health - which have been developed in out-of-centre locations that are considerably less well served by public transport. As a result of this increasing concentration of larger facilities in out-of-centre locations, there are fewer local facilities available within a 1 mile radius. Increasing mobility by car has enabled this move.

4.2 This is the main reason for the reduction in the number of walk trips people make. Since walking is the mode of transport available to almost everybody regardless of income, this is a significant aspect of the process by which transport difficulties limit access to opportunities. For people who do not have a car available, if a journey is much longer than 1 mile it cannot reasonably be made on foot and travel by public transport, almost always a local bus, becomes necessary.

4.3 If a required destination, whether a hospital, school, shopping centre or leisure complex, is at the edge of town, the only bus route that will serve it is the radial one from the town centre to the edge-of-town location. Anyone who does not live on that radial will have to travel to the town centre and then out to the edge-of-town location, using two buses. This will greatly increase travel time and cost, and may well mean that travel is not possible in the evening or at the weekend. This has implications for low-paid staff who are required to work shifts, evenings or weekends.

4.4 Figure 4 shows that the average journey length for a variety of purposes have all been increasing, except for journeys to entertainment since 1990. This trend in increasing journey length is caused by two factors. One is that as more people get cars they are choosing to travel further, but take no longer than they would by bus, to increase the number of opportunities they can reach. This is to obtain greater choice and better quality. But it may also indicate that there are fewer opportunities nearby that can be reached by a shorter journey. In the case of shopping, it could reflect the closing of local and town centre shops as well as the wider range of goods and lower prices offered by many out-of-town supermarkets. The same has happened with cinemas.

4.5 In Figure 4, the category ‘Personal business’ includes visits to medical facilities as well as visits to libraries, hair dressers, lawyers etc. It is noticeable how much the length of these journeys has increased and is still increasing.

5 WHAT CAR AVAILABILITY TELLS US

5.1 Car availability is increasing for women, but has reached a plateau for men. Sixty- one per cent of men and 50 per cent of women aged 17 and over are main car drivers in a car-owning household. There are still more women than men living in households without a car and non-drivers in a household with a car.

5.2 The reduction in the percentage of teenage men who hold a full car driving licence that started in 1992 is a profound change. It has now reduced licence holding by men in their 20s from 84 per cent in 1993 to 66 per cent in 2010, and is beginning to reduce holding by men in their 30s. A similar change is occurring in USA, where more young women than young men now hold driving licences. This change is probably the cause of the reduction in the percentage of men who are main drivers shown in Figure 1.

5.3 There is a growing, though probably still a minority, view among transport planners that car use is at or close to a peak. While household car ownership is still rising in small towns and rural areas, since 2005 it has not risen in larger towns, and has been falling in London since at least 1990. Car driver trips per driver per year by men up to age 50 have been falling since 1995, and for men in their 60s since 2005. Trips by female drivers have not reduced.

5.4 If peak car is occurring, it is happening first in the larger cities where public transport is good and many services and activities are within walking distance. It is not yet happening in small towns and rural areas. So far, women are increasing their holding of car driver licences and are catching up with men in the distance they are travelling as car drivers. However, as with entering the housing market, young people are deferring car ownership due to rising costs of owning and using a car.

6 ISSUES FOR OLDER PEOPLE

6.1 ‘Older People: their transport needs and requirements’ (DETR, 2001) highlighted the particular problems faced by older people. One aspect of the difficulties experienced by this group is that older people are disproportionately likely to live in low-density areas. Figure 5 shows the proportion of people of retirement age plotted against the density of the local authority in which they live. The percentage falls from over 30 per cent in some low-density areas to about 10 per cent in high- density inner city areas.

6.2 People in low-density areas are more likely to be car dependent. In low-density areas it is more expensive and more difficult to provide transport and other support services. As people age past seventy they reduce the amount they drive and progressively give up driving licences. By age 80, 8 per cent of women who held a licence at age 70 have ceased to hold it, as have 5 per cent of men. By age 90, 43 per cent of women and 25 per cent of men who had held a licence at 70 have ceased to hold their licences.

6.3 The numbers of elderly people who have chosen to live in low-density areas will pose a growing access and exclusion problem as they age further and have to stop driving.

7 SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE

7.1 Access difficulties and the consequential risk of social exclusion are caused at least as much by land-use planning and the choice of location and management of activities, facilities and services, as by the transport system. Location decisions should be tested for their effect on people with transport disadvantages. The policies developed in PPGs 6 and 13 should be reaffirmed and applied more firmly. Whilst the NPPF may appear silent or indeterminate on these key issues, local planning and transport authorities should be encouraged to interpret the NPPF in ways that will promote more sustainable patterns of and locations for development and maintain or create sustainable local communities which provide access for all to a wide range of everyday needs. Previous policy documents, such as PPG13, will be a major source of guidance.

7.2 Design layouts for new development should make travel by sustainable means easier and more convenient than by car.

7.3 Additional incentives to encourage the reuse of previously-developed sites in sustainable locations need to be put in place – perhaps by rating empty or derelict land or sites with planning permission

7.4 Government policies and decisions on the provision and management of public services (eg education, health and public transport) should be specifically tested for any negative impact they may have on people with transport difficulties and how they interact with other policies and strategies. This test should include input from any adversely affected group of users and from groups with related policy responsibilities.

7.5 All bodies with responsibilities for services should consider access implications at the earliest stage of planning changes to services (eg London hospitals have generally been merged in circumferential areas around London. Radial combinations following the major public transport routes would make accessibility better for all, make it easier for low-wage staff to commute for shift work and probably reduce costs).

7.6 Any negative costs from a strategy should be made explicit, identifying the costs and who bears them and the cost of mitigation measures that need to be funded.

7.7 Property and development incentives for local planning authorities to give permission for developments should be designed to include the transport and social consequences (the separation of Counties and Districts in two tier authorities creates a number of problems)

7.8 Incentives should as far as possible be aligned with policies by appropriate fiscal measures (eg rating systems should reflect the resulting congestion effects of extra traffic from parking). Financial/price signals should support the desired policy outcomes.

7.9 Businesses and tax systems should reflect the personal benefits of a car parking space to an individual (we encourage people to travel green but subsidise and don’t tax parking spaces but do tax bus fares).

28th August 2012

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mayer Hillman with Irwin Henderson and Anne Whalley Personal Mobility and Transport Policy PEP Broadsheet 542, PEP (Political and Economic Planning), London, 1973

Mayer Hillman and Anne Whalley Fair Play for All – a study of access to sport and informal recreation PEP Broadsheet 571, PEP (Political and Economic Planning), London, 1977

C G B Mitchell and S W Town Accessibility of various social groups to different activities TRRL Supplementary Report SR 258, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1977

C G B Mitchell Some social aspects of public passenger transport TRRL Supplementary Report SR 278, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1977

C G B Mitchell and S W Town Access to recreational activity TRRL Supplementary Report SR 453, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1978

Jean M Hopkin, P Robson and S W Town The mobility of old people: a study in Guildford TRRL Laboratory Report LR 850, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1978

J P Rigby Access to hospitals: a literature review TRRL Laboratory Report LR 853, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1978

C G B Mitchell The use of local bus services TRRL Laboratory Report LR 923, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1980

C G B Mitchell The influence of the car on personal travel TRRL Supplementary Report SR 681, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1981

Joint Working Group of TRRL and Gwent CC Accessibility measures in Gwent: travel to hospitals and shops TRRL Laboratory Report LR 994, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1981

M Dasgupta Access to employment opportunities by car and bus in inner and outer areas of Greater Manchester TRRL Supplementary Report SR 741, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1981

M Dasgupta Mobility and access to employment opportunities: comparison of inner and outer Greater Manchester TRRL Laboratory Report LR 1054, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1982

L Pickup Residential mobility among council tenants – the role of transport and accessibility TRRL Laboratory Report LR 1100, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1984

Mayer Hillman, John Adams and John Whitelegg One false move … A study of children’s independent mobility PSI Publishing, Policy Studies Institute, London, 1990

Older people: their transport needs and requirements Report by W S Atkins for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, 2001

Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, 2003

DfT National Travel Survey (annual) Department for Transport, London http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/national-travel-survey/

ONS Regional Trends (annual) Office for National Statistics, Regional and Local Division, Newport http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-trends/regional-trends/no--43--2011- edition/index.html

DCLG National Planning Policy Framework Department of Communities and Local Government, London, 2012 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf 51

CAR AVAILABILITY - MEN 100 90 . 80 70 60 50 All in house with car Main driver in house with car Non driver in house with car Other driver in house with car 40 All in house without car 30 20 Percent of men aged 17 and over 10 - 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

CAR AVAILABILITY - WOMEN 100 All in house with car Main driver in house with car 90 Non driver in house with car Other driver in house with car . All in house without car 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Percent of men aged 17 and over over and of men aged 17 Percent 10 - 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 1 Access to cars by men and women – Great Britain National Travel Survey 52

FULL CAR DRIVING LICENCES - MEN 100 Age range . 90 Men 17 - 20 80 Men 21 - 29 70 60 Men 40 - 49

50 Men 60 - 69 40 Men 70+ 30 20 Men 85+ 10 Percent holding full cardriving licences 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

FULL CAR DRIVING LICENCES - WOMEN 100 Age range . 90 Women 17 - 20 80 70 Women 21 - 29 60 Women 40 - 49 car driving licences car driving 50

40 Women 60 - 69 30 Women 70+ 20

10 Women 85+ Percent holding full holding Percent 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 2 Holding of full car driving licences by men and women – Great Britain National Travel Survey

TRIPS PER PERSON IN LENGTH BANDS 350

Trip length (miles)

. 300 Under 1 250 1 to 2 200 2 to 5 150 5 and over 100

Number of trips in length band band length of trips in Number 50

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 3 Number of journeys per year by all modes of transport by length band National Travel Survey

LENGTH OF TRIPS BY PURPOSE 10 9 Trip purpose

. 8 Commuting

7 Education 6 Shopping 5 Personal business 4 3 Entertainment

Average trip length miles miles length trip Average 2 Visiting friends at home 1 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 4 Trend in the average length of trips by all modes of transport by purpose National Travel Survey 54

POPULATION OF RETIREMENT AGE - GREAT BRITAIN 2009 40 . 35 30 25 retirement age 20 15 10

Percentage of 5 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Population density per sq.km

Figure 5 The percentage of people of retirement age by population density of local authority 2009 (Regional Trends No 43, Table 1.2)

Written evidence submitted by Mr Raymond Brookfield, Secretary, West Lancashire Pensioners Forum

Transport and the accessibility of Public Services [West Lancashire]

• Accessibility- Many residents in villages surrounding the market town of Ormskirk have no direct bus or train access into town, so visits to doctors, hospitals, libraries, opticians, legal advice or just friends and family are not possible. The national bus pass is available to all pensioners and disabled, but is useless if there is no bus.

• Affordability- At one time, those who needed to, could use their bus passes for Dial-a- ride, but that concession has been taken away along with travel tokens and many cannot afford to pay for the service nor pay for taxis and we do not have free use of trains that other authorities allow.

• Availability- For many pensioners there is no transport available and they have to rely on family or friends to take them to places to shop for them, because many villages have lost post offices/general stores.

The transport in our area certainly does not meet the criteria you have set.

What we need is funding, so that we can enjoy the same freedom of movement that many pensioners in this country have.

5 September 2012 56

Written evidence submitted by ASLEF

1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s largest train driver’s union representing approximately 18,000 members in train operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and light rail systems.

2. ASLEF welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into transport and the accessibility of public services: Prior research has already shown that poor public transport services prevent people from accessing key local health, welfare, education and social services and thereby reinforce social exclusion. In spite of this evidence, little has been done to improve the accessibility, cost and safety of transport links. We hope, as a result of this inquiry, to see the government do more to address this.

3. In 2003 the then Social Exclusion Unit concluded that transport barriers negatively affect the employment and educational opportunities of jobseekers, young people, lone parents, older people and people with disabilities, resulting in social exclusion and reduced wellbeing. In 2012, we believe that this remains just as pertinent an issue: Fares are too expensive, services are often overcrowded and many people do not have a railway station nearby.

4. Privatisation and fragmentation of the railway network have led to an inefficient system where companies have too much commercial freedom. Cost savings are being made at the expense of passengers while profits go to private train operators instead of being reinvested into the railway. The Department for Transport’s annual accessibility statistics for 2010 show that a greater proportion of the urban population could access key services in a ‘reasonable time’ than rural areas could, and accessibility also varies by region. This is because private companies prioritise investment in profitable commuter routes and urban centres at the expense of station and line closures elsewhere in the country. Public transport services are less frequent and evening and weekend services are often unavailable outside the urban periphery. The implications for rural communities are both social and economic

5. The reality is that it is the economically disadvantaged who are most likely to be affected by transport poverty. Indeed, the UK already has some of the most expensive train fares in the world and each January they rise even further. Fares are set to rise by 24% by 2015. For the unemployed, the cost of travelling to job centres and going to sign on can be prohibitive. For others, on low incomes, the excessive cost and difficulty of travelling to work can be prohibitive. Unemployment rates are high and jobs are scarce, meaning that many people have to travel further to find work, but poor transport links make doing this very difficult.

6. ASLEF is also concerned that company cuts may affect passenger wellbeing and safety. We would like to see steps put in place to protect the jobs of staff 57

at stations and on trains for the benefit of disabled and elderly passengers who need assistance as well as for vulnerable young people and female passengers travelling in remote places at night. We would like to see the reopening of closed lines, better services outside peak hours and improved access provisions for disabled and elderly passengers.

7. Whether people want to travel to work, school, the hospital, shops, or to visit friends and family, the deterrents to them doing so are highest for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. The consequences are not only economic but also social and psychological, including stress, anxiety and isolation.

8. Improving train and other public transport services would help to improve lives, as well as being environmentally friendly. Obstacles to using public transport encourage the use of privately owned cars instead, adding to road congestion and with a negative impact on the environment.

9. Progress in terms of improving accessibility of key services for disadvantaged populations has been disappointing. Furthermore, cutbacks to transport services resulting from austerity measures are adversely affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. As a result of this inquiry, we would like to see:

a) A Government review of how it regulates fares and concessions

b) Improved local transport services within rural areas: More frequent services at weekends and evenings, reopening of small lines, more carriages at busy times to reduce overcrowding

c) Protection for rail staff jobs

d) Rail companies brought back into the public sector at the end of their franchises: This would help to eliminate safety risks associated with profit- driven franchise companies and sub-contractors.

5 September 2012 58

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign for National Parks

Executive Summary

National Parks contribute significantly to the well-being of the nation, by providing safe, attractive, healthy places for active travel and recreation. The Campaign for National Parks is keen to see improved access to, from and within National Parks, to allow everybody to take advantage of these benefits. However, currently a lack of public transport prevents many people from visiting these key national assets.

We believe that Government policy should pay more attention to ensuring that National Parks are accessible by public transport as they are a valuable public service which should be available for everyone to enjoy.

Improved public transport access to National Parks would provide many benefits including:

• For individuals - by contributing to improved physical and mental health through opportunities for engaging with nature. • For local economies – there is evidence that visitors by public transport spend more than those arriving by car. • For the environment – by reducing the number of people who travel to National Parks by car.

Transport difficulties impact on both residents and visitors of National Parks in a variety of ways. In particular, there is a lack of services on Sundays and public holidays, despite these being the most popular days for visiting. Where public transport is available, it is often infrequent or finishes early limiting the opportunities for access. The high cost of bus fares can also act as a deterrent.

There are some positive examples of transport initiatives that improve access to National Parks including DalesBus in the Yorkshire Dales and Breeze up to the Downs in the South Downs. We want to see continued revenue support for these services and increased pump- priming support to allow other similar services to be developed and enhanced in other National Parks. In many cases, a relatively small amount of money could make a significant difference. To ensure that this happens we would like to see the following action from Government:

• Recognition that National Parks are a key national service offering multiple benefits to individuals and the country and that, therefore, access to National Parks should be considered just as important as access to other services such as learning, healthcare and leisure which are already prioritised in Government policy.

• Commitment to using any under-spend from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund to provide increased funding to National Park Authorities (NPAs) specifically for revenue support for bus services in National Parks. Providing the funding to NPAs rather than local highway authorities would ensure that services were designed with the needs of both residents and visitors in mind.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Campaign for National Parks is the independent national voice for the 13 National Parks in England and Wales. Our mission is to inspire everyone to enjoy and look after National Parks – the nation’s green treasures.

1.2 National Parks are our finest landscapes with the highest level of protection. Their statutory purposes are to conserve and enhance wildlife, cultural heritage and natural beauty, and to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of their special qualities. For over 75 years the Campaign for National Parks has been working to ensure that our National Parks are beautiful, inspirational places that are relevant, valued and protected for all.

1.3 National Parks contribute significantly to the well-being of the nation, by providing safe, attractive, healthy places for active travel and recreation. They also play a vital role in sustainable development through protection of the landscape, wildlife and key environmental resources and services, like water provision and carbon storage in peat soils and forests, which can mitigate the effects of climate change. As well as being inspiring places for people to enjoy and improve their health and well-being, National Parks make a significant contribution to the economy through tourism, farming, and other related businesses.

1.4 We are keen to see improved access to, from and within National Parks. At present, many of those who might benefit the most from the health and well-being opportunities provided by National Parks are excluded from them, due to key barriers such as a lack of affordable and available transport. We therefore believe that Government transport policy should pay more attention to ensuring that these key national assets are easily accessible by public transport. Such improvements would not only benefit those wishing to visit National Parks but would improve accessibility to other key services for residents of National Parks and enhance local economic development. They would also have environmental benefits by providing an alternative means of transport for those residents and visitors who do own cars.

1.5 The Campaign for National Parks manages the Mosaic engagement programme which has successfully recruited and trained hundreds of volunteer community champions to introduce thousands of people from urban areas to the physical and mental health benefits of National Parks over the last 10 years. We have targeted people from disadvantaged communities which are under-represented in National Parks. Our evidence has been compiled in consultation with the Mosaic community champions who have first hand experience of the difficulties of accessing National Parks without a car and of the benefits of introducing new visitors to the Parks. We have also consulted with representatives of the National Park Societies and National Park Authorities, and are particularly grateful for the information provided by Colin Speakman, Chairman of the Yorkshire Dales Society, in helping us prepare this submission.

1.6 Our evidence begins by setting out in more detail why access to National Parks matters, it then provides some evidence on how transport difficulties impact on both 60

residents and visitors of National Parks. Finally, it sets out some of the positive examples of transport initiatives that are transforming access to National Parks and makes some recommendations for Government action which would help to support and encourage similar initiatives.

2. Why access to National Parks matters

2.1 The main focus of the inquiry is on the accessibility to key local services such as jobs, learning, healthcare, food shopping and leisure. This is understandable given that this is the focus of the Social Exclusion Unit’s Making the Connections report which this inquiry is following up. However, whilst access to all these services is important, there is another public service which we believe needs to be given greater attention in the Government’s transport policy and that is National Parks.

2.2 National Parks are the finest landscapes which have been granted the highest level of protection. The statutory purposes of National Parks are: • To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks

• To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Parks

2.3 National Parks receive funding from taxpayers in recognition of their special qualities. They are national assets, providing natural resources such as clean water and provide places of peace and tranquillity in a crowded island. They are therefore a critical public service and should be available for everyone to enjoy and to benefit from what they have to offer, not only in terms of leisure opportunities, tourism and a sense of place, but also their contribution to health, well-being and spiritual inspiration.

2.4 There is increasing recognition of the physical and mental health benefits that the landscape and outdoor recreation provides, for example, a recent publication from the National Trust1 highlights the profound impacts that nature deficit disorder has on children’s health, especially with regard to obesity caused in part by a significant reduction in time spent playing outdoors. National Parks play a key role in making the benefits of engaging with nature available to people who might not easily to able to access them, for example, though the CNP Mosaic project and other initiatives such as “walking for health”.

2.5 Natural England has also published a literature review2 which found widespread recognition that experience of the outdoors and wilderness or wild spaces has the potential to confer a multitude of benefits on young people’s physical development, emotional and mental health and wellbeing and societal development. In many parts of the UK, the only truly wild spaces left are in National Parks.

1 National Trust, 2012, Natural Childhood by Stephen Moss 2 Natural England, 2010, Wild Adventure Space: its role in teenagers’ lives 61

2.6 The Mosaic community champions cite examples of mental health benefits for people at the opposite end of the age range, for example, older people report feeling more relaxed and happier as a result of visits to National Parks. There are also some who have been introduced to walking on visits to National Parks and as a result have started walking more for local journeys in their own communities. This has obvious benefits in terms of health and social inclusion.

2.7 Increasing the opportunities for visitors to reach National Parks is also good for the local economy in areas which rely significantly on tourism for their economic wellbeing. There is evidence3 that visitors by public transport tend to spend more money in tourist areas than visitors by car. They are more likely to spend money on food and drink locally and are more likely to pay for tourist attractions. It has been estimated that passengers on DalesBus Sunday and Bank Holiday services brought £187,000 worth of visitor spending to the Yorkshire Dales National Park4 So, there are strong economic development arguments for investing in improved public transport for National Parks.

2.8 Finally, as the Committee will be aware, there are significant environmental benefits to providing improved public transport particularly where appropriate marketing is used to promote the service to car users. There is a huge reliance on the private car by visitors to National Parks, for example over 85% of journeys to the Peak District National Park are made by car and around 93% of visitors to the Lake District arrive by car.

3. How transport currently limits people’s access to National Parks

3.1 Recent cuts in public funding have seen local transport authorities having to make very difficult decisions about which bus services to support. In general, the needs of residents tends to take priority over those of visitors which often means that services for those wishing to travel into National Parks from surrounding urban areas are given low priority. Week-end services are usually particularly badly affected by such decisions with public transport access in National Parks often at its most limited on Sundays and public holidays despite evidence to show that this is the most popular day for visiting5.

3.2 Even where public transport is available on a particular route, it may not be sufficiently frequent or run late enough for people to feel confident about relying on it for a day trip in case they get stranded. For example, one of the Mosaic community champions cites the limited options for travelling between Sheffield and the Derwent Valley in the Peak District (a 30 minute journey) where there is a popular visitor centre. This acts as a deterrent to taking groups into the National Park even though it is on the city’s doorstep and readily accessible for those with cars.

3 MVA Consultancy in association with David Simmonds Consultancy, 2006, Evaluation of Rural Transport Provision (report for Lancashire Economic Partnership) 4 Dales Integrated Transport Alliance, 2011, Connecting the Dales Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid 5 For example, the All Parks Visitor Survey 1994 shows that 54% of all day visits to the Yorkshire Dales occur on Sundays. 62

3.3 A further significant deterrent is the high cost of bus fares. For example, one community champion quotes a cost of £6.80 return for an adult and £4.50 for a child for a 14 minute journey from Bakewell to Taddington. Some operators do offer good discounts for off-peak group travel or day tickets such as the Peak Wayfarer or DalesBus Rover which can significantly reduce the costs of travel. However, unfortunately, such tickets are not available in all National Parks and it is often very difficult to find out information about the cheapest options or any group discounts that may be available. Community champions report being given incorrect information on telephone information lines and having to bring a print-out of the relevant section of an operators’ website to prove the availability of a particular group discount ticket to a bus driver.

3.4 The limited public transport options available means that many well-known attractions in National Parks are only available for those with private transport. Recent cutbacks mean that even in relatively accessible National Parks, many popular visitor destinations are no longer served by public transport. For example, in the Peak District, key destinations affected by the most recents cuts in public transport services include the some of the caverns at Castletleton and Stanage Edge – a world class climbing destination.

3.5 The Natural England study cited above6 also identified the cost and availability of transport as a barrier to young people accessing and enjoying wild adventure space.

4. Examples of improved access to National Parks

4.1 Where time and effort has been invested to improve access to National Parks, the benefits are plain to see. The Yorkshire Dales Society set up a subsidiary Community Interest Company to run the DalesBus7 which has proved that there is a huge potential demand for a truly integrated, well promoted National Park public transport network. There has been a growth of over 200% in passenger numbers using the network in a little over 5 years. Many of these passengers are visitors from surrounding urban areas, such as Bradford and Leeds, who could not reach the National Park otherwise but the service also provides a vital public transport for residents, particularly the significant rural minority without private transport.

4.2 In the South Downs, a successful partnership between Brighton and Hove City Council, the National Trust and the South Downs National Park Authority supports a network of three bus services linking Brighton with some of the most popular destinations in the National Park. The full Breeze up to the Downs8 network runs on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays over the summer and some services run over the winter too. Breeze was highly commended for ‘The Bus in the Countryside’ Award in 2009. The citation for the award describes it as the most popular of all leisure bus networks in Britain, carrying the greatest number of people and compared

6 Natural England, 2010, Wild Adventure Space: its role in teenagers’ lives 7 http://www.dalesbus.org/ 8 http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1000976 63

4.3 There are a number of other examples of highly successful transport services in National Parks such as MoorsBus, the Snowdon Sherpa, Dartmoor Sunday Rover, the Pembrokeshire Puffin, and Peak Wayfarer. However, unfortunately many of these have suffered savage cuts in recent years, often to save relatively modest amounts of money. There is a real risk that there will be further similar cuts in coming years meaning the future of most of these services is currently very insecure.

5. Recommendations for Government

5.1 As we have set out in our evidence above, there are many good reasons for improving public transport access to, from and within National Parks, such as:

• Supporting local economic development in rural areas that rely on tourism • Securing a sustainable future for rural communities • Providing people from urban communities with access to the country’s finest landscapes • Improving health and well-being, especially for the young.

5.2 There are already some existing examples of the kinds of initiative that make a huge difference to those who are able to benefit from them. We want to see continued support for these kinds of services and increased support to allow other similar services to be developed and enhanced in all of England’s National Parks.

5.3 In many cases, a relatively small amount of money could make a significant difference – Colin Speakman, who was responsible for setting up DalesBus, estimates that a figure of £100,000 per National Park9 would be sufficient to allow tens of thousands more people to enjoy National Parks whilst reducing the environmental benefits of these increased number of visits.

5.4 To ensure that this happens we would like to see the following action from Government:

9 Speech to National Park Societies’ Conference, Brighton, 1 September 2012 64

6 September 2012 65

Written evidence submitted by Dr Karel Martens

Executive summary 1. The UK approach to accessibility planning is path-breaking in an international context, but will fail to deliver as long as its goal – the provision of accessibility to key services for all citizens – is not reflected in national transportation policies and investments priorities. The goal of accessibility planning can only be achieved if a distributive approach is adopted in the transport domain, in analogy of the well-developed approaches in the domains of housing and education. A distributive approach implies the explicit definition of fairness in the distribution of accessibility, again in analogy to the well-developed principles of fairness that guide the provision of health care services and education. The resulting criteria should subsequently guide national level investment priorities so that they support local level initiatives to cater for unmet mobility needs within the context of accessibility planning.

A brief introduction to the submitter 2. Currently, I am an associate professor at the Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. I have over twenty years of experience as a researcher and practitioner in the fields of transportation and urban planning, in the Netherlands, Israel, Belgium and, recently, the USA. I have worked for universities in the Netherlands and Israel, for two international consultancy companies, as a director of a non-governmental organization, and as a private consultant. My main research interests include transport and justice, the land use–transport interrelationship, parking, and multi-modal transportation. I have published a large number of papers on transport and justice, among others in Transportation (2011, 2012), Transportmetrica (2011, with coauthor), The Annals of Regional Science (2010, with co-authors), Transportation Research Records (2010, with co-authors), and the Berkeley Planning Journal (2006). I have also presented my work at a substantial number of international conferences and seminars, most notably at the Annual Conferences of the Transportation Research Board (2007, 2009, 2011), and at the 5th State of Environmental Justice in America Conference (2011). I am a member of the Environmental Justice Committee of the Transportation Research Board and of the organizing committee of the 5th International Conference on Women’s Issues in Transportation that will take place in Paris in 2012.

Factual information 3. It is beyond doubt that citizens in modern societies heavily depend on some form of motorized transportation – whether private or public in nature – in order to fully participate in those societies.

4. The large body of academic literature on transport-related social exclusion, transport and gender, as well as spatial mismatch, provides conclusive evidence that current transportation policies, in the UK and elsewhere, have been unable to provide a system of motorized transportation that ensures access to key services and destinations for all citizens. 66

5. This failure can in large part be attributed to the fact that providing accessibility for all citizens has never been a key goal guiding transportation policy, nor an explicit condition shaping the spatial organization of public services. Here, too, the UK is no different from virtually all other countries.

6. The UK approach to accessibility is path-breaking in nature, as it explicitly requires local authorities to assess accessibility to key destinations in their locality and to propose and implement measures to improve accessibility in case of unmet mobility needs. The only country with a comparable emphasis on providing accessibility for all citizens is Flanders, which has enshrined this goal in its mobility law and translated it into a far-reaching public transport investment program.

7. However, by entrusting local authorities with accessibility planning, the UK approach has failed to acknowledge that accessibility levels are first and foremost determined by transportation investment programs at the national level. Over the past decades, accessibility levels of households and neighborhoods alike have changed drastically due to large-scale investments in transportation infrastructures, most notably the road network. Service delivery policies have subsequently taken advantage of improved accessibility for the majority of the (car-owning) population, often through a process of concentration to benefit from economies of scale and scope, while largely ignoring the accessibility consequences for a small but significant part of the population unable to make use of the improved (road) transport infrastructures because of physical (travel impairment), legal (no driving license) or financial (low income) reasons.

8. Because accessibility levels of households continue to be shaped by national transport investment priorities, local accessibility planning is unlikely to achieve its goal of providing adequate accessibility levels for all. Local accessibility policies will hardly be able to compensate for the uneven accessibility landscape that has resulted from, and is still being reshaped by, large-scale national investments in transport infrastructure.

9. Accessibility planning at the local level thus needs to be complemented by, or embedded within, accessibility planning at the national level.

10. The introduction of accessibility planning at the national level, in turn, requires fundamental changes in the transport policy domain, in line with the principles prevalent in domains like health care and education. These latter fields of government intervention are strongly shaped by the goal to provide fair service to all citizens. To this purpose, these domains have adopted a distributive approach, implying that policy interventions are shaped by the explicit goal to guarantee a fair distribution of resulting benefits (and burdens) over all citizens. While the distribution of benefits (and burdens) is sometimes addressed in the transportation domain, it is at best perceived as an impact to be mitigated, rather than as a condition guiding policy interventions and priority setting. It is precisely the absence of an explicit distributive approach to accessibility that has enabled the emergence of the uneven accessibility landscape currently experienced at the regional and local scales and widely reported on in the 67

academic literature on transport-related social exclusion, transport and gender, and spatial mismatch.

11. The UK approach to accessibility planning – while path-breaking from an international perspective – falls short in establishing such a distributive approach, as the decision regarding major investments in accessibility improvements (new roads, railway lines, light rail connections), at the national and local levels, are being made outside the scope of accessibility planning.

12. The proposed distributive approach will bring into one comprehensive framework the bottom-up measures developed within the context of local accessibility planning and the top-down infrastructure investments resulting from mainstream transportation planning at the local and national scales.

13. The core of the proposed distributive approach is the explicit formulation of a set of distributive criteria (e.g., ‘minimum accessibility thresholds’ or a ‘maximum accessibility range’) that guide government action within the context of accessibility planning and mainstream transportation planning at the national and local level, as well as within the context of various domains of service delivery.

14. At the local level, these distributive criteria should be used as the yardstick for the appraisal of all transportation policies and infrastructure investments, as well as spatial strategies in service delivery.

15. At the national level, the distributive approach requires an explicit distinction between government investments in transport for purposes of economic growth and for ensuring accessibility to services. The vast majority of government transportation budgets at all spatial scales should be reserved for guaranteeing access for all citizens (as in line with the domain of education). Investments to promote economic growth should be self- financing where possible, through contribution by the sectors that benefit from them, while limiting government investment from regular funding sources.

Recommendations for action 16. The approach outlined above suggest the following for the UK government policy regarding accessibility planning and mainstream transportation planning, and has the following implications for the work of the UK Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into Transport and Accessibility to Services:

a. Accessibility planning needs to be supplemented by an explicit national approach to providing accessibility for all. This implies that the inquiry should go beyond accessibility planning at the local level to assess especially national transportation planning and transportation policies and the underlying distributive principles which create the (uneven) accessibility landscape experienced at local and regional scales.

b. The government should move beyond the definition of a set of accessibility indicators, and engage in an open discussion on fairness in accessibility. This open dialogue with stakeholders should ultimately result in a set of distributive criteria 68

or thresholds regarding accessibility levels, with the possibility of regional and local differences depending on context. This implies that the inquiry should explore whether explicit distributive criteria for accessibility have been defined in practice and/or whether the literature provides directions for defining such criteria, in analogy to well-developed fairness principles in the fields of education and health care.

c. The government should reconsider its current approach to priority setting regarding transport investments and explicitly base investment priorities on a well-developed approach to fairness in accessibility as a necessary complement for local-level accessibility planning. This implies that the inquiry should explicitly explore how local level assessment of accessibility levels could be used to set national level priorities regarding investments in transport infrastructures.

Supplementary materials

17. The following supplementary materials belong to this memorandum:

18. Martens, K. (2012). "Justice in transport as justice in access: applying Walzer's 'Spheres of Justice' to the transport sector " Transportation (Online 21 February 2012).

19. Martens, K., A. Golub, et al. (2012). "A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: implications for transportation planning practice in the United States." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46(4): 684-695.

20. Benenson, I., K. Martens, et al. (2011). "Public transport versus private car: GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area." The Annals of Regional Science 47(3): 499-515.

6 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Bus Users UK

Summary:

1. Current transport policies appear to adversely affect the accessibility of public services: • Centralised services mean better public transport is required but pressure on local authority transport budgets means that the opposite is happening • Costs are increasing disproportionately in poorer areas

2. Other policies are also affecting accessibility • Transport links, cost and availability are often overlooked in the planning of new service locations which has significant impact on the ability to access services and jobs. • The adverse impact is worse for poorer communities

3. The current approach of requiring accessibility of public transport does not appear to be working in practice. • Consideration does not seem to be reflected in implementation • Budgetary and business constraints are overriding these needs in some cases • The DfT could play a key role in ensuring the coordination of transport options in any area

4. Transport‐related accessibility of public services should be measured against clearly‐defined criteria to ensure progress is made in a manner appropriate to the area’s resources and challenges. • Factoring for accessibility could be a measure of local authority efficiency along with other current measures • Social and environmental concerns do not usually conflict with accessibility issues, the reverse is often the case. • An accessibility measure would be useful for policy‐making

5. Broadband and the internet will not remove the need for accessible public services in the foreseeable future. • Many people cannot use these methods • Support for people to use the internet is generally available from services which can only be reached via accessible transport

Response:

• How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

1. As a result of the budget for local transport being decentralised and put under considerable pressure, in local authorities where bus services have been reduced, people find it harder and less desirable to visit town centre‐based Council offices and services, GP surgeries, hospitals, educational establishments, community centres and so on. For those without immediate access to a car or the funds to pay for taxis, this can result in isolation, reduced access to democracy, social and health 70

services and community activities, as well as a noticeable diminution in quality of life.

2. The impact on the most vulnerable members of the community, such as children, young people and elderly people is far greater than other households but there is a major knock‐on effect on those trying to get to work and those trying to run small businesses reliant on passing trade or regular custom.

3. In addition, the costs of bus services can be prohibitive for people on low incomes or benefits to visit JobCentres or access any social services. In areas in which a high proportion of residents are on benefits and eligible for free travel, adult fares tend to be rise to make up the difference. For example, in Brighton’s low‐income Whitehawk district, it costs £2.20 each way to get into Brighton’s centre (a 4‐mile journey), meaning a couple will need to pay out £8.80 just to go into the centre and back.

4. These factors put the heaviest burden on the poorest communities, preventing many from using the services at all and resulting in bus operators closing or reducing the services on the grounds that they are unviable. This can also result in people eligible for free travel having no bus on which they could travel as it is not allowed for them to pay towards the service even if they wished to do so

• Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

5. The placement of new public offices and services do not always take into consideration the availability of transport links to ensure accessibility. Some have no links set up prior to the opening or relocation of public services but often no account is taken of the lack of coordination and joint ticketing between train, tram and bus services.

6. This can mean that, while a journey is possible in theory, it is impractical in terms of time or cost. This can result in those who are able to access to a car using it for that journey, impacting on the environment in terms of pollution and traffic congestion and also excluding those who do not have such access.

7. It also means that it becomes much harder for jobseekers to attend their required signing sessions and training, as well as making it difficult to get to interviews or commute to any job offered on time and at a reasonable cost, especially if a journey to a childcare facility also has to be factored in.

8. These are problems which have a significant adverse impact on the whole community but, again, the disadvantaged population suffers most. 71

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

9. It does not appear that the Government’s current approach is working in practice. While accessibility issues may be considered in local transport plans, the implementation seems not to be successful on a widespread basis, in particular in relation to bus services, the most commonly used form of public transport in the UK.

10. Local authorities and bus operators have budgetary and business constraints which may not mesh well with these priorities.

11. The Dept for Transport may be well‐placed to negotiate or require the coordination of all available transport services and timetabling with all concerned parties.

12. Incentives could be provided to reward transport operators to work in coordination with other types of transport services in the vicinity and subsidies for routes which are much‐needed but unlikely to be viable. Penalties for lack of coordinating services could also be levied

• How should the transport‐related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision‐making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy‐making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

13. Transport‐related accessibility of public services should be measured on a longitudinal manner to ensure progress is made taking into account the numbers and demographics of the populations needing to be served, the services needing to be provided and the viability of the routes suggested.

14. Factoring for accessibility in rural or disadvantaged areas would help make for more tailored decision‐making, in the same way that environmental and social factoring does now. It would play a key role in assessing the efficiency of public services in areas seen to be at risk of low accessibility

15. Social and environmental concerns need not conflict with accessibility considerations, the reverse would usually be the case as poor environments and social conditions generally go hand in hand with low accessibility.

16. Accessibility definitions would need expert input, but we would expect to see the geographic and demographic aspects of an area taken into account, consultations with sample communities to test what they felt was reasonable and affordable and a measure of current accessibility given to each area and made public, agreeing targets for improvement and/or monitoring, engaging the public’s support in finding ways to improve local services.

• The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services. 72

17. It is commonly assumed that there may be a decreased requirement at some point in the future for public services to be accessible. However, older and more vulnerable people, people who cannot afford or understand technological possibilities, people with communication disabilities and people with literacy or language issues will always need the option of face‐to‐face contact in order to get what they need. Even if they are able to get support from community centres or libraries to access online information, they would still need to take public transport to access these facilities, which are increasingly available only in town centres.

18. With the current move towards centralising and combining most services for efficiency reasons, access to many services is already farther away than ever before. People will always need access to GPs, hospitals, dentists, schools, colleges and workplaces so it seems unlikely that there will be no need for public transport to access public services in the foreseeable future.

7 September 2012 73

Written evidence submitted by the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford

Access to a car 1. Based on our analysis of the National Travel Survey1 figures roughly a quarter of UK households do not have regular access to a car or other private motor vehicle. This represents roughly 5.5 million households and as many as 12.5 million people. 2. Non car ownership is overwhelming concentrated in low income households: half of the lowest and 28% of the second lowest income quintile households do not have access to a car. 3. The amount of car driving and use of a car as a passenger is also more affected by income than other aspects of travel behaviour e.g. rail or bus travel. Nevertheless, people in the lowest income quintile have significantly increased their ownership and use of motor vehicles over the last 10 years (from 20% in to 50% in 2008), whilst this has remained relatively stable for the average population. 4. Although people with cars can and do still experience transport poverty, it is those without a car that are most likely to be affected by poor accessibility to public (and commercially‐run) goods and services on a regular basis. 5. People in the lowest income quintile travel make 17% fewer trips than the average population and travel roughly a third of the distance in a year (4,300 miles per person per year compared with 11,200 miles on average). 6. Whilst much of the difference in distance travelled is related to the availability of a car within the household, there is also a clear income effect: on average the low income households with a car travel approximately 5,800 miles per person per year compared to 11,200 miles on average). 7. The majority of the people in this lowest income category are either retired or registered as permanently sick (33%) and so may not need or wish to travel as much as other sectors of the population. However, half are economically inactive adults who may need to travel more in order to access work but are prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. 8. In fact, people on lower incomes have very similar trip patterns in terms of journey purposes to the rest of the population, although they make slightly more education trips and slightly more shopping trips, but fewer escort and leisure trips. But in all cases except education the lower use of car driving is notable, and for most purposes a higher use of walking can be noted. 9. This means that a significant proportion of people living on low incomes in the UK are finding it increasingly necessary to own and drive cars just to maintain a basic lifestyle. Those who do not have access to cars and must therefore rely on public transport might often be excluded from participating fully in the everyday activities that the majority take for granted because of the absence and/or inadequacy of such services in many

1 Stokes, G. and Lucas, K. (2011) ‘Travel behaviour of low income households: and analysis of the 2002‐2008 National Travel Survey Transport Studies Unit Working Paper No 1053 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/pubs/1053‐ stokes‐lucas.pdf 74

deprived areas. It is likely that this situation has worsened in recent years due to further cutback in local government funding and its reduced support of subsidised and specialist transport services. Effectiveness of public transport as an alternative 10. Many of the people who do not have cars live in urban areas and so will (theoretically) have relatively good access to both public transport services, as well good walking access to as to goods and public facilities and other amenities. 11. In fact, numerous studies2 have identified that outside of Greater London and the centre of major cities in the UK, public transport is rarely a viable alternative to the car. This is most notable, in urban peripheral areas where many large social housing estates are located. The main problems in terms of providing access to services are the scheduling and routing of services, lack of services in the evenings and at weekends, the need for multiple interchanges, the cost of fares (especially when more than one person from a household is travelling), fear of crime while travelling and waiting at bus stops, lack of timetable and other information. 12. A 2008 study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation3 found that cutbacks in public transport services have been compounded by many entry‐level jobs and key developments, such as hospitals, colleges and shopping and leisure centres being relocated to areas that are often not well served by public transport. In addition, many low‐paid jobs involve working hours that make access difficult by any means other than the car. 13. The study involved evaluations of four new transport projects that had been specifically targeted to provide improved access to work, education and training, healthcare and facilities in deprived parts of the UK: Braustone Bus in Leicester, Wythenshaw Link in Manchester, Trevithick Link in Cornwall and Walsall Workwise. 14. Using the standard DfT WebTag evaluation methodology, the study found that the aggregate user benefit accruing from these four services was in excess of £850,000 (compared against the £3,204,974 grant funding they received). This is without considering the additional social benefits arising from the new employment uptake that result from use of the services and new education and health trips that the services generated. 15. However, the majority of similarly targeted transport schemes that were directly addressing the problem of social exclusion were funded via the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Single Regeneration Budget, Rural and Urban Bus Challenges, Kickstart and the EU Social Fund. In the majority of cases, the lifetime of the funding was short term and many were withdrawn because they were not seen as sufficiently commercially viable. 16. Many of these funding sources are also now no longer available, which adds to the general instability of such projects locally. The majority of the new initiatives that were funded under these programmes following the 2003 SEU report are no longer in

2 See for example Lucas, K. and Jones, P. The Car in British Society London: RAC Foundation 3 Lucas, K. Tyler, S. and Christodolou, G. (2008) The value of new transport services in deprived areas http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2228‐transport‐regeneration‐deprivation.pdf 75

existence and have not been replaced by other projects or taken up by public transport operators as part of their regular services. Access to public services 17. A scanning study on transport and social equity4 undertaken as part of the UKTRC programme involved a series of workshops with academics, policy makers and service providers drawn from across a number of different policy sectors. The four workshops specifically considered i) employment and training, ii) health and wellbeing, iii) housing and sustainable communities, iv) rural connectivity. 18. The key issues identified in the Employment and Training Workshop5 in terms of access to services were: • Trends in ‘changing places of work’ suggest that rather than focusing solely on the ‘workplace’ as a ‘site’ for work, it is important to think more broadly about an ‘activity space for work’, binding together paid work and non‐paid work activities. Transport has to link these paid work and non‐paid work activities. • Moving people off benefits into paid work continues to be a major policy objective and is a key strategy in poverty reduction. • Spatial mobility is an important component in the ‘employability mix’ – alongside skills, health, self‐efficacy and a range of other factors. • Having a car enhances individuals’ abilities to access work through greater mobility, since cars provide greater flexibility in time and space compared with public transport. • There is increasing interest in the extent to which ‘mobility’ and ‘immobility’ are learned behaviours – with important implications for access to and participation in employment and training. 19. The key issues identified in the Health and Wellbeing Workshop6 in terms of access to services were: • There are inequalities in transport and health, some of which are likely to be exacerbated in the current economic climate. • Measuring health impacts in terms of mortality or much of morbidity measures is too crude to be meaningful to inform policy; there is a need to find appropriate measures of health to better acknowledge the health costs/benefit of transport policy. • We need to think more about context; travel is not just about getting from A to B, unpacking this context is still at an early stage. Health and wellbeing benefits associated with travel are difficult to articulate, for example some walking to school is likely to be healthful others not.

4 See http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐policy_briefing_note1.pdf for more information and policy briefing notes 5 Run by TSU in collaboration with Professor Anne Green and her colleagues at Institute of Employment Research, University of Warwick http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐policy_briefing_note2.pdf 6 Run bu TSU in collaboration with Professor Tanja Pleass‐Mulloli asnd her colleagues at the Centre for Health and Society at Newcastle University http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐ policy_briefing_note3.pdf 76

• Transport needs to be ‘inclusive’ whatever the mode; there are compelling economic arguments for pursuing this agenda, especially if health benefits are appropriately measured. • Transport and health fall into different silos within academia and government, but people’s lives are not separated in this way. Methods to enable these different communities to work together in a more holistic way need to be developed. • Encouraging/facilitating behaviour change is a challenge that spans the transport and sustainability agendas, and will involve multi‐partnership working. • Active transport is healthy, sustainable, and desirable, but is not a panacea, and can exacerbate the exclusion of some groups. Active transport enforced due to lack of alternatives may not be healthful. • For many the urban landscape has become a disjointed and unsocial place; we need to rethink our approach to planning urban space to better balance the populations needs. 20. The key issues identified in the Housing and Sustainable Communities Workshop 7in terms of access to services were: • There are tensions between accessibility, strategy and environment within urban neighbourhoods and these tensions are more acute in deprived communities than in more affluent neighbourhoods. Land use and density is a starting point – housing developments are built around the car so to what extent is it a housing issue rather than a transport one? • Accessibility is a complex issue that goes beyond existence of provision. Accessibility is about more than cost and availability. Transport accessibility is about urban form. Income inequality is mirrored in inequality in access to transport. Distance is not the only issue. There are other complexities around riding a bike and cycling is virtually unknown to lots of deprived communities because of issues of safety and space to store bike. • There are functional and cultural meanings of different forms of transport, for example, car mobility culture goes against limiting cars. Transport is an aspirational good. Breaking the car culture is difficult as cars have acquired cultural symbolism. What does it mean to own a car? There is both a physical and psychological attachment to the car • Linking people to jobs is vital. Access to work is key and while transport connectivity and access are necessary – they are not sufficient. Low income communities rely more on local goods and services and also rely on walking and buses. We need to convince people that quality of life and standards of living don’t have to be far away. • The system should encourage those with mobility and good access to travel less e.g. fewer flights for holidays, shift from private car to public transport where possible while simultaneously increasing mobility for those who lack mobility and access to opportunities such as work and education.

7 Run by TSU in collaboration with Professor Anne Power and her colleagues Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the London School of Economics http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐ policy_briefing_note4.pdf 77

• What are the cumulative effects of lots of small neighbourhood projects? We need to monitor their value and secure funding and we also need to analyse the role of soft measures versus infrastructure, for example: bike loan schemes, cycle training.

21. The key issues identified in the Rural Connectivity Workshop8 in terms of access to services were: • In the UK there is a diversity of rurality, with varying degrees of remoteness and connectivity. This can create difficulties in terms of understanding problems of connectivity and developing transferable solutions, particularly in a political context of increasingly devolved decision making. • When seeking to address issues of rural connectivity a ‘trilemma’ involving the factors of cost, coverage and quality is faced. It is possible to achieve any two of these factors, but at the expense of the third e.g. you can provide a low cost, high quality solution, but the range of coverage would then be poor. • Providing connectivity to rural communities presents significant challenges because they often face problems of transport poverty and digital exclusion. • Alongside social and economic aspects, these problems include a strong technological/technical component common to both the transport and digital spheres in terms of the quality and availability of infrastructure and services. • Prevailing methods of appraisal such as conventional cost‐benefit analysis do not effectively capture and value the social benefits of interventions designed to promote rural connectivity. • There is considerable potential for land use planning to better support the connectivity and sustainability of rural communities through better location of facilities and services

Access to services in rural areas 22. Successive "State of the Countryside" reports by the now disbanded Countryside Agency and Commission for Rural Communities reported changes in percentages of the population living within set distances of service outlets by road. Some show increases while others show reductions. Between 2000 and 2010 the following changes were recorded for people living in rural areas. ‐ GP surgeries saw a rise from 68.3% to 79.5% within 4kms ‐ Job centres saw a fall from 46.9% to 39.0% within 8kms ‐ Post Offices saw a fall from 79.9% to 75.4% within 2kms ‐ Primary schools saw a very slight fall from 82.5% to 82.1% within 2kms ‐ Secondary schools also saw a small fall from 50.0% to 48.4% within 4kms 23. For all these services around 99% of urban residents were within the chosen distances. For privately provided services there was also variation with falls for bank branches and petrol stations, but rises for cashpoints and for supermarkets. These figures imply that public policy is capable of maintaining access to services in rural areas. There was generally stability in access to services between 2000 and 2006, but policies on post office and primary school provision from about 2007 led to falls.

8 Run by TSU in collaboration with Dr Mark Beecroft and his colleagues at the Centre for Transport Studies, Aberdeen University http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐policy_briefing_note5.pdf 78

24. Issues of access to services for rural residents tend to be more strongly driven by distance to services, but specifically where a lack of access to a car, or an income which makes car use expensive, combined with a lack of public transport makes those more distant facilities difficult to reach. Transport and young people in rural areas 25. In a study for the RAC Foundation9, a focus group with young drivers living and around in Banbury in Oxfordshire who had just acquired a licence found that roughly half of the group’s twelve participants described themselves a ‘reluctant drivers’. They said they only used their cars because the public transport was not available in their area when they needed to use it. 26. Participants were particularly concerned about getting back from the town centre to rural villages in the early evening and at night. There was considerable resentment from a number of the participants in the group about being thought of as a taxi service as soon as they became drivers because they represented the only available transport option for their friends to get around and socialise at night. 27. The TRANTEL project10 examined the extent to which transport, skills and rural isolation influence the ability of the young unemployed (16‐24 years) to access job and learning opportunities. A comprehensive statistical analysis in four rural case study areas was undertaken in the denser rural areas in England and the more sparse rural areas of Wales, and this was supplemented by empirical evidence from a study that used interviews with professionals and the unemployed in one of the areas (the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire). 28. The young rural unemployed are excluded from labour market participation because of a combination of poor transport provision in rural areas, the lack of suitable qualifications and skills, and the poor job opportunities in the local labour markets. In summary, this seems to be occurring because of: a. The narrow industrial base and the predominance of the SMEs mean that there tends to be limited job opportunities, leading to low skilled and temporary jobs in the rural areas; b. Problems with transport provision not only prevent the young rural unemployed from accessing jobs and learning directly, but it also reinforces the position of the young rural unemployed in the low skilled and temporary jobs within a small spatial area. This in turn may result in the young rural unemployed having low expectations and being excluded from participation in the wider labour market due to bad working conditions, low pay and unaffordable costs of travels.

9 Part of a study for the RAC Foundation ‐ Lucas, K., Jones, P., Polak, J. and Gilliard, G (2009) The Car in British Society http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car_in_british_society‐ lucas_et_al‐170409.pdf 10 The aim of the TRANTEL project was to evaluate to what extent the transport and ICT solutions can contribute to reducing youth unemployment in rural areas. An important element in the project was to learn from best practice on rural transport and ICT projects and to see whether schemes being tried elsewhere in England are suitable for implementation in the Forest of Dean. The research is funded by the EPSRC under their FIT programme. 79

c. The young rural unemployed are more likely to be trapped into low skilled and temporary jobs because of lack of acquired skills and working experience, and the perception that they are unreliable workers. 29. Accessibility is a key constraint for the young rural unemployed (YRU), and it is important to extend conventional accessibility models so that they more realistically represent the choices available in the rural labour markets. It is normally assumed that all jobs are available to all individuals and so accessibility analysis rather crudely matches up supply and demand according to the availability of suitable transport. Such an analysis is really only a starting point in that process and a more sensitive supplementary investigation is required that takes account of the skills profile of the YRU and the characteristics (and constraints) of the job itself. 30. In addition, it would help if a wider range of transport options can be included in the assessment. Further research needs to be directed at subdividing the demand from the YRU by skills levels, principally through level of qualification. The job market is defined as where the job is located and the occupational group, which in turn relates to the skills levels. The transport options include private transport, which would be able to access all jobs, existing public transport, which would be able to access jobs in the main towns, and new forms of transport that would supplement existing services and perhaps access new destinations. The use of ICT is important in two respects. One is to obtain better information about where job opportunities are located, and the other would be to gain new skills so that more jobs would be suitable. 31. The underlying rationale here is that not all jobs are available to all individuals, and that this fact needs to be recognised in the analysis. Secondly, that as skills levels, particularly in ICT are raised, then more jobs and better jobs become available. The concern here is not just to reduce levels of YRU, but also to ensure that these individuals are fully engaged in the labour force. This means that there should be the opportunity to make the best use of their skills levels in a permanent and reasonably paid job. The Internet as an alternative to physical access in rural areas 32. Successive State of the Countryside reports have found that access to the Internet in rural areas lagged behind urban areas. Over the 10 or more years that report was produced the technology changes but in each case broadband, and then higher speed access came to urban before rural areas, and new technology was generally being put in place in urban areas before the last improvement had worked through to rural areas. Levels of household access also varied. 33. In 2010 it was reported that while 70% of urban households had access to the internet, fewer that 50% in rural areas did. And in rural areas 5% were using dial‐up to access (which equated to over 10% of those accessing the internet). For urban areas the corresponding figure was 2% (or about 3% of users). There were also local variations in access levels with much lower levels recorded in (generally) less affluent areas, such as the North Pennines. Governance issues 80

37. Key issues identified at the UKTRC Workshop 111 were as follows: • The methodologies employed (primarily cost‐benefit analysis) are limited in identifying what priorities are/should be. Costs are easy to quantify. Benefits are more qualitative. It is not easy to measure benefits such as quality of life – economic simplification is not effective as a measure of accessibility because everything is netted out and therefore misleading. This links to point 40 regarding frameworks employed in different government departments. • The links between transport and social cohesion: need to be considered in decision making. These are currently not quantified in policy making terms or are completely missing. • Mixed policy priorities across departments often conflict which can lead to fragmented or contradictory policy. 38. Framing decisions around a single agenda is unhelpful. Identifying policies which aim to deliver against multiple policy objectives (as in the case of smarter choice measures whereby health, accessibility and environmental objectives can be achieved) are more likely to succeed in delivering outcomes. 39. Research shows that communication between divisions within transport departments responsible for infrastructure provision and those for so‐called ‘soft’ measures – sustainable transport, accessibility, walking and cycling, social impacts – is missing, which leads to contradictory policymaking. Moreover the research demonstrates that often in transport‐related decision making there is a disconnect between the overarching government strategy and the policies which are subsequently adopted to deliver against these policies. Consideration of matching outcomes against objectives would minimise this ‘strategy‐action deficit’. 12

11 Social Impacts and Equity Issues in Transport Policy Briefing Note 1 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐policy_briefing_note1.pdf 12 Anderton, K. (2012), Sub‐national government responses to reducing the climate impact of cars, (D.Phil thesis; Oxford Research Archive) 81

Fragmentation across Departmental siloes 40. The UKTRC Workshop 113 highlighted that whilst DfT requirements to quantify and value the outcomes of a policy or project in economic/cost effective terms, this is less an emphasis for other departments (health/education) which may lead to areas, such as accessibility, where the ‘economic’ value of projects is hard to quantify are marginalised in favour of areas where the cost/economic benefit relationship is easier to determine. 41. Accessibility policy is compounded by institutional and organisational factors, as responsibilities for land use (planning) and transport are frequently split across levels of government. Either land use is the purview of local authorities, or there are multiple agencies at the same level of government often involved, with no department taking overall control. 42. Departments concerned with the environment (e.g. Defra, DECC) have also become increasingly involved with certain issues linked to transport and land‐use planning. This means that relationships, roles and responsibilities are dispersing further. 43. These relationships often work according to different rules and put more emphasis on collaborative and open approaches to planning, which contrasts with the more much more institutionalized and rigid systems of control traditionally associated with transport planning. They often don’t take accessibility into consideration at all, with environmental considerations dominating14. 1 September 2012

13 Social Impacts and Equity Issues in Transport Policy Briefing Note 1 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/uktrcse/UKTRC‐policy_briefing_note1.pdf 14 Banister, David, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni and Tim Schwanen, (2011), “Transportation and the Environment” An. Rev. Environ & Res, Vol. 36, 247‐270 82

Written evidence submitted by Dr Karen Lucas

In 2002, I was seconded to the UK Government's Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) to act as policy advisor on their study of transport and social exclusion. Subsequently, I worked with Derek Halden Consultants on the Department of Transport piloting and testing approaches to develop guidance for the implementation of accessibility planning as an integral part of local transport planning in England, which was the key recommendation of the 2003 SEU Making the Connections report. Since this time I have conducted a number of studies in the broad area of transport and social exclusion both in the UK and internationally and have published widely on this topic.

1. How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)? 1.1 Several important funding programmes that could have helped to support the accessibility of transport poor individuals to key services have been withdrawn by central government in various Spending Reviews (e.g. Discretionary Allowance for jobseekers, Educational Maintenance Allowance for post 16 students). These should be reinstated alongside other targeted allowances (e.g. for parents with children on free school meals). 1.2 The National Concessionary Fares Scheme (outside of London) has disinclined bus operators to voluntarily offer reduced fares to more disadvantaged travellers who fall outside of the eligibility criteria of the current scheme. 1.3 More recently the impacts of the cutbacks in the Bus Service Operators Grant for subsidised bus services and local authority funding support for community and school as a result of local authority ‘austerity measures’ have combined to worsen an already unhelpful situation. 1.4 Changes to the systems of nonemergency patient transport and the arrangements for social service transport have also contributed to this worsening effect. In practice, however, the policies in this area were already extremely fragmented across the various departments and sectors responsible for their delivery, poorly coordinated between them and un responsive to the needs of the people they were designed to serve. 2. Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc.) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? 2.1 The closure and consolidation of local service centres under the centra lisation of public services age nda has definitely served to worsen the accessibility of these services for people without cars. However, this is need 83

highly individualised and socially, temporally and geographically context specific problem. 2.2 Some people will inevitably need to travel further to access key activities than others depending on where they live in relation to the location and nature of their activity needs. The ease with which they can achieve this accessibility will depend on their personal circumstances, as well as the level, quality, cost and suitability of the transport services they can appropriate. 2.3 In my view, the key focus for concern should be on the small subsection of people who cannot secure the necessary transport resources to access the specific public services they require for their social wellbeing. 2.4 In urban areas, this most often means children, young people, single parent families, people aged over 70 and disabled people living on peripheral urban estates that are poorly served by public transport and lack local services and amenities, and/or by the cost of fares. 2.5 In more central urban areas, young people who are no longer eligible for concessionary fares are likely to be particularly affected by transport poverty, as are jobseekers, shift workers and people with mental or physical disabilities. 2.6 Whilst rural households have much higher levels of car ownership even amongst the lowest income households, they must also spend more on motoring to maintain a reasonable level of access to activities, good and services. Rural residents are, therefore, more likely to experience transport poverty than their urban counterparts. 2.7 Lowincome rural households with families are therefore at greater risk of transport poverty than all other population groups. Young people below driving age are also a particularly at risk group, as are older people who don’t drive or are without a car. 3. Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment? 3.1 They are much better than they were at recognising these effects at the planning stages of a planned new public service development (although this may be eroded under the new Local Planning Act and relaxed planning laws). 3.2 However, there is still no systematic way to assess the accessibility of existing public services or (more fundamentally) a requirement for this to be assessed when services are closed or consolidated. There are also no 84

statutory minimum standards placed on the providers of public sector services to ensure access to their services or targets to improve this (e.g. % of population within x time by public transport). 3.3 The adverse impact for accessibility and the environment can be considerable, if people have no alternative but to use cars to access these services. It runs in direct contravention of DECC policies to reduce climate change but remains unrecognised with an of the sector strategies for climate change reduction. This cannot be seen as a transport sector problem because it is not a transport sector driven phenomenon. To be effective, the responsibility for assessing and improving both the accessibility and environmental impact of public services must rest with the provider of these services. 4. Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? 4.1 In my view, accessibility planning has gone off the agenda for most LTAs and has been largely unsuccessful due to a number of key factors identified in the bullets below (refer to the DfT’s recent evaluation report of accessibility planning by Atkins and CRSP for more evidence on this). The most fundamental flaw is that it places the responsibility for accessibility on the DfT which has no control over the planning and delivery of public service provision (not even over public transport services outside of London). 4.2 In its 2003 report, the Social Exclusion Unit chose to approach the problem of transportrelated social exclusion through accessibility planning. This placed the main emphasis on local transport authorities (LTAs) to work with other local stakeholders to ensure that employment, education and training, public health and other local facilities were being adequately served by public transport. 4.3 The guidance that was issued to local delivery agencies outside the transport sector by supposedly signedup, other government departments (e.g. DWP, DH, DfES) lacked teeth. Many key stakeholders, therefore, didn’t know they should be actively participating in the accessibility planning process and their full participation was never effectively secured or monitored. Virtually none of the SEUs recommendations to improve fragmented transport delivery across these other sectors were enacted. 4.4 The Sending Review that followed the SEU report did not offer any additional dedicated resource for new transport services, so LTAs could not deliver the programme of improved transport services and concessionary fares that were promised by the SEU. Consequently, the Urban and Rural Bus Challenge and Kickstart programmes that were run by the DfT to fund new transport services were axed. 85

4.5 Accessibility planning is a useful systemslevel approach, but it doesn’t directly address the immediate transport and accessibility needs of disadvantaged individuals. A targeted rapid response approach is needed to assist transport poor individuals to meet their immediate accessibility needs (e.g. when it is clear that a person cannot afford their transport costs to work and so might lose their job or cannot afford to get their child to school due to a financial crisis). This should be designed to run alongside and compliment the systems level accessibility planning policies, which are much slower to enact. 4.6 In the medium term, the policy system needs to a) improve the supply of bespoke transport services for these groups (e.g. travel advice, wheels to work schemes, community transport provision), and b) the accessibility of local public services through service delivery planning measures (e.g. providing information advice on access to services, preventing the closure of rural post offices, job centres, planning new services in easy to reach places, etc.). Accessibility planning could be used to achieve this but it needs a dedicated financial stream and effective crosssector policy initiatives to support it. 5. How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda? 5.1 Initially, the DfT was supportive of the accessibility agenda but this commitment has deteriorated over time, in part due to the demise of the Accessibility and Mobility Unit, the significant loss of staff from the Social Research Unit and the relatively low standing of the DfT policies with politicians when compared with other essential policy sectors such as Work and Pensions, Health, and Education. 5.2 The lack of a specific mention of the continuation of accessibility planning policies in the LTP3 guidance did not help this position. As well as the other factors mentioned above. 5.3 There is some willingness within DfT to reinvigorate the programme under the new localism agenda, but in my view the guidance and delivery process for this to happen would need to be significantly revised if it is to succeed. 6. How should the transport‐related accessibility of public services be measured? 6.1 It must be the responsibility of service providers to ensure that their clients can access their services. At present this is seen as either the responsibility of the individual or of public transport providers, with little or no onus for public service providers to demonstrate that they chose locations and service delivery protocols that facilitate access to their services. 7. How can decision‐making in government better reflect ‘social’ and 86

accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? 7.1 It has been extremely difficult to communicate the impact of the withdrawal of transport services without an HM Treasury established social value for public transport which can sit alongside the current ‘willingness to pay’ values used by central and local government its in transport policy appraisal. 7.2 Environmental polices (e.g. to control C02) do not necessarily conflict with social and accessibility concerns but their equity impacts should be critically assessed to establish whether or not they are likely to further marginalise already transport poor groups. Where this is the case, countermeasures should be put in place to ameliorate these effects. 8. Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy‐making (and if so, how should it be defined?) 8.1 Unlike the concept of fuel poverty, which has its own relatively well established set of definitions and evaluation metrics (although these are sometimes contested) what precisely constitutes transport poverty has never been fully articulated within either the academic or policy literatures. 8.2 It would be extremely difficult to construct a similarly concise definition to the one for fuel poverty based on unmet accessibility needs. This is in part due to the more nebulous nature of accessibility as a ‘merit good’, as well to a less obvious causal chain between lack of access to public services and its negative social consequences. 8.3 It is also because transport poverty resides with the individual rather than the whole household, so that one member of a household may experience it whilst another member of the same household does not. The ease with which they can achieve this accessibility will depend on their personal circumstances, as well as the level, quality, cost and suitability of the transport services they can appropriate. 8.4 Furthermore, it is not clear whether transport poverty relates to a deficiency in transport supply and/or to some minimum level of mobility and/or to a level of accessibility to goods, services and daily activities. 8.5 This makes setting a defining measure of transport poverty even more problematic to administer and monitor at the individual level. It is also unclear which Government Department should take responsibility for doing so, as it is clearly not solely a transport sectordriven problem. 9 What is the impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services? 87

9.1 In some case, Internet access to public services can help to mitigate the need to physically travel to public services and can be useful in certain circumstances (e.g. online benefit registration for peo ple with mobility problems). However, a significant proportion of the users of public services (particularly health, education, and welfare support) require the kind of extra assistance and reassurance that only facetoface contact can provide. Having a shadow service available on the Internet should only ever be seen as an additional rather than substitute form of access. 9.2 It should also be remembered that many of the people who require public service assistance do not have access to the Internet in their homes. Studies have shown that and even those that do have Internet access will not tend to use it for this purpose and would have significant difficulties if required to do so.

7 September 2012 88

Written evidence submitted by British Youth Council

Executive Summary

Following a poll of 65,000 young people and a vote in the House of Commons, “Make public transport cheaper, better and accessible for all” is a priority campaign for the British Youth Council and the UK Youth Parliament in 2011/12.

We believe that young people who can't access the public transport they need are being discriminated against. Access to public transport must not be a barrier to young people's use of services and opportunities, such as education and training or leisure facilities.

There needs to be regular bus and rail services especially in areas away from big transport hubs, to avoid leaving young people in rural isolation. Young people also need to be informed about public transport services in their areas, with published and accessible timetabling information and details of prices and concessions. Access to public transport, and therefore public services, is not limited to availability but includes young people’s willingness to use it based on concerns such as cost and their safety.

In light of our findings future discussions and decisions regarding transport and the accessibility of public services should take account of the following:

• Every local area should actively involve young people in transport planning and decision making. • Government should encourage transport operators to build links with young people locally using existing youth representation such as youth councils. • Considerations of accessibility must include more than just availability and costs of services, i.e. safety concerns of potential passengers. • Changes in education legislation, school leaving age for example, must be reflected in changing transport legislation.

For the purposes of this document we utilise 4 separate surveys which were designed and carried out by the British Youth Council and completed by young people aged under 25. Specific reference is made to these as the document develops and their details are listed below:

• July 2009 – “Your Experience ‐ Getting work, getting paid, getting out”. Sample size: 364 • January 2010 – “Your Experience – Being Safe”. Sample size: 450 • May 2011 – “Young people’s involvement in Decision Making”. Sample size: 1,147 • April 2012 – “Have Your Say”. Sample size: 38

(1) Barriers to Access

(i) In July 2009 a survey was created and carried out by the British Youth Council (BYC) into young people’s experiences of “Getting work, getting paid, getting out”. This survey was made up of a sample of 364 young people and it found that nearly 40% of them felt that ‘Travel Issues’ prevented them from doing more organised leisure activities.

(ii) Fares: One of the first concerns raised at the Youth Select Committee was that of concessionary fares. Both the Youth Parliament Members and Tim Loughton MP felt that the varied age at which different areas considered a passenger to be an adult was causing a lack of equality of opportunity to access. Following a survey created by the BYC in April 2012 called “Have your say” –a survey aimed at use via mobile technology to allow young people to answer whilst on public transport, we found that 80% of the young people surveyed disagreed strongly with the idea that the fare they paid on public transport was fair. On top of the existing arguments for a more uniform approach to concessions we feel that the increase in school leaving age means that concessions must at least cover young people up to the age of 18 to allow fair access to public transport and therefore education.

(iii) School Transport: Concerns were also raised about the restraints on public spending leading to a lot of the, discretionary, free school transport being affected by cuts. We are concerned that despite the changing legislation regarding the school leaving age Tim Loughton MP indicated that it is unlikely that the Government would make any change in the age for the mandatory provision of school transport. This obviously echoes our concern about providing equality of access which arises with varying ages for concessionary fares. We are also aware that over £500million is spent on transporting children with special needs to and from educational organisations but believe that the heavy reliance on taxis is a hugely inefficient use of this money.

(iv) Rural Transport: As bus provision is not mandatory and 4 out of 5 bus services are run on a fully commercial basis the coverage of more rural locations is left to the discretion of the local council. We understand that these are often run at a loss but with tightening budgets these services are shrinking or being cut all together. This is a large concern when you consider that bus routes in these rural areas are often relied upon to transport people to education, work and leisure activities. As such we would like to see more guidance and motivation provided for local councils to provide services where and when there are gaps left by commercial services. It was also indicated by Tim Loughton that he supported development of a website that would make information more easily accessible regarding what bus services are running and what schemes are available to young people. This is in response to the often haphazard approach to information dissemination caused by various operators covering single areas. This is a proposal we are keen to see come to fruition and one that should be extended to all transport services in all areas.

(v) Safety: It is important that when considering access to public transport and then public service destinations that we are not only discussing the provision of a service but the ability and willingness of potential passengers to use it. If safety concerns prevent young people from using the service then it is as ineffectual as no service. In January 2012 BYC created a survey called “Your Experience – Being Safe” which was completed by 450 young people. Following this survey we found that only 27% of the young respondents felt safe waiting at a bus stop after dark. In total, the findings showed that 60% of the respondents felt unsafe on using any form of public 90

transport after dark. Many young people, however, do not have the choice as to when to travel due to education or work commitments and as such we are concerned with ensuring that measures such as lighting paths, routes and waiting areas are all included in transport plans and developments.

(vi) Public Transport Experiences: During the BYC survey it became evident that over half of the respondents had had a bus driver be rude to them. We are aware that unfounded concerns about young people’s use of public transport has created a barrier between drivers and young customers and that more training needs to be provided to staff as to how to deal with young people, and especially those with particular needs.

(2) Involvement in Decision‐Making

(i) We feel that in order to provide a transport service that can specifically meet the needs of young people it is absolutely vital that they are included in the discussions and decision making processes. In May 2011 BYC created and carried out a survey called “Young people’s involvement in Decision Making” which was completed by 1,147 young people. The results of this survey which looked to ascertain the level of involvement young people had we found that over 95% felt that involving young people in the decision making process helped build relationships between them and their community. Around 92% also argued that it leads to the improvement of services for young people.

(ii) BYC carried out a survey of people working to support local youth councils and found that one third had not been consulted on transport in their area.

(iii) Furthermore, of those that had been consulted on transport only 22% agreed that the consultation had a positive impact on public transport.

6 September 2012

Written evidence submitted by Pteg

1. Introduction 1.1. pteg represents the six Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) which between them serve more than eleven million people in Greater Manchester (Transport for Greater Manchester), Merseyside (Merseytravel), South Yorkshire (SYPTE), Tyne and Wear (Nexus), the West Midlands (Centro) and West Yorkshire (Metro). Bristol and the West of England, Leicester and Nottingham City Councils, Transport for London and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport are associate members of pteg though this response does not represent their views. 1.2. The PTEs plan, procure, provide and promote public transport in some of Britain’s largest city regions, with the aim of delivering integrated public transport networks accessible to all. 1.3. We welcome the Environmental Audit Committee’s timely follow-up to the Social Exclusion Unit’s (SEU) ‘Making the Connections’ report. It has been almost ten years since the report was published. In our own 2010 report, ‘Transport and Social Inclusion: Have we made the connections in our cities?’ we attempted to take stock of progress since the publication of the SEU report. We concluded that there had been a loss of momentum and leadership on this agenda since 2003. We hope that this Inquiry will rejuvenate the important issue of transport and the accessibility of public services. 2. Summary y Promoting equality of access to opportunity should be a key goal for transport policy, alongside creating growth and cutting carbon. The Department for Transport should provide leadership on this agenda and clearly communicate the role of stakeholders across sectors in improving the accessibility of public services and in promoting social inclusion through transport more generally. y Current challenges facing bus services outside London are likely to affect the accessibility of public services, particularly for those on the lowest incomes. PTEs are doing all they can to mitigate the effects of these challenges, but Government also needs to take a considered look at the current levels of support for bus services if the increased potential for transport related social exclusion is to be avoided. y In considering how to deliver, and where to locate, key services, decisions are frequently made with little consideration of how people will reach them without a car. This can result in significant long term costs. These costs could be reduced if planning decisions considered transport at their earliest stages. y Ensuring the accessibility of public services should not be seen as primarily a transport problem requiring a transport solution. Accessibility is the responsibility of all those involved in the planning and delivery of public services and should be recognised as such. y Accessibility Planning has not resulted in widespread partnership working to tackle accessibility problems. If, following the recent evaluation of the approach, Accessibility Planning is deemed to be of continuing value, there should be a re-emphasis across departments of the need for partnership and an issuing of refreshed guidance. 92

y Measuring the transport-related accessibility of public services is complex and depends on more than simply transport links being available. Those links must also be accessible, affordable and acceptable. This complexity should not be a deterrent to developing ways to better reflect the social and accessibility impacts of transport decisions both at local and national level. y Whilst broadband networks and the internet have an important role to play in reducing the need to travel, there will still be a need for face-to-face delivery of public services and the health and wellbeing benefits these interactions bring. 3. How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services? 3.1. In our May 2010 report ‘Transport and Social Inclusion: Have we made the connections in our cities?’ we concluded that there had been a loss of momentum on this agenda since the publication of the SEU report in 2003 and that a clearer sense of direction from the Department for Transport (DfT) was needed.1 3.2. This continues to be the case. Current transport priorities centre around creating growth and cutting carbon. Whilst these are both important goals, the role of public transport in promoting equality of access to opportunity has been side-lined, when it should be given stronger billing, particularly following the Equality Act 2010. 3.3. The SEU report remains the last clear articulation of where efforts to promote the accessibility of public services should be focused. 3.4. In line with recommendations in our 2010 report, we would like to see DfT provide leadership on this agenda and clearly communicate the role that PTEs and other partners (across sectors) can play locally in improving the accessibility of public services and in promoting social inclusion more generally. 3.5. Whilst we recognise and value the Government’s localism agenda, we feel that there needs to be a clear message from Government on the importance of investing in transport measures that support access to opportunities and social inclusion. This could take the form of a new, overarching strategy to provide direction, informed by the experiences of PTEs and other partners. 3.6. The side-lining of work to promote social inclusion through transport at national level is reflected at local level, with resources and programmes to support social inclusion being scaled back and focus shifting towards projects aimed at creating growth and cutting carbon, in recognition of Government priorities.

Bus policy 3.7. More specifically, Government policies on bus are likely to affect the accessibility of public services, particularly for those on the lowest incomes, half of whom do not have access to a car2.

1 ‘Transport and Social Inclusion: Have we made the connections in our cities?’ available from: http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/570FF969-98D6-4C06-B9DB- 9837A732E835/0/ptegTransportandSocialInclusionreportMay10.pdf 2 DfT National Travel Survey 2010, table NTS0703 93

3.8. Outside of London, bus services are facing major challenges:

y 20 per cent cut to bus service operators grant (BSOG): BSOG rebates bus operators for the fuel duty they pay in running local bus services, helping to reduce the costs of providing a bus service and keeping fares lower than they otherwise would be. The BSOG cut means that bus operators may choose to increase fares or use the cut to BSOG to justify a fare rise or service reduction that they may have implemented in any case. y Reductions in Department for Communities and Local Government funding for local government: this puts local authority budgets for supported bus services under pressure. Supported bus services are often evening and weekend services, or buses to isolated housing estates and rural areas that would not be profitable to run on a commercial basis. This funding pot is also used to support discretionary initiatives, such as discounted travel for young people or jobseekers. y Meeting the rising demand for concessionary travel from older and disabled people: local transport authorities are required by law to fund free off-peak bus travel for older and disabled people. The need to meet this growing demand from a reduced funding pot leaves less money for spending on things like supported bus services and discounts for other groups. y Abolition of the Rural Bus Grant: this grant was used to help fund non-commercial rural bus services. 3.9. We are beginning to see the impact of these cuts on the ground. Research by Campaign for Better Transport found that over two-thirds of English local authorities had decided to make cutbacks to their supported services, whilst 77 per cent could not rule out further cuts3. 3.10. Cuts to supported services have hit elderly and disabled passengers disproportionately, leading to more pressure on Community Transport services as well as increased reliance on costly taxi services, which may force these groups to limit the journeys they make. 3.11. Meanwhile, commercial fares in the metropolitan areas have long been on an upward trajectory4 and the challenges outlined above seem likely to accelerate this trend. We are already seeing the scaling back of commercial and local authority offers and initiatives for particular groups, such as young people and jobseekers. 3.12. Inevitably, these challenges will affect the ability of the most vulnerable groups in society to access key public services. As fares rise, people will restrict the journeys they make and, as bus services disappear, the options of those on the lowest incomes will be increasingly limited to those within walking or cycling distance. 3.13. Some people may be forced to use expensive taxi services or run a car when they cannot really afford to do so. Meanwhile, people who use public transport by choice, rather than necessity, may also be tempted to travel by car instead, increasing congestion and negative environmental impacts. Interestingly, recent research has found that families with children increasingly report that they see a car as essential to meet a minimum acceptable standard

3 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/save-our-buses/map 4 pteg (2010) ‘The effect of bus fare increases on low income families’. 94

of living5. A number of participants in the research associated this decision ‘with the increasing costs of public transport and reduction in the availability of services.’6 3.14. PTEs are doing all they can to attempt to mitigate the effects of the funding challenges currently facing bus services, including using the powers and options granted in the Local Transport Act 2008 to protect and improve bus services. 3.15. However, this in itself is not enough. The Government also needs to take a considered look at the current levels of support for bus services and how this can be best deployed to make every pound count and ensure that no-one is left without access to key public services. 4. Are other policies adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to reach them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment? 4.1. The policies of other sectors have a significant impact on the accessibility of public services and on the environment. Despite this, accessibility continues to be seen as a transport problem to be solved by transport authorities. 4.2. In considering how to deliver, and where to locate, key services, decisions are frequently made with little consideration of how people will reach them without a car. 4.3. The problem is exacerbated by trends towards the centralisation of public services, such as healthcare and education, which mean that people have to travel further or to different locations to access key services. 4.4. Site selection or method of service delivery appears to be strongly influenced by upfront cost. Often longer term costs of the decision are not taken into account, such as: y Costs to individual users: including in terms of money, time and inconvenience as well as the costs of being deterred/unable to access a service. The latter can be very significant (e.g. abandoning or not taking up further education, delay in medical diagnosis). y Costs to service providers: Missed outpatient appointments, for example, cost hospitals £600m a year7. There are also longer-term costs associated with, for example, delayed diagnosis of illness or reduced job opportunities because of the inaccessibility of potential employment sites. y Costs to other sectors including transport authorities who may incur extra costs in providing new transport links to a poorly connected site. y Costs to wider society: For example, increased congestion and emissions if people are forced to use a car to access key services and longer-term costs arising from inaccessible services, such as long-term illness, a lower skilled workforce and higher unemployment.

5 JRF (2012) ‘A minimum income standard for the UK in 2012’. 6 JRF (2012) ‘A minimum income standard for the UK in 2012’ (p.17). 7 Doctor Foster Health and the NHS Information Centre, ‘Outpatient appointment no-shows cost hospitals £600m a year’ http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/features/outpatient-appointment-no- shows.aspx 95

4.5. Such costs could be reduced if land-use planning decisions at their earliest stages looked at8: y Locating developments so that they connect to existing public transport networks. y Encouraging the use of accessible town centre locations where possible. y Developing and improving walking and cycling routes to proposed developments. The volume of car parking provision should also be considered as something that has a significant influence on the uptake of public transport in urban areas. 4.6. Ensuring the accessibility of public services should no longer be seen as primarily a ‘transport problem’. It is the responsibility of all those involved in the planning and delivery of public services. This is particularly important given that funding cuts are reducing the ability of transport authorities to step in and provide a bus service (for example) to serve a poorly connected site. 4.7. There needs to be greater recognition among other sectors of the importance of transport to the successful delivery of their services, and a willingness to invest in it accordingly. Furthermore, there needs to be a willingness to consider, and fund, non-transport solutions to accessibility problems. 5. Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department of Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda? 5.1. The cornerstone of the 2003 SEU report was the introduction of Accessibility Planning. It provided an opportunity for local partners, from across sectors, to develop a systematic approach to improving people’s access to key services and employment sites. 5.2. The emphasis of Accessibility Planning was intended to be on partnership working to implement both transport and non-transport solutions to accessibility problems, recognising that changes to where and how key services are delivered can be as important as the provision of transport. 5.3. However, perhaps because the production of an Accessibility Strategy became a Local Transport Plan requirement, the issue is still seen as the responsibility of transport authorities, undermining the recommended partnership approach that was originally envisaged. 5.4. In addition, whilst Accessibility Planning software is in widespread use among transport authorities, questions remain as to the extent to which it is being used to drive land-use, transport and service planning locally. Reasons for this may include: y Lack of consideration and buy in from other sectors (e.g. health, education) of how people will reach services and reluctance to accept, or fund, both transport and non-transport options to extend access. y Reluctance by decision makers in transport authorities to follow through on the findings of accessibility planning as they could lead to fundamental, and potentially unaffordable, shifts in transport strategies, policies and spending programmes.

8 pteg (2011) ‘Thriving Cities: Integrated land use and transport planning.’ 96

y Weaknesses in the software's ability to reproduce the sophistication of real-life travel patterns and the policy choices that flow from them. y The feeling that accessibility planning is not being given as much priority by DfT, or other departments, as was initially intended. 5.5. We understand that an evaluation of Accessibility Planning has recently been completed for DfT. We hope to see this research published and for it to be followed by a statement of the value, or otherwise, of the Accessibility Planning approach. 5.6. If Accessibility Planning is deemed to be of continuing value, there should be a re-emphasis, across departments, of the need for a partnership approach. To underline this, all relevant government departments should issue or update their own their own Accessibility Planning guidance. 6. How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?) 6.1. DfT accessibility statistics are available, providing a local-level measure of the availability of transport to key services (food stores, education, healthcare, town centres and employment centres) and the time it would take to reach them by various transport modes. 6.2. These statistics are used in the Accessibility Planning process to identify areas where action is required. There are tools available to perform this task, in particular Accession and PTALS. However, both tools have their limitations. 6.3. Accession measures the time taken to get to a particular amenity or service, but takes little account of transport service frequency. Meanwhile, PTALS measures access to the public transport network rather than to the ultimate destination. 6.4. Existing measures are limited in that they only provide a partial picture of the accessibility of public services. For example, the statistics may show us that most people are within easy reach of a food store but they say nothing about whether this is the food store people would choose to use, whether it is affordable or whether it stocks a wide selection of healthy foods. 6.5. Being able to access public services depends on more than simply transport links being available. Those links must also: y Connect people to the places they want to go. y As far as possible, follow routes that minimise journey times to key destinations. y Operate at times and frequencies that correspond to patterns of working and social life. y Be well publicised and easy to use. y Be physically accessible, regardless of age, ability or confidence. y Be affordable. y Be acceptable – a service that is perceived to be comfortable, safe and convenient. 6.6. Devising a measure of transport accessibility, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’ could be challenging because of these complexities. 97

6.7. However, this complexity should not be a deterrent to developing ways to better reflect the social and accessibility impacts of transport decisions both at local and national level. There is a continuing need to build the evidence base in this respect in order to better understand what works and where best to focus resources to achieve the greatest social inclusion impacts. 7. The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services. 7.1. Broadband networks and the Internet have an important role to play in reducing the need to travel. 7.2. However, currently, many people still lack access to a high quality internet connection or lack the skills to make best use of it. Even if everyone were to have such access there would, of course, still be a need for public transport infrastructure to access public services. 7.3. Many public services are still best delivered face-to-face and that social interaction is very valuable, helping people to feel a part of their community and reducing isolation. For people at risk of loneliness, a journey in itself can be a valuable opportunity for social contact and connections. 7.4. As well as benefits to wellbeing, there are also physical health benefits in walking, cycling or taking public transport to key services. US studies, for example, have noted that those who use public transport have a much greater likelihood of achieving the minimum recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity, five days a week9.

7 September 2012

9 Besser, L. and Dannenberg, A. (2005) ‘Walking to public transit: Steps to help meet physical activity recommendations’ in American Journal of Preventative Medicine 29(4) 273-280. 98

Written evidence submitted by Lincolnshire County Council

1. Summary

• Lincolnshire is a large rural county with numerous sparse communities that have very little or no public services such as doctor’s surgeries, schools, shops etc.

• This has led to a higher than average car ownership per head of population.

• In 2010/11 Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) provided a budget of £5m to support local bus services where there are no commercial services. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review and the reduction in spending to Local Government that budget was cut by £1m to £4m. This led to services being cut (particularly in the evenings and weekends) or severely reduced.

• LCC have endeavoured to overcome the lack of public transport with its award winning Call Connect, demand responsive transport.

• Lincolnshire also suffers from a generally limited rail service. The main city of Lincoln only has two direct services to London one run by East Coast Trains via the East Coast Main Line leaving Lincoln at 07:20 and returning at 19:06, arriving in Lincoln at 21:03 and the other by East Midlands Trains which uses the Midland Mainline. This service leaves Lincoln at 07:04 arriving at St Pancreas at 10:00 and returns from St Pancreas at 18:30 and arrives in Lincoln at 21:22.

2. How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

2.1 The majority of Transport Policy is more applicable to urban areas; this was reflected recently with the Better Bus Area Funding which was targeted at large conurbations and urban areas.

2.2 The Local Sustainable Transport Fund has given some opportunities to develop 1 or 2 new bus routes.

2.3 The reduction of Bus Service Operator Grants (BSOG) has had an effect on some rural services reducing their commercial viability.

2.4 The devolution of BSOG on tendered services may also have a detrimental effect on the network and will definitely make it more difficult to grow the network.

3. Are other polices (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

3.1 The centralisation of some services (such as health) continues to impact on the accessibility of these services for many, particularly those living in remote rural areas. 99

In addition, accessibility still seems to be very much an ‘after thought’ for other public bodies when choosing locations for new services within the county, the County Council as Local Authority then coming under pressure to provide funding support for improved public transport at a time when budgets for such support are reducing across the country.

3.2 Lincolnshire County Council recognised the devastating impact the loss of some essential local services was having on those people living in rural locations and launched the Rural Gain Grant to support rural communities to revitalise what might be the last shop or Post Office in the village or to introduce vital new services. To date the grant has supported over twenty five businesses in Lincolnshire with in excess of £122,000 of funding. It has secured and improved the long term future of businesses such as Torksey Post Office which provide essential local services.

3.3 The good value for money and success of completed projects has enabled the County Council to commit to provide Rural Gain Grants to Lincolnshire businesses until 2016. Future successful Rural Gain Grant projects will not only demonstrate that essential services have been provided to the local community, but also enable a touch point for information on transport options in the area and actively promote the use of sustainable transport to their businesses.

4. Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

4.1 Although the greater focus given to accessibility within local transport plans by DfT has been helpful, there remains work to be done among other government departments and bodies to ensure that accessibility issues are more fully understood and considered when developing and implementing policies.

5. How should the transport –related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

5.1 LCC would identify that this is an area which needs further development as current DfT methods of assessing accessibility to key services do not appear to truly reflect the value of demand response bus services in rural areas, which are becoming more common across the country.

5.2 In recent years there has been a noticeable change in the emphasis given to environmental and economic outcomes from work, for example, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. However, grants such as the Community Transport Fund, address social and accessibility issues directly and give the flexibility to provide innovative transport services for those who are not able to access public transport. As long as the Government continue to acknowledge that ‘not one 100

size fits all’ then social and accessibility needs are being addressed in decision making by providing a range of funding for transport solutions.

5.3 A measure of the transport accessibility of key public services becomes increasingly difficult with the emerging range of transport options. Demand Responsive Transport and Community Transport both offer flexible transport solutions, which are difficult to measure and represent in a ‘measure’. They often cover large geographical areas, and therefore can give an unrepresentative view of the regular services available. Local Authorities also have the challenge of marketing/promoting these services as for everyone’, as they are typically perceived as services for older people. Using a measurement tool, such as accession, can show areas as fully covered by public transport, whereas local communities, such as young people or families may not view demand responsive transport as an accessible service for them. Measurement tools often do not take account of community transport, which often offers a solution where public transport is not available.

6. The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

6.1 As technology progresses, accessing online services will play more of a role however it is important to realise that for some, affording a computer is too expensive, for other groups technology itself can be a barrier; and internet connections can vary across the county.

7 September 2012

101

Written evidence submitted by Campaign for Better Transport

Summary • Job seekers, young people, low income groups and older people are particularly likely to experience access difficulties and also more likely to be dependent on buses • But many bus services have been cut, fares have risen and concessionary travel has been reduced • Revenue funding for transport services has been cut and should be protected to maintain and restore access • Other government departments (than transport), service providers and some local government often do not accept responsibility for access to services and amenities • Planning policies that would reduce the need to travel and improve access are often not taken into account and, in practice, the focus is still on travel by car • Accessibility planning can be helpful and accessibility guidance should be updated and re-issued • Improving accessibility and safeguarding the environment should not be in conflict – both require services and amenities accessible by public transport, walking and cycling • Policies to improve accessibility are in line with localism and would bring economic benefits.

Introduction

1. Campaign for Better Transport welcomes this Inquiry into transport and the accessibility of public services.

2. We have recently published three pieces of research of relevance to the Inquiry • A literature review on transport and poverty1 • Evidence on the transport barriers to getting a job2 • Case studies of the social inclusion value of buses3 We also published a paper Transport, Accessibility and Social Exclusion4, summarising this research and setting out some headline recommendations. This material has been made available to the Committee.

3. Before responding to the questions posed by the Committee we would make two points.

1 Transport and Poverty: A Literature Review, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/transport-and-poverty-literature-review.pdf 2 Transport barriers to getting a job – Evidence from Citizens Advice clients, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-barriers-to-getting-a-job.pdf 3 Social Inclusion Value of Buses – Marchwood, Social Inclusion Value of Buses – Burbank, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/social-inclusion-value-of-buses- marchwood-report.pdf and http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/social-inclusion-value-of-buses-burbank- report.pdf 4 Transport, accessibility and social exclusion, Campaign for Better Transport, July 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-and-social-exclusion-summary.pdf 102

4. First, it could be helpful to take a broad view of the scope of the Inquiry. Access to public services such as education, health and welfare facilities is important but so also is access to employment and a range of retail, leisure and social amenities which might not be described as public services.

5. Second, the term accessibility is used in various ways. It sometimes refers to physical accessibility mainly in relation to people with disabilities or it refers to the accessibility of transport (for instance where and when it is available and how much it costs). It can refer to the accessibility of specific or all services and amenities to certain groups or it can refer in general to access to all services and amenities for everyone. The matter of access to all services and amenities for everyone is important and we use it in this context in this evidence.

6. A helpful distinction has long been drawn between access and mobility. It has often been pointed out that the purpose of transport and planning policy should be to enable access not just mobility per se. The 2003 Social Exclusion Unit report ‘Making the Connections’ recognised the distinction: ‘Solving accessibility problems may be about transport but also about locating and delivering key activities in ways that help people reach them.’

Question 1: How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

7. Campaign for Better Transport’s main concern is that cuts in revenue funding for local authorities is limiting the ability of groups at risk of disadvantage to access services. The background is as follows.

8. In ‘Making the Connections’, the Social Exclusion Unit found that • Two out of five jobseekers say lack of transport is a barrier to getting a job. • Nearly half of 16-18 year olds experience difficulty with the cost of transport to education • Around 20 per cent of people (31 per cent of those without a car) have difficulty reaching their local hospital • 16 per cent of people without cars find getting to a supermarket difficult and 18 per cent experience difficulties in seeing friends and family.

9. These access difficulties may partly be explained by an increase in the need to travel in the last few decades, as local amenities have been replaced by more centralised units or by more remote development. This is obviously linked to a rise in car ownership. But a quarter of households in Great Britain, for a variety of reasons, do not have a car.

10. The Social Exclusion Unit also showed how low income households rely more heavily on buses, walking, taxis and lifts from family or friends. More recently the ‘Buses Matter’ report, published by Campaign for Better Transport in 2011, demonstrated the importance of buses to young people, older people, people on low incomes, people with disabilities and people seeking work. For instance it showed that: • People in the lowest income quintile make three times more journeys by bus than people in the highest income quintile • 60 per cent of disabled people have no car in the household and use buses around 20 per cent more frequently than non-disabled people

11. Bus services are being reduced. Campaign for Better Transport’s Save Our Buses campaign has been tracking cuts to bus services across the country and, again, young people in rural areas are 103

likely to have been particularly badly hit. Our research, using freedom of information requests, suggests that council spending reductions have led to one in five supported bus services being scrapped with more likely to follow. More than a thousand bus services totalling £36 million have been cut.

12. The costs of public transport are continuing to rise faster than overall motoring costs. Campaign for Better Transport has been working on the issue of affordability of public transport fares for some time, mainly in relation to rail but also in relation to buses. The cost of public transport has risen steeply in recent years compared to the overall costs of motoring (which include running costs and the cost of buying vehicles).

13. The graph below5 shows how increases in bus and rail fares over the period 1997 to 2010 have outstripped both overall motoring costs and the retail price index.

14. The Educational Maintenance Allowance has been abolished in England. Concessionary fares for young people are provided by local authorities on a discretionary basis. These non-statutory concessions have been vulnerable to local authority cuts. Campaign for Better Transport has been running a crowd sourcing project to identify cuts to bus services and other associated services such as concessionary fares schemes for young people. Many local authorities have made savings in this area. Schemes in Suffolk and the Isle of White have been cut while others in Kent, South Yorkshire and Manchester have become more expensive.

15. Reductions in bus services and support for concessionary travel often result from cuts in central and local government support. Three main areas have been cut back: • Funding to local authorities to provide services which the commercial operators would not otherwise provide • Cuts to the bus service operators grant (BSOG), which goes directly to operators of local bus services • Underfunding of the statutory concessionary fares scheme, which means that local authorities have made cuts elsewhere in order to fund it. Operators also argue that they do not receive

5 From Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011, Tables TSBG0122 and TSGB0123 104

sufficient reimbursement for the costs to them from passengers using the concessionary fares scheme

16. Cuts to local authority funding happened first and the main impact of that cut has been a reduction in the number of services. However, cuts to BSOG and the ongoing pressure on concessionary fares funding are likely to lead to fare rises. Modelling carried out for the Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg), which represents the larger metropolitan transport authorities outside London, suggests that fares will rise by 24% by 2014, compared to a rise of 18% based on current trends without the funding cuts.6

17. Fares on rail are also forecast to rise sharply. The Government uses an RPI+X% formula to set the annual rise in regulated fares. Since 2004, this has been set at RPI+1% but the Government decided in the 2010 Spending Review to change the formula to RPI+3% for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 rises. The Government backed down on the rise for 2012 (reverting to RPI+1%) but has announced an increase of RPI +3% for 2013 and the higher rate is still planned for 2014. This could mean fares will be over a quarter higher by 2015 based on forecast rates of inflation.

18. The complexity of the fares system means that it is often difficult for people to take advantage of cheaper advance fares. Campaign for Better Transport has been running the Fair Fares Now campaign to call for cheaper, simpler and fairer fares. A full set of proposals to make our fares and ticketing system fairer, simpler and cheaper is set out in our Fair Fares Charter7.

19. In sum, reductions in revenue support mean that public transport services have become more expensive as they have been reduced in number with a corresponding deterioration in the accessibility of services and amenities particularly for potentially excluded groups. That points to the importance of protecting local authority revenue funding for transport services and concessions if accessibility is to be restored.

Question 2: Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

20. Accessibility problems may partly be explained by a continuing increase in the need to travel. This is indicated by a growth of 42% in average journey lengths since the 1970s as local services and amenities have been replaced by more remote facilities and development.

22. Department for Transport accessibility statistics show, by a number of different measurements, a continuing decline even since 2010 but also for longer, in accessibility of key services and for work. The deterioration in access appears most marked for hospitals and least marked for primary schools and town centres. Secondary and tertiary educational services lie somewhere in between. The increase in minimum journey times to access key services appears most marked for public transport and least for travel by car.

23. There are several explanations for this decline. In our view the following three factors are critical.

6 Underpinning Policy: Modelling Bus Subsidy in English Metropolitan Areas, Passenger Transport Executive Group, August 2011 http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/821B74A5-9CB4-46CC-8E55- B669CAFAA947/0/20110808ModellingBusSubsidyinEnglishMetropolitanAreasFinalReportAbridgedv50.pdf 7 See www.bettertransportorg.uk/fairfaresnow 105

24. First, the implications of policies and decisions about accessibility or the location of services and amenities are still not taken seriously in some parts of national government, and often also by local government, service providers and the development industry.

25. Planning policies to reduce the need to travel and locate services and development where it can be reached on foot, by bicycle or by public transport have been in force since at least the publication of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport in 1994. These have been carried over, in abbreviated form, into the National Planning Policy Framework published earlier this year (see, for example, paragraphs 34 and 37). But the last 20 years have seen a concentration of facilities such as hospitals in fewer and often less accessible locations and a reduction in other sorts of local facilities such as shops, banks and post offices. At the same time the number of developments such as retail and business parks located on the trunk road network and not readily accessible by public transport, much less on foot or by bicycle, has grown substantially. The development of Local Enterprise Zones threatens to follow a similar pattern.

26. Planning policy is the responsibility of DCLG not DfT. But communication between the two departments on land use planning and the integration of transport and land use (a matter which other western countries take for granted) could be improved significantly.8 Our understanding is that the Departments of Health, Education and Work and Pensions are interested in this agenda in the last few years but that, surprisingly, the Department for Communities and Local Government has not worked as closely with the Department for Transport as would be expected.

27. This relative neglect of the location of services is reflected even in an otherwise helpful draft report for the DfT evaluating accessibility planning9. The report ‘identified those initiatives of relevance to accessibility planning’. Four of the five types of initiative reviewed relate to travel and transport and the fifth to mobile services. None concern the location of services to make travel less necessary.

28. This is despite the fact that accessibility planning was initiated as the main recommendation of the Social Exclusion report which, as we have already pointed out, said: ‘Solving accessibility problems may be about transport but also about locating and delivering key activities in ways that help people reach them.’ It is also at odds with the emphasis placed by Accessibility Planning Guidance on reducing the need to travel through locating services so that they are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

29. Second, service providers are not taking the travel and transport implications of their policies and decisions into account. For example, the DfT Accessibility Statistics show that the ‘greatest increase in average minimum travel time using public transport / walking was to hospitals.’ Hospitals are closing and facilities becoming more concentrated in fewer sites less accessible by public transport. As the DfT says: ‘the number and location of hospital sites probably has a greater affect on travel times than any changes to the public transport timetables’.10 The same is true of other services.

8 See for instance the annual progress reports to Parliament from the Committee on Climate Change. 9 Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, Department for Transport, draft of June 2012 10 See Accessibility Statistics 2011, Department for Transport, July 2012 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-2011/accessibility-statistics-2011.pdf. While there may be medical justifications for fewer hospitals providing high skilled operations because medical staff need to maintain their skills through higher frequency of procedures, we are concerned about centralisation of more routine procedures and the extent to which the NHS considers accessibility in the location, design and facilities for hospital and other sites. 106

30. Job centres are another example. Campaign for Better Transport analysed evidence from Citizens Advice bureaux 11 and identified some of the access difficulties faced by job seekers. These included: • Cuts to Job Centres in less built up areas can mean some spending a significant share of their benefits travelling long distances to sign on (particularly where Job Centres insist on weekly or even daily signing on) • Many Job Centres do not recognise the difficulties faced by those reliant on public transport and are imposing unreasonable sanctions on job seekers whose lack of transport options make it difficult for them to find work.

31. The report Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions came to a similar conclusion about service providers: ‘inter-agency working has proved to be one of the most problematic points in the accessibility planning process. The research suggests that difficulties experienced from the perspective of local authorities related more to the lack of understanding about, and accountability for accessibility issues with other statutory agencies, rather than necessarily any resistance to engagement.’

32. The report quotes a local authority representative as saying: ‘we’re having too many examples of key public sector agencies providing new facilities that are totally inaccessible, with transport then being expected to pick up the pieces and provide infrastructure afterwards.’

33. Third, the DfT accessibility statistics and the examples we have just given show a continuing focus on travel by car and a failure to consider and plan for travel by public transport, walking and cycling.

34. There is a danger that the issue of accessibility of public services is just left to the Department for Transport. Campaign for Better Transport therefore recommends that the Environmental Audit Committee consider asking representatives of relevant Government departments, service providers and a sample of local authorities to give oral evidence to the Committee on the steps they take to provide and improve access to services and amenities.

Question 3: Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

35. Campaign for Better Transport supported the introduction of accessibility planning and still believes it can help address a range of concerns, for instance: • Ensuring that services are available to groups at risk of social exclusion • Improving the well-being both of individuals and communities by helping to establish a balanced range of local services and amenities which can be accessed by a choice of means of transport and without having to have a car • Reducing the need to travel and the environmental impact of transport.

36. The DfT has gone to some lengths to make accessibility planning a success including issuing Accessibility Planning Guidance and developing the ‘Accession’ software. Accessibility planning remains part of the process of producing a Local Transport Plan. DFT Guidance on Local Transport

11 Transport, Accessibility and Social Exclusion, 2012, Campaign for Better Transport, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Transport-and-social-exclusion-summary.pdf 107

Plans, published in July 2009 and still in force, says that ‘…accessibility planning will continue to be a key element of local transport planning and delivery.’

37. However, accessibility planning may not at the moment have quite the priority it once enjoyed. Local authorities are no longer required to submit local transport plans to the DfT. We understand that the DfT is struggling to develop its links with local authorities since the abolition of Government Offices: it no longer knows who to talk to about transport in the local authorities; it does not know if local authorities are doing good things or even what they are doing; and although the DfT sometimes sees examples of good practice it has no means of sharing these.

38. A report by the Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg)12, representing the Passenger Transport Executives of the six largest urban areas outside London, found that there had been a loss of momentum in the implementation of accessibility planning. A renewed sense of direction and leadership was needed from the DfT and in particular the DfT needed to say whether it considered accessibility planning valuable or not and if it is, to provide guidance on accessibility planning across the relevant government departments.

39. We are worried that local authorities may consider accessibility planning to be an over-bureaucratic, ‘tick box’ process. In any case accessibility planning has become a semi voluntary activity since Local Transport Plans no longer have to be submitted to the DfT.

40. Furthermore, many local authorities do not appear to be implementing policies to improve accessibility and reduce the need to travel by influencing the location of services and amenities. Developments are being permitted which are difficult to access by a choice of transport modes and by those without cars and although the principle of reducing the need to travel may nominally be part of the of the core strategy of most, if not all, local development plans it is often there without the policies and the decisions to make it a reality.13

41. Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions, commissioned by the DfT in 2009 and now in draft, expresses many of the same views as this evidence. It has found that accessibility remains an ‘important policy focus for the Government’, vital for economic growth, sustainability and equal access to services and opportunities. It suggested that accessibility planning should be recognised as a key to localism and that the DfT could benefit from the localism agenda by developing with others a new agenda for accessibility. It concluded that accessibility planning is not yet recognised as a cross Government concern but tends to be viewed, nationally and locally, as a responsibility of transport authorities. More information is needed, the report states, on the impact of budget restraints, the cross sector significance of accessibility planning and on what initiatives work and how much they cost. Accessibility Planning Guidance is important and should be an element of all strategic and service planning. Both Guidance and the software should be up-dated and re- issued.

Question 4: How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public

12 Transport and Social Inclusion: Have we made the connections in our cities?, pteg, 2010 13 Our understanding on this is from examining a sample of local authority local development frameworks as part of the development of our guide to reducing the need to travel. See http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/reducing-the-need-to-travel-guide.pdf 108 services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

42. A large number of means of measuring accessibility already exist. DfT Accessibility Statistics, for example, record access to key services and town centres by travel time, travel mode, destination and origin. For some time Transport for London has compiled PTALs (Public Transport Accessibility Levels) and now supplements these with ATOS (Access to Opportunities and services). Some agencies use their own measurements of accessibility. The Post Office has minimum access criteria, for example that 99 per cent of the population should have a post office outlet within three miles.

43. Campaign for Better Transport has proposed a ‘walkability test’ for post offices, schools and NHS facilities and this could also apply to local shops.14 Creating ‘walkable’, and therefore ‘cyclable’ communities is another way of expressing the degree of accessibility that is needed for both social and environment reasons. Rural areas may require means of delivering services. We see no need to invent new means of measuring accessibility. However, it would be worth the Committee considering the different means already used. It would also be helpful to invite appropriate Government departments to explain what if any access criteria they use.

44. There is no officially accepted measure of transport poverty. It makes no sense to define those who spend more than a certain proportion of their income of transport as being in transport poverty because higher income households generally spend a higher proportion of their income on travel and transport than lower income households. Some lower income households, particularly in rural areas, are dependent on car travel. There is potentially a conflict between raising fuel taxes (to protect the environment or for some other reason) and improving accessibility.

45. Nevertheless it is reasonable to increase fuel duty at least in line with inflation, provided the proceeds of fuel duty are used to improve public transport, keep public transport fares down and provide support to lower income households, for instance by • supporting the travel costs of those 16-18 year olds in full-time education • reversing cuts in direct support for bus services • helping those looking to get back into work with the costs of travel.

46. In general there should not be a conflict between social and accessibility concerns and environmental considerations, rather they are complementary. This has already been acknowledged by the Coalition Government and the National Planning Policy Statement talks about pursuing economic, social and environmental goals jointly because they are mutually dependent.

47. Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen, the transport white paper published by the DfT in 2011, enumerated the environmental benefits of sustainable transport including: cutting carbon emissions, noise, and air pollution and the health benefits including helping to reduce obesity and improving road safety. The White Paper also made clear the connections between sustainable transport and accessibility: ‘sustainable transport modes can enable growth, for instance by improving access to work, to shops and other services, at the same time as cutting carbon emissions and tackling climate change.’ and ‘Improving the walking and cycling environment can dramatically improve local accessibility with positive benefits for growth and the local economy.’

14 See Improving Everyday Transport, Campaign for Better Transport, 2010. http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/Manifesto-Improving-everyday-transport-Jan10.pdf 109

49. Given these and other advantages it is not surprising that, in the same White Paper, the DfT said: ‘We will continue to provide data for local authorities to undertake accessibility planning as part of the production of their Local Transport Plans.’

Question 5: The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

50. Broadband and the internet have a role in enabling access to services and amenities and that role could be enhanced. It may be possible for example to replace some journeys to job centres with contact via the internet and email. There is scope to develop remote work hubs that could make it unnecessary to travel longer distances. It is also likely that further development of internet shopping could reduce travel needs

51. However, in our view the potential for the internet to improve access, replace and reduce the need to travel has often been overstated. Access to the internet is limited for many people in the same groups which often have other access difficulties - older people, low income groups, some jobseekers. The carbon reduction benefits of working from home (which requires the home to be heated) and using the internet have been questioned. And local authorities often cite use of broadband and communications technology as means of reducing the need to travel while failing to do other, perhaps more obvious but more demanding and more effective, things that would improve access to services and amenities.

7 September 2012

110 Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association

Introduction

1. Access to services is affected by a range of factors including geography, income, the availability and accessibility of transport, technology, education and advice and other cultural and social factors. Some of these are supply side issues and others affect the demand for services.

2. For the system to deliver good outcomes for people we need decisions to be taken by communities and their local representatives, who have a sound knowledge of the local context and issues and the commitment to co-designing public services and the accompanying transport systems.

3. Over many years local authorities and local partners have worked to improve access to services by their local communities. These have included: 3.1. Step changes in the use of technology so that most services are now accessible on line; 3.2. The development of single point access to services provided by a range of agencies (the one-stop-shop); 3.3. Peripatetic delivery of services where that has been appropriate and cost effective; 3.4. A move to extended hours services.

4. These and other initiatives, often supported by central government, have led to much higher levels of satisfaction with outcomes over the last 10 years.

5. The reductions in funds available for public services have led local authorities and their partners to renew their efforts to find synergies in the delivery of public services which both save money and lead to better outcomes.

6. Within this mix of approaches to improving access to services transport policies have a significant role to play.

Key points

7. It is essential that government support the franchising of bus services by those local authorities who would like this option. We need to see the financial incentives applied to partnership working through the Better Bus Area initiative extended to the Quality Contract approach.

8. We need to rethink how we use public subsidy of bus services. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the public subsidy of bus services and need both greater control of transport funding and greater flexibility on how this funding is used.

9. It is essential that break points, or some other means of allowing for renegotiating, are included in rail contracts to enable local authorities to benefit from devolution of transport decision-making.

10. Future funding for sustainable transport is uncertain. However, as evidence gathers of its role as a preventative measure, there is certainly a case for 111 government departments, from transport to health, to consider how best to build on the success that has already been achieved.

11. The LGA believes that insufficient regard is given, within Department for Transport (DfT) assessment processes, to wider social (including accessibility) and economic benefits. The methods currently in use for transport scheme evaluation should be reviewed. The LGA would be happy to work with the DfT on this.

LGA responses to specific inquiry questions

How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

12. The government’s relationship to public transport, in terms of regulation and funding, varies across the modes. In terms of buses, government: 12.1. sets a broad framework for a deregulated market; 12.2. provides dedicated funding to operators in the form of Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG), which is essentially a fuel subsidy that applies to all routes including those which are profitable; 12.3. funding to local authorities for the development of partnership working (Better Bus Areas); and 12.4. funding to local authorities to pay for the national concessionary fare scheme.

13. In contrast, the government acts as the franchisor for rail services, setting the minimum service standards and the processes for determining rail fare increases.

14. Although different in their approach, both of these models of governance have operated to the exclusion of local authorities and the communities they serve. This has meant that it has been difficult for local authorities to develop integrated local transport systems which meet the variety of local needs.

15. It remains to be seen whether the recent move by the DfT to devolve some responsibilities for transport decision-making to the local level will provide opportunities for local authorities to improve the effectiveness of public transport. However, to date the devolution has not gone far enough or fast enough. In particular devolution ought to enable councils to bring together different transport funding streams and use them flexibly. There is little to suggest yet that this outcome will be delivered.

16. The vast majority of local public transport journeys are undertaken by bus. The LGA has long argued that the deregulated bus sector, which receives around 60 per cent of its income from public funds, leads to inefficient on-street competition and does not adequately meet the wider economic and social needs of businesses and local communities.

17. Currently local authorities pay to provide additional and/or extended services which are needed by communities but which are not sufficiently profitable for commercial operators. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that reduced council budgets have led to a significant reduction in these local authority funded services. This situation is only likely to get worse in the remainder of this spending period and into the next.

112 18. Franchising by local authorities provides an opportunity to use reducing public funding to best effect. Quality Contracts have been a legislated route to suspend deregulation in a local year since 2000. However, although there has been an appetite by some local authorities to pursue this approach it has remained elusive, partly because of the objections of commercial providers, but also because of DfT ambivalence.

19. It is essential that franchising of bus services by local authorities who want this option is supported by government. We need to see the financial incentives that are being applied to partnership working through the Better Bus Area initiative extended to the Quality Contract approach.

20. This approach also needs to be accompanied with a rethink on how we use public subsidy of bus services. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the public subsidy of bus services and need both greater control of transport funding and greater flexibility on how this funding is used.

21. Rail has a smaller impact on access to public services in terms of journey numbers, but the regional network does have a significant impact, particularly on radial routes into urban areas. The DfT is moving forward with proposals to devolve some franchising responsibilities to local authorities and this is to be welcomed.

22. However, the current timetable for rail franchising renewals, which will see all franchises re-let by 2015, has made it difficult for many local authorities (the Northern Rail Franchise is an exception) to fully engage. A lack of transparency over the cost of running the regional rail network has not helped. The decision by DfT to extend the franchising period to 15 years will make it very difficult for most local authorities to exercise any real influence over the majority of rail services unless the contracts between the government and rail providers have break points. It is essential that break points, or some other means of allowing for renegotiating, are included in rail contracts to enable local authorities to benefit from devolution of transport decision-making.

23. The government has invested in sustainable transport. Around £600 million has been provided through the Local Sustainable Transport and the Green Travel funds. The bids that have come forward from local authorities have all contained a significant amount of focus on active travel through the provision of new infrastructure and promotional activity. There is evidence to show that active travel, walking and cycling, reduce the demand for health services and also can aid reductions in congestion. By creating better alternative transport options these schemes can also improve access to public services.

24. Future funding for sustainable transport is uncertain. However, as evidence gathers of its role and impact as a preventative measure, there is certainly a case for government departments, from transport to health, to consider how best to build on the success that has already been achieved.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

113 25. The physical location of public service provision together with the mechanisms for delivering services will impact on access to those services.

26. The final National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaces Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) with a promoting sustainable transport section. It also includes a core principle that requires local authorities to “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”. Transport Statements and Transport Assessments are still required for development that generate significant amounts of movements, although what a significant amount of movement constitutes is not defined (paragraphs 34-45). Travel Plans are also still included (paragraph 36). Specific parking standards have been removed with local authorities encouraged to consider the accessibility, type, mix, use, availability of public transport, levels of car ownership, alongside the overall need to reduce use of high emission vehicles if setting local parking standards (paragraphs 39 - 40)

27. In practice sustainable transport is one of a number of principles within the NPPF which at times will compete. There will be examples where the location of new housing, business sites and public services, does not reflect current public transport infrastructure. There remains a very strong presumption in favour of growth within the NPPF (Paragraph 32 of the NPPF makes it clear that the Government does not wish to see transport concerns used to unreasonably frustrate needed new development) and it is not yet clear what impact this will have on future decisions. However, it remains necessary for councils to demonstrate that the transport implications of development set out in local plans are understood, and that proposed mitigation measures are credible, sustainable and deliverable. Local authorities will therefore work closely with their partners to understand accessibility issues and to seek to address these. As stated above, these attempts are made more difficult by the lack of local control over the commercial bus network which operates on a for profit basis rather than to meet social need.

28. To overcome some of these challenges a “total transport” approach is being promoted by a number of local authorities and their partners. This approach seeks to use the transport assets across the public sector more effectively to deliver greater efficiencies and better outcomes for communities

29. Public services including health and education are aware of the need to develop their service delivery plans in consultation with local authorities and in regard of local transport plans and wider planning policy. For example the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has produced guidance for NHS bodies on this issue.

30. This approach works to varying degrees and is affected by a mis-match of governance arrangements, which means that decisions are not always taken at the same geographical level and also by different service priorities.

31. For instance, the impact of decisions to amend the location of public services in rural areas can have a significant impact on communities if not considered locally. Such a case was demonstrated in the last round of post office closures, when public transport proved unable to deal with delivering communities to alternative branches.

114 32. The solution must be greater local partnership working and an environment in which decisions can be taken locally.

33. Local transport plans are a legislative requirement. Many Local Transport Authorities have published the third iteration of these plans within the last year. There are many examples where the plans have been effective in supporting the delivery measures aimed at improving sustainability and accessibility. These measures have included active travel initiatives, the provision of bus priority lanes and many more.

34. Local transport plans need to be developed in concert with other core planning policies. When this works well transport plans can be developed within a broader planning environment which is sensitive to the importance of transport to economic growth and better social outcomes. Greater Manchester is an example where planning policies have promoted city centre and town centre development which are historically more accessible.

35. It is in the interests of local authorities to understand and respond to accessibility issues. They do this within a broad policy framework which is adequate. The issue in this instance is not with the national policy framework, but that, as stated above, local authorities have limited influence on key aspects of the transport network.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

36. There are a range of measures related to accessibility, which can be grouped in ‘access’, ‘threshold’ and ‘continuous’ categories. The measures are useful for understanding and presenting different elements of transport accessibility. It is not evident, that a single measure would ever be appropriate.1

37. Local authorities already use a range of measures to understand accessibility at the local level and to develop priorities that are set out in Local Transport Plans.

38. In terms of support, the LGA, through its Planning Advisory Service (PAS), is supporting local planning authorities in their efforts to put robust, well-evidenced local plans in place. For example, our recently launched Local Plan checklist is designed to help local authorities to assess the content of their new or emerging plan against requirements in the NPPF, for policies that facilitate and maximise sustainable transport solutions.

39. The LGA is concerned with the approach the DfT currently uses to evaluate infrastructure schemes and which could linger on in a devolved system. As it stands significant weight is given to the reduction of journey times as the key measure of value for money. In our view insufficient regard is given, within DfT assessment processes to wider social (including accessibility) and economic

1 Technical guidance on accessibility planning in local transport plans, DfT 2004 115 benefits and the methods currently in use should be reviewed. We would be happy to work with the DfT on this.

7 September 2012 116

Written evidence submitted by Mencap

Background

About learning disability- A learning disability is caused by the way the brain develops before, during or shortly after birth. It is always lifelong and affects someone's intellectual and social development. It used to be called mental handicap but this term is outdated and offensive. Learning disability is NOT a mental illness. The term learning difficulty is often incorrectly used interchangeably with learning disability.

About profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD)1- Children and adults with profound and multiples learning disabilities (PMLD) have more than one disability, the most significant of which is a profound learning disability. All people who have PMLD will have great difficulty communicating and many people will also have additional sensory or physical disabilities, complex health needs or mental health difficulties. The combination of these needs and/or the lack of the right support may also affect behaviour. All children and adults with PMLD will need high levels of support with most aspects of daily life.

Short summary

• Transport is very important for everyone. We all need to get from place to place so we can do lots of things such as accessing public services.

• Most people with a learning disability cannot drive and half of all families with a child with a disability do not have a car.

• Consequently, people with a learning disability and PMLD need to use public transport so that they can have independence, choice and opportunity.

• However, many people with a learning disability and PMLD often find public transport difficult to use with transport remaining one of the biggest factors in excluding people with a learning disability and PMLD from participating fully in public life and enjoying everything their locality has to offer.

• Some key transport problems faced by people with a learning disability and PMLD are physical inaccessibility, lack of accessible travel information, the cost of transport, limited/reduced availability of public transport, concerns over safety, lack of confidence and a lack of disability awareness on the part of transport staff and other transport users.

• Mencap believes that transport should be safe, affordable and accessible for people with a learning disability and PMLD.

• Inaccessible transport runs the risk of making public services inaccessible for people with a learning disability and PMLD.

• We believe that more needs to be done to ensure that public services are as accessible as possible by public transport in order to make it easier for people with a learning disability or PMLD to access such services.

Paragraph 1: How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services? Can people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease?

We have all experienced times where public transport is too costly, delayed/cancelled or subject to unforeseen disruptions that cause frustration and undermine access to services. However, barriers relating to cost, availability

1 For more information about PMLD see www.pmldnetwork.org

117 and ease of access are a far more common occurrence for disabled people, many of whom have specific access requirements, limited income/finances and can often be reliant on the support of others in order to access transport. Whilst the Government has taken steps to improve accessibility to public transport and, consequentially, public services, there is still room for further progress before transport or public services can be described as truly accessible from a physical, financial, social and informational stand point.

Some of the barriers people with a learning disability experience in accessing public services as a result of the Government’s current transport policies are:

- local transport service provision is being cut in some areas reducing the availability of public transport as a means of accessing public services. This is a particular problem in rural areas where alternative means of transport may be less readily available.

- Many people with a learning disability, particularly those with PMLD, need the support of at least one companion when using public transport. Whilst the person with a learning disability may be eligible for concessionary travel under current Government policies, their companion(s) would not be, leading to additional costs.

- Whilst the Government introduced changes to the Blue Badge scheme in February 2011, Mencap was disappointed to learn that, contrary to initial proposals, the Government rejected recommendations to extend the eligibility criteria of the scheme to include those with serious cognitive or behavioural impairments. We hope that the proposal is reconsidered in the near future.

- The Government removed concessionary coach fares scheme for older and disabled people on the 1st November 2011. National Express have since introduced an alternative scheme, but this provides a lower level of discount and individuals have to pay £10 a year to receive the discount.

It is important that Government transport policies make public services, including healthcare, education, employment and leisure easier for people with a learning disability and PMLD rather than creating additional and avoidable barriers.

Paragraph 2: Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment?

Other Government policies are also having a detrimental impact on the accessibility of public services and the environment for people with a learning disability and those with PMLD.

- Whilst the Government has protected the local concessionary fares scheme for buses, it has made other policy decisions which jeopardise the transport concessions many disabled people, including people with a learning disability, rely upon. For example, changes to Disability Living Allowance and the introduction of Personal Independence Payment threaten to jeopardise the eligibility of people with a learning disability to other concessions, such as the Blue Badge scheme. Such changes would negatively impact the accessibility of public services for people with a learning disability.

- Some health services are now introducing charging for Blue Badge holders. This is expected to have a negative impact on the accessibility of such services for individuals who rely on their Blue Badge as a means of accessing such services.

- Some Local Authorities are removing free home-school transport provision in their area which is impacting on some children and young people with a learning disability who rely on this service to access education. This could undermine the ability of children and young people with a learning disability accessing education which could have a knock on effect for their future employment options.

- We have serious concerns that the new assessment for Personal Independent Payment (PIP), including in relation to the mobility component, will result in fewer people with a learning disability receiving support. The reduced number of people set to receive PIP also stands to have a negative knock on effect 118

in terms of individuals’ eligibility for other travel concessions including the Blue Badge scheme, where DLA/PIP acts as a 'gateway' to other support. Consideration must be given to how people with a learning disability will be able to access transport to public services if they lose their eligibility for the Personal Independence Payment. The current consultation on blue badge eligibility under PIP must take into account the specific needs of people with a learning disability, who may not be affected by physical disability but who may be unable to use public transport and need to be able to travel in a private vehicle which can be parked close to their destination. For example, people with a learning disability and behaviour that challenges: they are likely to need careful support from the person supporting them to minimise potential environmental triggers. They may not be able to travel on public transport or walk more than a short distance from their car because of the noise of traffic could cause them real distress.

- Over the last few months, Mencap has been contacted by a number of individuals from different local authority areas who have raised concern about their respective councils’ proposals to revise their policies on transport provision. The proposals see local authorities pulling back from providing transport to and from community care services, with individuals being asked to make their own arrangements, primarily through DLA mobility usage. This is a huge concern. Mencap believes it is unreasonable for a council to expect a disabled person to use his or her mobility allowance to offset its liability to provide services and further jeopardises the rights of disabled people to meet their personal mobility costs that enable them to get out and about in the community.

Paragraph 3: Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect the public transport that is in place to allow people to access them?

Ideally, public services, especially education and health services should be accessible by public transport. In other words, they should be close to a bus stop or station so that disabled people are able to access services with ease via public transport. Decisions on the location of public services should reflect the public transport that is in place but the location of such services illustrates that this is not always the case. Mencap believe that greater efforts need to be taken to guarantee that transport is available and accessible so that people with a learning disability are able to access public services with ease.

Paragraph 4: Are environmental impacts considered when planning where to build/position public services? e.g. if a hospital is built far away from public transport links, do you think planners consider the environmental impact of people using cars/taxis to access it? How significant do you think this is to deciding where public services should be?

Mencap are unaware of environmental impacts being a consideration when planning where to build/position public services. However, we think this is a consideration that should be given priority in planning the location of public services as it would not only have a positive impact on the environment by reducing unnecessary use of cars and taxis but also improve the accessibility to public services via public transport links.

Paragraph 5: The Government has asked that the accessibility of public services is considered when planning local transport links, do you think this is working? Do you think that the Department for Transport has taken forward the accessibility agenda?

We don’t have the necessary knowledge on this area to comment in detail. However, it is encouraging that the Government is promoting accessibility of public services as a consideration for those planning transport links. We would hope that this recommendation was taken on board by those planning transport links as public transport is often a lifeline for people with a learning disability in accessing public services and the better the transport links, the easier it is for people to access such services with confidence and ease. This is of particular importance with regard to accessing healthcare, education and employment services given their significance for people with a learning disability and PMLD.

Paragraph 6: How should you measure how accessible a public service is by public transport?

119

How accessible a public services is by public transport can only truly be measured via experience. A useful way of measuring access would involve getting people of varying abilities to travel a given route to test its accessibility. It is important to emphasise and remember that a form of public transport may be accessible for someone with one form of disability, but inaccessible for someone else. For example, someone with a visible disability, such as a wheelchair user, may find their access requirements are more commonly addressed whilst someone with a hidden disability, such as a learning disability, may continue to experience barriers, such as inaccessible information or attitudinal barriers. Accurately measuring accessibility is therefore complicated by the fact that people with different disabilities encounter different barriers to accessing public services by public transport at different times- there is no standard experience. It is important to also note that there are now a number of people with complex disabilities who require non-standard wheelchairs. For example, someone with PMLD and postural support needs may have a large wheelchair with a width of maybe 1m. Often doors and wheelchair spaces don’t accommodate wheelchairs of this size. Therefore one ‘wheelchair user’ may be able to use public transport but another one may not.

Paragraph 7: When planning transport infrastructure, do you think the social and accessibility needs conflicts with environmental considerations?

Making public transport accessible for more disabled passengers could have a positive impact upon environmental factors as it could make disabled people less reliant on private means of transportation, such as taxis or personal cars and give them the confidence to access public transport, such as trains and buses, which are more environmentally sound.

Paragraph 8: Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making? If so, how do you think it should be measured?

Introducing a measurement for the transport accessibility of key public services would be useful for policy making. However, we feel that how such a measurement would work would require careful consideration and research to guarantee it adequately captures the relevant information to allow for comparative measurements.

Paragraph 9: Do you think that having broadband networks and the internet is lessening the need for transport infrastructure to access public services?

Many people with a learning disability do not have access to broadband networks or the internet at home, or may lack the knowledge to utilise these resources effectively. Access to the virtual world does not equate to access in the real world.

7 September 2012

120

Written evidence submitted by Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE)

Summary

• This submission has been informed by ACRE’s members in the Rural Community Action Network (RCAN). As part of our unique agreement with Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit, we supply the Department with intelligence about rural communities on its priority policy themes that include transport and services.

• Meeting the Government’s transport policy objectives creates significantly greater challenges for rural communities. The situation has been made worse by increasing public and private service withdrawal and centralisation during recession and austerity and the impacts have been greater for rural communities.

• Transport in rural areas is inextricably linked with most other issues affecting communities living there. The availability of services and jobs in neighbouring towns is worthless without access to appropriate forms of transport to the right place at the right time and it is incorrect to assume that rural residents and well off economically or have access to their own private transport

• ACRE has identified many examples of uncoordinated approaches to access to public health services from across the country and believes that policies in health do not account properly for the essential need for transport in rural areas. We believe that there is a strong requirement for more joint working to meet these needs.

• Although ‘accessibility’ can feature strongly as headlines in local authority accessibility planning but this does not always translate into effective delivery. There is often little local community input into these plans and consequently they do not meet their objectives.

• Service reduction and loss provides opportunities to assess accurately what rural communities need in respect of requirements for transport and access to public services. Many rural communities are working alongside the third sector, including our members, local authorities and delivery bodies to provide for rural communities needs.

• Community transport has always had a critical role to play in enabling access to services. The sector’s growth needs to be encouraged and supported in that it can help fill the gaps in delivery and provide sustainable and targeted services going forward.

• There are several possible approaches that could be taken to measuring public service accessibility but we regard journey time and user costs as fundamental to the debate.

• Improved broadband can be a significant benefit to reducing needs for transport infrastructure but good broadband speeds are required, which are far from the norm in many rural areas. However the impact of broadband will not mitigate the need for a decent public transport infrastructure to support access to specific types of services and opportunities for social interaction. 121

• Overall there is insufficient understanding and attention paid to meeting the access needs for rural communities to public services. This leads to an inequitable situation that must be addressed.

1. Meeting the Government’s transport policy objectives creates significantly greater challenges in rural areas where rurality impacts upon effective delivery of transport and public services for communities. In the main this is due to geographical remoteness from centres of service delivery and an older population in comparison to urban areas. The challenge for many people living in rural areas especially for those who are more deprived, is to obtain the services they need within the constraints of their personal transport options be they private, public or community.

2. This inherent situation for rural communities is compounded by increasing public and private service withdrawal and centralisation caused by recession and austerity. Indeed the need to reduce costs in recent years has meant progressive service and transport losses to rural communities – many of which are viewed by local people as essential to their everyday needs including buses, banks and food retailers.

3. Cuts in services have a disproportionate effect on rural communities. People in rural areas travel more miles compared to the population overall and small communities cannot support the range of jobs and services that an urban population enjoys. Research also shows that, on average, people on lower incomes in rural areas pay a higher proportion of their income on travel costs. If they are able to drive and public transport during times they need is not available, they have no choice but to buy a car in order to travel for essential journeys.

4. Funding cuts and subsequent gaps in services create many challenges for government, public service providers and rural communities and require them to get to grips with a new landscape on the ground. It is likely that as we go forward more evidence will emerge on the impact of funding cuts and approaches necessary to address these might become more apparent. However there are already many examples of activity to militate the challenges some of which we outline later in our submission.

5. Significantly in a period of public sector contraction, planning for replacement is not seemingly a priority issue nor have we seen widespread and effective rural proofing and accessibility planning to the benefit of rural communities so far. The constrained situation is particularly detrimental for certain groups of people affected most by service withdrawal, notably those without access to their own transport. This includes many older and young people and those with mobility problems.

6. It is also apparent from evidence across the country that if community groups were not taking on the challenge of running certain services for themselves such as libraries, swimming pools etc then current local authority decisions would be impacting to a greater degree on access as the choices available would be located even further afield.

7. Thus the picture in rural areas is one of steady decline in the availability of local services, which has become worse for people without access to private modes of transport because of the reduction in public transport options, notably cuts to subsidised bus routes. 122

8. In respect of the reduction in subsidised bus services, we are unaware of any guidance given by Government on what local transport authorities should be doing. The recent community transport funding by Government such as the Rural Sustainable Community Transport Initiative (RSCTI) which provided £10 million to 76 local authorities in 2011/2 and 2012/13 to support and develop community transport in rural areas, are welcomed and has helped the community transport sector to address access to essential services. For example in Wiltshire it is being used to run a business growth service for existing community transport groups, fund the expansion of existing and new schemes and run a community transport social enterprise.

9. However the RSCTI and Local Sustainable Transport Fund have not compensated for the services lost and in the case of the former, local authorities are not using it for community transport in all cases. We believe that longer terms funding is needed to help develop the community transport sector and make it more sustainable.

10. Community transport has always had a critical role to play in rural delivery and enabling access to services. However certain areas are better served than others and thus providers are able to take up delivery opportunities afforded by public service reductions. The sector is capable of providing much of the transport in a local area, though this needs to be done in partnership with the local transport providers, for example private hire operators, taxi firms or bus operators.

11. In terms of the context in which the community transport sector operates, the Transport Act 2008 has had some liberating effects such as enabling groups to operate smaller vehicles more suitable to rural areas but some aspects remain unclear for example around the right of operators to include their income costs within their charges to customers. The industry body, the Community Transport Association, is seeking resolution on this and other matters as we understand.

12. Service losses also give the opportunity to assess accurately what current rural residents need, and provides a solution which is flexible enough to meet these, something Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) members do very well through their direct work with communities and support for and provision of transport initiatives.

13. RCAN and local transport providers have worked in partnership for many years to develop tried and tested solutions for individual communities, including demand responsive buses, community mini-buses, car-based taxis, good neighbour schemes and even community rail partnerships. Transport in rural areas is inextricably linked with most of the other issues affecting rural communities. The availability of services and jobs in neighbouring towns is worthless to rural residents without access to appropriate forms of transport to the right place at the right time. Traditional public transport solutions, even community minibus schemes, are not always viable. Innovation in transport means moving to solutions that more closely match individual needs. RCAN members across the country work with Rural Transport Partnerships, where they exist, and where they don’t; they take on the challenge of working with other stakeholders to maintain the focus on rural transport needs and solutions. For example in places like the rural parts of the Isle of Wight (which is fairly typical of other rural areas with low population levels and a high proportion of older people) maintaining effective bus services is difficult. Hence the Island has developed a recent ambitious hybrid scheme with volunteer drivers using private sector buses and subsidised by the local authority.

14. In the private sector, many rural shops, garages and pubs have diversified to try to sustain their business. However, both short term impacts of the recession and longer term decreases in 123

viability have meant further losses of retail and other outlets that have traditionally been a cornerstone of rural life. For those without their own transport, it can make the difference between being able to stay in their village and having to move to a town.

15. Some public service providers have improved rural access through better integration between agencies, mobile provision or use of new technologies. We believe that it is essential to foster dialogue between communities and service providers because local effort can often contribute to efficiency and effectiveness. Local communities can provide facilities, form good neighbour and community transport schemes and advice points to ensure the hard to reach in rural communities are not excluded because of where they live.

16. Through supporting new kinds of community entrepreneurship and dialogue with service providers, the Rural Community Action Network can help local emergence of, for instance, local community-owned shops and service hubs in community-owned premises. These initiatives build on the strengths of rural communities and help re-localise service provision. In this way, we can build the sustainable rural communities we need for the future.

17. In support of the above analysis, we have used several examples both reflecting the impacts on the current challenges in rural areas and the solutions available. This has come through ACRE’s relationship with its members, which we provide under our agreement with Defra to help it rural proof policy and deliver equity between rural and urban communities.

18. The changes made to route registrations which allowed for ‘demand responsive’ registered routes was a positive move improving the potential for public transport in rural areas, in particular. It allows flexibility for transport providers to modify their routes or not to run if there no passengers. This is important in sparsely populated areas to make the provision of transport cost effective. However, benefits were constrained following the review of the operation of the concessionary fare scheme and the repayment of fares where the seats were pre-booked became discretionary. This made the setting up of rural demand responsive bus services unattractive for the local authorities.

19. Our member in Wiltshire, Community First operates a good neighbour service that provides information and signposting to support older and vulnerable people to live independently in their own homes. It sees a significant number of clients facing issues getting the transport they require. Last year out of 1790 enquiries it received, 230 or 13% were related to transport while a further 13% related to social isolation and an inability to access social groups or contact as a result of transport issues. Anecdotally, many of its clients are unable to access public transport due to mobility issues or the complexity of the public transport routes involved (for example three buses, a 10 minute walk and a total of one and a half hours to go 20 miles to a hospital appointment) and frequently use taxis. This in turn has a negative financial implication for these people as they have no alternative.

20. A further problem is the English concessionary bus pass scheme which has insufficient funds to achieve what is required locally. The rate of reimbursement to operators depends entirely on each local authority, and (as the money is not ring fenced), is subject to the political whim of elected members. In Cumbria the re-imbursement is only 58% of the fares meaning that a small (or voluntary) operator, with a minibus, will lose money. In Humber and Wolds there are services with reasonable passenger numbers incapable of covering operating costs because these passengers are all pass holders. There are extra pressures in those areas (many of which are 124

rural) which attract large numbers of holiday makers – many of whom have a bus pass – as the boarding authority pays for the reimbursement of their fare. Several pensioner groups have suggested they pay a flat rate contribution towards their fare but this is deemed illegal by the Department for Transport. Local councillors in Humber and Wolds will shortly be meeting with some of the MPs for the East Riding to ask that local authorities are given the power to raise revenue by charging a flat rate levy per journey. This would also reduce the inequality between rural and urban, as rural journeys tend to be longer. If this is granted local authority members would then have to decide whether to go down this route or not.

21. A number of our members in the Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) are engaged in surveying local areas to identify gaps in services such as for childcare, health facilities and transport. These surveys are being undertaken at regular intervals and longitudinal comparisons are being made, the results, being fed into local (authority) planning processes to help improve access to services for these areas.

22. Many Rural Community Action Network members also provide specialist advice to communities faced with access to services problems and work to provide tailored solutions. This includes commissioning or providing appropriate services and, where a transport solution is not possible or appropriate, working with providers and communities to help deliver a service in different ways.

23. Planning for accessibility is the key aspect underlying these questions. In general the accessibility of alternative sites when services are reduced or closed does not appear to be a strong factor in the decision whether to keep a service outlet open or not. There is an increasing movement to re-build hospitals, colleges and office space on Greenfield sites without considering the costs to the users of access, by car, public transport or cycling.

24. Whilst public transport appears to be supported fairly well by planning gain, it is less clear that community transport fares so well.

25. We believe that Government should examine whether service providers should produce an accessibility plan that assesses their client group’s access needs. This would include people requiring health, education and welfare services. This should ideally be data driven so if all clients have their own car or are within walking distance then ensuring alternative suitable transport is not an issue. However if people do not have suitable available transport then the plan should detail how they could access the service (including outreach support, community led transport, public transport).

26. Our evidence shows that the most critical single issue within this series of questions relates to transport for health related appointments. ACRE has picked up many examples of uncoordinated approaches in heath authority areas to this subject and believes that policies in health do not take into account the significant need for transport in rural areas. We have also supplied evidence to support Defra’s Rural Health Proofing Toolkit about transport needs that is 125

being published at the end of September and will be developing a rural health profile for all Clinical Commissioning Group and local authority health areas at the same time.

27. We believe that there is a strong need for joint working to meet the access needs of health services that are no longer locally placed. We have included the following examples supplied from our Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) members that illustrate the issues raised.

28. Rural communities broadly accept that there will be fewer specialist hospitals to achieve economies of scale (and have always expected to travel greater distances for specialist treatment). However, as this increasingly applies to general hospitals, it is important that their locations are carefully planned and supported by necessary infrastructure. We have already heard of health journeys of more than 100 miles (one way) for tests and operations. While access to cities is generally reasonable from most places; if lack of space moves these services to larger sites in the middle of nowhere, access by public transport is often non-existent.

29. The ‘Transport Assessment’ report prepared by Cheshire West and Chester Link in 2010 found that almost 80% of older people perceived transport as the major barrier to accessing healthcare services. During the previous 12 month period 17% of older people had missed an appointment or treatment session due to transport difficulties. Taking the population as a whole the figure was even higher at 20%. This represents a highly significant cost and major logistical problem for health authorities being that a similar situation is replicated nationally.

30. We were also made aware of a lack of joined up working between patient transport services (PTS) and public transport providers and how PTS apply the eligibility criteria to qualify for their service. This results in inconsistencies in access to hospital services for rural areas. A simple scheduling of appointments for rural residents to avoid early and late slots would improve the patient experience and allow more choices of how to get from home to hospital. There have been moves to integrate PTS and other home to hospital transport services including work to influence the health commissioners to this end.

31. Financial support for community transport is not considered by health authorities, yet in many cases nearly 90% of all volunteer car scheme journeys are carried out for health related purposes

32. Wiltshire operates social car or schemes run entirely by volunteers, offering transport and support around the home and garden. Our member undertakes an annual audit of activity undertaken by these groups which show trends in the transport needs of the older & vulnerable residents of Wiltshire. The background of bus service cuts have had a significant negative impact on these local car groups who have all reported an increased pressure on their services as demand has increased. The demand has primarily been (but not exclusively) in the area of health related transport where there has been a 19% increase in transport provided to healthcare facilities over the last four years. Within the last six months, the three providers of the ambulance car service serving the Wiltshire area have tightened their patient criteria making it more difficult for clients to access their services. Many of these clients asked to use local car schemes for transport instead but due to the complexity of their medical needs were unable to be helped by that service.

33. There has been recent interest from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) in ensuring access to surgeries by DRT and voluntary car schemes, which might be a good future policy direction 126

since missed or delayed appointments (due to a patient saving up issues or waiting too long to seek help) has a significant cost implication to the CCG.

34. For health transport to work more effectively some small scale interventions could make a real difference such as coordinating appointment times to fit with transport services, modest direct financial assistance to help with things like resourcing coordinators of volunteer drivers and designated parking and assistance to help passengers to treatment areas.

35. In the Isle of Wight, local plans have identified rural service hubs. Whilst of some value locally they mean nothing for people who have no public transport between outlying villages and the hubs. And given that most routes focus on getting people to and from the main population centres this is often the case. Again a problem of not thinking the whole issue through and possible inadequate consultation with affected communities.

36. Cycling and walking is promoted nationally but is not an option from and within many rural areas including to access work or training. However moped loan schemes known by many as ‘Wheels to Work’ are far less damaging to the environment than using cars. However funding shortages mean that the availability of mopeds in many cases cannot meet current demand and a number of schemes are struggling financially and may have to fold.

37. Several of our members indicated that although ‘accessibility’ and some ‘accessibility plans’ can feature highly as headlines within local authority strategies, this is often lip service and there is often little local input into them from the local community and consequently they are flawed evidentially and lack community ownership. In Cumbria the County Council did nothing to bring the communities and the professional transport providers together. If the County had followed the guidelines as drawn up by the Department for Transport, then there might have been some movement, but at the moment the current approach is not working.

38. Some transport surveys do not have good reach and are targeted at the existing transport users so the gaps in transport are never identified and there needs to be better and more community engagement on transport planning and provision.

39. Consistency of service is also an issue. Currently there may be community transport schemes in an area but they do not necessarily provide the type of service required. For example many do not provide wheelchair space or cannot wait at hospitals. Therefore in some cases there is a need to develop and support these schemes, which is an activity many RCAN members specialise in alongside the necessary development to encourage a community to begin a scheme. Norfolk and other counties have recently developed a community transport association to represent emerging schemes.

40. There is a perception from some of our members is that the latest iteration of local transport plans has had limited impact with other service providers and main focus is on improving demand responsive transport (DRT) in rural areas. The DRT shift is positive but only impacts one aspect of accessibility. Local transport plans are only as good as the funds available to carry out the work. They are predominantly aspirational only, for example improving travel plans cannot be met unless there is good public transport to support them and as this submission has shown rural areas always tend to suffer from a lack of good public transport. 127

41. There is a further related issue that volunteers are increasingly resistant to additional red tape, health checks, CRB checks etc.

42. With regard to the current requirements for the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans, ACRE and RCAN Rural Evidence resources specifically its local access to services reports www.rural-evidence.org.uk provides a range of meaningful information such as the number of no car households living more than 60 minutes from a local hospital by public transport. Current measurements of the transport-related accessibility of public services do not consider whether ‘rural’ deprivation is different from ‘urban’ deprivation.

43. This research uses standard national datasets that apply in both rural and urban areas. The headline finding is that rural areas are substantially more deprived based on the location of deprived people than based on the location of deprived areas. To illustrate this point in Wiltshire, none of the three highly deprived Local Super Output Areas in Wiltshire are rural but: – 35% of households with no car or van live in rural areas – 34% of no car households living 60 or more minutes from a hospital by public transport are in rural areas – 100% of households in Wiltshire more than 6km from a principal GP site are in rural areas – 48% of households in Wiltshire 60 or more minutes from a Further Education institution by public transport are in rural areas.

44. On this question we also received detailed intelligence from our member in Tees Valley, Tees Valley RCC. It has summarised the approach to rural transport planning being taken by the five local authorities in its area. Each is concerned with connectivity and access between the different boroughs supporting access to services for some rural areas but still a mixed picture emerges.

45. In Darlington access to essential services is embedded in its local transport plan. The lack of public transport in remote locations is seen as “a major barrier to accessing increasingly limited employment opportunities” and other essential services. Recent cutbacks to public transport services – with more to come at the end of 2012-13 – have meant little has been done to alleviate the growing problems in rural areas. However, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) and Rural Sustainable Community Transport Initiative (RSCTI) funding has resulted in schemes to improve inter-urban access between Newton Ayecliffe in County Durham and Darlington, and the development of a rural villages scheduled minibus scheme which could be replicated in other rural villages around the town. Darlington is now more positively engaged with the community transport sector than for a number of years, which our member believes augurs well for the future.

46. Hartlepool has a key strategic objective to improve equality of opportunity through access to services. The authority is currently examining the potential of developing a travel club (demand- responsive) service to replace its former dial a ride service, which is being supported by RSCTI funds.

47. Middlesbrough has little in the way of rural areas but does consider that the “availability of public transport in remote locations is particularly limiting job opportunities for those who do not have access to a car.” Recent success in securing LSTF funding has led the Council to look at developing a demand-responsive model to improve access to services, particularly from isolated areas of the borough. However tellingly public transport services in Middlesbrough are good as it serves a largely urban population. 128

48. Stockton on Tees transport plan has strong accessibility and connectivity goals and a robust in- house community transport facility – the only one in the Tees Valley. It has four area transport strategies, covering different areas of the borough, but as they all include largely urban populations and the rural areas have no distinctive voice. Our member believes that a separate rural area transport strategy would be beneficial.

49. Redcar & Cleveland has the largest rural area, geographically and in terms of population, in the Tees Valley. It deals with rural transport and access to services issues in some detail. It has worked well, through its Integrated Transport Unit, with the community transport sector – supporting the development of rural transport initiatives, and in one case donating a minibus to a small CT operator in East Cleveland. The council is perhaps most actively involved of all the Tees Valley local authorities with the Tees Valley CT Forum which is facilitated by TVRCC and works towards developing transport schemes and services for the rural areas of the sub-region. Following the recent public transport cutbacks and withdrawal of its dial a ride service, the council established a Link service to connect a number of isolated rural villages with the borough’s towns and provided funding for small-scale community transport based demand- responsive projects. These measures do, in a small way, help to reduce the impact of transport cuts.

50. Finally there are a few quirks in respect of accessibility that we have identified that should be addressed by the respective local authorities cited. For example Oxfordshire has a high percentage of low floor buses, but very few of them are accessible in rural villages owing to uneven ground, routes and timetabling. There is a similar situation in Norfolk where the target is for disabled friendly bus stops but no target to ensure that the bus stop location itself is accessible. This might mean you find a level bus stop located 300 metres along a grass verge from the nearest house.

51. All public services should be accessible by a transport scheme which does not rely on ‘good will’ or ‘charity’. A supported (or subsidised) transport service allows other services to be sustainable. A single vehicle can carry people to use several services, for example to hospital, the shops and the dentist. In rural areas, the requirement is not necessarily to have a vehicle visiting these services every hour or even every day, but there is a need for it to run regularly and reliably. It also should not wander around the countryside trying to take in every village in one trip, making a journey twice as long as it would be in a car.

52. There are several possible approaches that could be taken to measuring accessibility. It is important to make clear that it not appropriate to measure accessibility in terms of distance as might be considered a logical approach. Journey time and financial cost are better measures of inaccessibility for rural communities. This view is illustrated with evidence from the Isle of Wight showing that the costs of public buses are widely regarded as prohibitively expensive for one off trips and the minimum charge of £2.50 levied on all journeys even if it one stop is a significant disincentive for taking short trips for example to the GP. Furthermore in an effort to make routes profitable, the route taken is often circuitous meaning that the journey time might be up to 50% 129

longer than a more direct journey. In Surrey the cost of transport is still an issue for example from Cranleigh town to Guildford there is a £4 one way charge for an adult to use the Job Club.

53. It is also possible that one of the elements to include in accessibility measurement is the number of transport options available. If a community or individual only has one transport option available to them in terms of accessing a certain service then they are more disadvantaged than someone who has two or more options. For example for those people reliant on public transport, there is clearly both a quantitative and qualitative difference between having one bus a day at 9.30am returning at 12.30pm, compared with an hourly service between 7.00am and 10.00pm. It might be feasible to reflect this type of differential within workable indicators and definitions.

54. An accessibility index – perhaps along the lines of fuel poverty assessment might also be of value for identifying the travel needs of residents currently living in rural isolation. It could use existing accessibility data such as that held by ACRE and RCAN as part our Rural Evidence assessments – more information at http://www.rural-evidence.org.uk

55. A measure of the transport accessibility of key public services would be useful. It would allow a community to know what to expect and to be able to argue for improvement if the measure is not achieved. The service need to include recreational activities, especially for teenage children, who, at the moment, have to depend on their parents. Rural children do not have the freedom that urban children have to try different sports or attend out of hours school activities for example.

56. Post 16 transport funding provides a significant issue particularly given the emphasis on providing a wider range of options for that age groups education. It also provides a good illustration of the challenges for a student travelling from a rural area. Normally the service is provided free of charge for entitled students. However, if a pupil wishes to continue into the sixth form, they must pay a fare to travel. This particularly disadvantages those living in rural areas, and has the unintended consequence of increasing the number of cars on the road, and the number of young drivers.

57. The withdrawal of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (some of which students used on transport costs) again disadvantages those living further from the school/college they need to access. Furthermore there are colleges out of reach for rural populations because there are no practical ways to get there using public transport (i.e. no viable bus or train routes) which limits choice and opportunity. It also causes issues of reduced attendance as students will opt to stay at home rather travel for three hours for a two hour session.

58. In respect of work, many of the jobs available to the more deprived communities in rural areas are located at distribution centres on business parks and industrial sites. These sites are rarely near residential areas and so are poorly served by public transport, if at all. Many jobseekers wanting to apply for these jobs have no access to private vehicles and so without adequate public transport the local potential workforce is disadvantaged. Using the example of Derbyshire and other providers Wheels to Work schemes help people access work at these locations.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

59. Improved broadband can be a significant benefit to reducing need for transport infrastructure but fast broadband speeds are required, which are far from the norm in all rural areas. High speed broadband would have many direct benefits including supporting small rural-based businesses 130

and those able to work from home leading to a reduction in needs for personal travel and consequent environmental benefits. Amongst other potential advantages are increased use of telemedicine and connecting people, including the young and disadvantaged, to work, volunteering and advice services.

60. However the impact of broadband will not mitigate the need for a decent public transport infrastructure. You cannot play sports, attend college or visit hospital over the internet. It is the view of our one of our members that public service websites in their area give false information because they do not take into account the geography of the area.

61. However it is also vital to recognise the social interaction is fundamentally important to most people’s well-being. Many older or more deprived residents in rural communities do not have access to a computer and so still need transport to access public services. It is also widely evidenced that social isolation can lead to depression and mental illness, so the importance of retaining effective transport infrastructure and local service provision remains essential and we would not wish to exacerbate social isolation, a situation that as we have stated is a challenge to address for many rural communities.

ACRE and the Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) promote activities that deliver and help sustain services for rural areas, including those developed by local communities themselves. This is particularly relevant in challenging economic times, where services in rural communities can be hit hardest with outlets such as shops and pubs being at risk or forced to close. Services such as post offices, healthcare and leisure activities are the basis of any community and create and enhance a feeling of belonging and a sustainable future for an area and can be particularly important to a rural area.

Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) is the national umbrella body for the Rural Community Action Network, providing focus for national advocacy and support for its member organisations and the rural communities they serve. ACRE works strategically with government and with a range of national third sector organisations to reflect a rural perspective in policy and practice. ACRE is nationally recognised for its expertise in ensuring rural community-led solutions are central to public policy debate and manages the delivery of programmes that directly benefit grass roots communities.

The Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) covers the whole of rural England through the work of 38 local member organisations and ACRE. The local member organisations are all independent charities, largely county-based. As local development agencies, RCAN members have been facilitating social change in rural communities for decades by providing tailored and comprehensive support to rural communities to enhance their quality of life and access to services. With a strong focus on local advocacy and brokering relationships between rural community aspirations and local government strategies, RCAN members enhance the role of community action and self-reliance in rural areas across the country.

7 September 2012

131

Written evidence submitted by Unite the Union

1 Introduction

1.1 This response is submitted by Unite the Union, the UK’s largest trade union with 1.5 million members across the private and public sectors. The union’s members work in a range of industries including manufacturing, financial services, print, media, construction, energy generation, chemicals, transport, local government, education, health and not for profit sectors. In the arena of transport Unite represents over a quarter of a million members in all transport modes, making it the largest transport union in the UK.

1.2 Unite believes that one of the growing hurdles to services is the public’s access to safe and affordable transport options. These barriers include spiralling fare rises, withdrawal of services and cuts to public facing jobs.

2 Private Vehicles

2.1 Access to employment often relies on ownership of a clean driving licence and vehicle over those who rely on public transport. The reason behind this is related to the perception of public transport as unreliable amongst employers.

2.2 A major hurdle to vehicle ownership is one of cost especially among younger drivers in terms of insurance and fuel costs. Population expansion has also resulted in more vehicles on our roads leading to congestion and a lack of parking facilities.

2.3 Environmental initiatives have also pushed for drivers to leave their cars at home and encouraged car sharing and cycling as alternatives. Given the number of accidents and deaths on the roads involving cyclists the fear of an incident remains a major hurdle.

3 Buses

Quality Contracts

3.1 Since privatisation bus services have focused on making profits and dividends for the operators’ shareholders. When their costs increase, operators have to generate more passengers and/or pass on increased costs to passengers by increasing fares making their operations more ‘efficient’ - usually through cutting out less profitable routes.

3.2 In recent years Unite has repeatedly seen this cycle with fares rising above inflation, services being cut and the number of fare-paying passengers falling. Operators’ can change or withdraw services at two months’ notice, without fully taking account of the wishes of local communities.

3.3 As well as bus fares rising significantly in recent years, each operator has its own fares and tickets making things confusing for passengers. These tickets can only be used on each company’s own services, which can make it difficult for passengers to change between different buses or between bus and other types of transport.

132

3.4 Unite believes the way forward is to introduce Quality Contracts made possible by the Transport Act 2008. Quality Bus Contracts allow operators to specify what the local bus network should be and how it should be operated.

3.5 A Quality Bus Contract Scheme would mean that the local authority would be responsible for deciding where buses run, how often they run, what fares and tickets are available, what quality standards buses run to and what happens if things go wrong. The local authority would make these decisions based on local needs and priorities and affordability. Bus operators would then have to bid to run bus services on the authority’s behalf. This is similar to the public transport system that operates in London and most European cities and makes bus operations more publicly accountable.

Safer Way Campaign

3.6 British bus drivers are presently driving longer periods than their European counterparts. This is wrong on grounds of safety because the deepening congestion on Britain’s roads makes their job increasingly stressful and hazardous. The British Driving Hours Regulations currently provide for bus drivers to work for up to five and a half hours without any breaks, and up to 16 hours in a whole day. To conform to the spirit of EU regulations, Unite believes it is time for:-

• a maximum single piece of driving duty not to exceed four and a half hours; • a maximum of ten hours total working time in any one day.

3.7 The issue of excessive driving hours and the poor quality of UK regulations ought to be a matter of serious public concern and we urge the Government, MPs and MEPs, passengers, local authorities, employers, the police, and medical experts to support our campaign calling for steps to be taken to tighten the current drivers hours regulations. This is of interest not only to our hard-pressed bus drivers but also in the real interests of public safety on our roads.

50+ km bus routes

3.8 Unite has been encountering more and more examples of bus routes that Unite believe are in excess of 50 kilometres, creating safety concerns among drivers over fatigue and passenger safety.

3.9 Routes in excess of 50 kilometres have no enforcement recourse because VOSA are following the DfT guidelines, which Unite believe contravenes the EU Regulation.

3.10 Unite has become very concerned at the increasing abuse of EU Driving Hours Regulations in the UK by private stage carriage bus operators when operating long distance passenger services over 50K in length.

3.11 Unite is currently compiling a full list of services where such abuse have taken place.

4 Taxis

No to deregulation of taxi Industry

4.1 The deregulation of taxi services leads to a reduction in the quality of drivers and less stringent background checks. Whist this would appear to be a way of 133

4.2 The Coalition Government tasked the Law Commission with a wholesale review of the taxi and private hire trades and the proposals they have come up with will obliterate the industry. National private hire licensing with no cross border controls will see chaos across the country as minicabs crisscross the UK picking up fares, relying on satellite navigation as opposed to local knowledge to determine the best routes.

4.3 Law Commission proposals may introduce peak time licences which could result in an uncontrolled flood of taxis as well as private hire on the streets at busy times. That is set alongside the threat of ‘no limits on taxi and private hire numbers’. Without such limits taxi ranks over flow creating traffic disruption for other road users.

Free entry and open access to all transports hubs for Hackney Carriage taxis

4.4 Unite’s attempts to gain free entry and open access to airports, railway and bus stations, retail parks and supermarkets for Hackney Carriage Licensed Taxis would clearly help improve access for the public.

4.5 The Government would have to step in to make private companies allow Hackney Carriage licensed taxis access in these areas. This might not be that easy to achieve because it is highly likely private companies would want some compensation.

4.6 Unite does not believe that private hire vehicles should be extended the same ‘free and open access’ as Hackney Carriage licensed taxis. This would create tension with Hackney Carriage licensed taxis, which would not be acceptable.

5 Rail

5.1 Rail fares have risen far faster than the rate of inflation as private companies have reaped the rewards in high profit margins and payments to directors and executives. The joint union sponsored Rebuilding Rail Report by Transport for Quality of Life1 highlights the shocking fare differences between the UK and fares on continental Europe and the background as to why this trend needs to be reversed. The proposals contained in this report could result in an 18 per cent reduction in all ticket prices.

5.2 The Government’s Rail Command Paper is pressing ahead with cuts in government subsidy of the rail network promoting Sir Roy McNulty’s Value For Money Study as the way in which the train operating companies (TOCs) could make savings to make up the difference. These proposals include shutting ticket offices, removing staff from stations and guards from trains. Such moves will make access to train services far more difficult especially for less able bodied members of society.

5.3 Justification for ticket office closures often cites the availability of ticket machines at stations and via the internet. For those who are not on the internet a turn up and go ticket will then be the only option which is often far more expensive.

1 http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/120630_Rebuilding_Rail_Final_Report_print_version.pdf 134

Equally, the provision of discounted fares is often not easily available. Consequently, passengers will tend to be charged more than is absolutely necessary for journeys.

5.4 Removing staff from stations and on trains increases the risk to the public of criminal activity and injuries. Whilst it is true that most stations and carriages are covered by CCTV today, this does not stop criminal behaviour, it only assists police in catching those responsible. The presence of a staff member can also alert drivers to people who may have fallen between the train and the tracks, suffered from a heart attack or other medical emergency onboard etc. especially on driver only operations where the driver’s focus is on signals and track obstructions. Consequently, removing these staff will deter passengers from using rail services over safety concerns.

5.5 Most worryingly, the McNulty review highlighted track and signal maintenance staffing levels as areas that could be reduced. Given the train capacity problems particularly at peak times, trains are today increasing their speed to provide space for preceding services. Such a move has the benefit of reducing travel time but significantly increases the wear rates of track and line side equipment and increases the carbon footprint. As a result there needs to be an increased level of track maintenance and inspection, not a reduction.

6 Conclusion

6.1 Unite believes in a unified intermodal transport policy utilising all transport modes to not only reduce our carbon footprint but also provide greater public transport access. Without such access the public at large will not be able to utilise services provided by government and other bodies.

7 September 2012

135

Written evidence submitted by the Stockport Child Poverty Group

Summary

• Affordability of public transport needs to be considered as a potential barrier • The need for provision of transport and accessibility to transport in areas where it hasn’t been provided to increase social mobility • Travel planning should become an integral part of support services for people seeking employment • Greater Manchester Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid jobseekers will be supported into employment through travel advice and information • The promotion of walking and cycling as key element of travel when infrastructure design and traffic management schemes are developed and implemented • Child Poverty can be an intergenerational cycle where experiencing poverty in childhood affects children’s outcomes as adults, and this, in turn, affect their children, thus creating cycles of deprivation. • There needs to be an official recognition and measure of transport poverty

1. There are a number of major barriers to breaking the cycle of poverty including a lack of skills and qualifications, a stagnant jobs market, affordable childcare and the cost of transport. Affordability of public transport needs to be considered as a potential barrier which can prevent people from accessing a range of services and amenities as well as education, training and employment all of which can also lead to health and wellbeing inequalities.

2. It is also essential to make public transport accessible to all and provided in areas where it previously hasn’t been provided to increase social mobility, enable improved access to essential amenities, services and facilities and therefore breaking the cycle of poverty.

3. The inability to access employment which provides a steady income can prevent people from escaping the cycle of poverty. Travel planning should become an integral part of support services for people seeking employment, e.g. if someone is going to apply for a job / attend a course, how they would get there (mode of transport & affordability) should be one of the first things discussed, alongside skills, etc to help ensure the job is sustained.

4. As part of the Greater Manchester Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid jobseekers will be supported into employment through travel advice and information, discounted public transport tickets and a ‘bike to work’ scheme. May be this could be extended to included people who need/want to undertake training or studies to improve their chances of employment.

5. The promotion of walking and cycling as an alternative, no-cost or low cost means of getting could also contribute to break the cycle of poverty and social 136

exclusion but it is also necessary that these means of transport are recognised as a key element of travel when infrastructure design and traffic management schemes are developed and implemented.

6. There also needs to be an official recognition and measure of transport poverty so that a baseline can be established and targets for reducing transport poverty can be set.

7 September 2012 137

Written evidence submitted by Roger Mackett, Professor of Transport Studies, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, and Helena Titheridge, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London

1. Our response to the questions asked is based on our extensive research into the accessibility needs of groups in the community and ways of addressing these issues through policy measures, in particular through the AUNTSUE project (Accessibility and User Needs in Transport for Sustainable Urban Environments) (http://www.aunt‐ sue.info/).

2. There is very little direct evidence on the influence of current transport policies on accessibility to public services. Evidence from the National Travel Survey (NTS) shows that travel to public services by disadvantaged groups such as the elderly is not increasing despite the number of accessibility policies that have been implemented1,2. However, the policy of offering concessionary bus travel for older people is generating extra bus trips, although the extension of the scheme nationwide led to some reductions in local concessions3.

3. Policies on the closure of facilities in the light of public expenditure cuts are having an adverse effect. We carried out analysis of the impact of the Post Office closure programme in Hertfordshire and found that the provision was well below the required standard of 90% of the population being within 1 mile of their nearest Post Office branch (the average for Hertfordshire was 85%, a decrease from the 89% before the implementation of the closure programme)4. The problem with the methodology that was used was that it was an average for the UK. Because those living in London and other large cities have many Post Offices nearby even after the closure programme, the averaging process means than those in lower density areas fall well below the standard. Similarly, we have examined the impact of the library closure programme in Hertfordshire and found a decrease from 56% to 45% in the number of people in St Albans living within one mile of their nearest public library.

• Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda? 138

4. Whilst improving access is a key element of most Local Transport Plans (LTPs), and has been for a number of years, it is not usually linked explicitly to access to public services. For example, LTPs state that the local authority will improve street lighting or improve bus stops by building shelters or making them wheelchair accessible, but this is not linked explicitly to access to specific public services. The ‘localism agenda’ means that the Department for Transport has less control over the way that the accessibility agenda is implemented, but may mean that, in some areas, local needs are being met better because the local authority has more knowledge about accessibility needs in their area.

5. There is a major difficulty with the way that the Department for Transport measures accessibility. The accessibility indicators either measure the average minimum time to reach key services or the percentage of people that can reach various public services within a given. There are a number of flaws with the use of travel time: firstly, our research has shown that travel time is not of major significance for many groups, such as the elderly, who are more concerned about public transport reliability and confidence about their ability to make the trip5,6,7. Secondly, as far we are aware, the Department for Transport has not carried out any research to establish what a ‘reasonable’ travel time is. Instead, it has used data from NTS to look at what people do, on average, and assumed that this is ‘reasonable’. Furthermore what is regarded as a ‘reasonable’ travel time varies considerably across the population8.

6. Access to public services for some people may be influenced by issues related to their specific needs and capabilities. For example, in our research on St Albans, we found that ease of access to the local hospital for those in wheelchairs could be increased significantly by installing the one missing dropped kerb between the city centre and the hospital.

7. A measure of transport accessibility to key public services would be useful, but would need to be at the household level, take into account car availability, quality and cost of using local bus services, personal capabilities, and income.

• The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

8. Whilst broadband networks and the internet can mitigate the need for transport infrastructure to access public services for some people, many of those with the poorest accessibility such as elderly and disabled people have lower access to such facilities and do not find that their specific needs are addressed.

139

1 Titheridge, H., Mackett, R.L. and Achuthan, K. (2012) Developing better measures of accessibility for older people. Paper presented at the International Conference on Ageing and Mobility (AMQoL), 24th‐26th June 2012, University of Michigan, USA,

2 Titheridge, H., Mackett, R.L. Oviedo Hernandez, D. and Achuthan, K. (2013) Making accessibility better for older people. Paper to be presented at the World Conference on Transport Research, Rio de Janerio, Brazil July 15‐18, 2013

3 Mackett R.L. (2012) The impacts of concessionary travel passes for older and disabled people – a review of the evidence. Paper written for the CILT Concessionary Travel Group; available from the author.

4 Mackett R L, Achuthan K and Titheridge H (2010) The impact on equity of changes to access to local facilities, Selected proceedings of the World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon, Portugal, 11‐ 15 July 2010, edited by José Manuel Viegas and Rosário Macáro, ISBN 978‐989‐96986‐1‐1, available from http://www.wctr2010.info/WCTR_Selected/documents/02524.pdf.

5 Titheridge,H., Solomon,J. (2007) Benchmarking Accessibility for Elderly Persons. 11th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Montreal, Canada, June 18‐ 21, , CD‐Rom

6 Titheridge H, Mackett RL, Achuthan K (2010) A comparison of accessibility as measured by planners and accessibility as experienced by older people and those with disabilities. The 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED 2010), Hong Kong, 02 Jun 2010 ‐ 04 Jun 2010

7 Mackett R L, Titheridge H and Achuthan K (2011) Improving Access in St Albans – Report on a Consultation Exercise, Report produced in the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London as part of the research programme of the AUNT‐SUE Consortium, available from http://www.aunt‐sue.info/toolkit/amelia/consultation.html.

8 Titheridge,H., Solomon,J. (2008) Social exclusion, accessibility and lone parents. Paper presented at The UK‐Ireland Planning Research Conference 2008, Belfast, 18‐20 March.

11 September 2012 140

Written evidence submitted by Professor Peter Jones, Centre for Transport Studies, UCL

Executive summary • There is some confusion over the use of the term ‘accessibility’; it can refer to disability access to vehicles (micro), the physical and psychological ease of moving around the local street network (meso) and access to employment, healthcare, etc. at a more strategic level (macro). • Some people – generally the less articulate groups – suffer quite severe forms of accessibility problems, often linked to poor public transport provision, which can lead to transport and non-transport hardship (lack of employment, loss of benefits). • Gaining access to a service usually involves interacting with multiple agencies, which generally do not co-ordinate their actions to provide seamless services – people get ‘caught in the cracks’. • We need a more comprehensive understanding of these problems and ways of incentivising and facilitating inter-agency co-ordination.

Personal experience My current position is Professor of Transport and Sustainable Development at University College London; I was previously Director of the Transport Studies Group at the University of Westminster. I have carried out several research studies into people’s accessibility to goods and public services, particularly by public transport and on foot, and issues of hardship, funded by research councils (EPSRC), the EU and the Department for Transport. This has involved working with local councils, public transport operators, various public and private sector service providers, and members of the public. I was involved in the research programme that led to the DfT requiring local authorities to carry out Accessibility Planning exercises.

Evidence

The meanings of the term ‘accessibility’ 1. In general terms, accessibility refers to the degree to which people can reach the goods and services that they and society considers are necessary for them to live their daily lives, mainly by travelling to particular locations (e.g. hospitals), but increasingly using the internet or by telephone. 2. However, groups of professionals use the term ‘accessibility’ in different ways, to mean different things, and this can be a source of confusion. These definitions can be broadly grouped into three scales of accessibility: micro (e.g. access onto and within vehicles), meso (e.g. neighbourhood street network connectivity and problems of severance), and the strategic level ‘Accessibility Planning’ (e.g. access to employment in a sub-region). 3. In practice, in order for most people to experience high levels of accessibility, there needs to be a good level of performance at all three scales. The study of 141

disadvantaged population groups in South Yorkshire referred to below, found that accessibility could be sharply restricted by a single failure on any scale, ranging from poor physical access to a bus when travelling with a children’s buggy, to safety concerns about walking to the bus stop, through to the non-availability or unaffordability of public transport services: the weakest link breaks the whole chain of events. 4. At a micro level, there is a large body of literature (and in many countries, associated national legislation) concerned with ensuring that groups with a range of physical disabilities are able to use transport facilities. This starts with vehicle design (e.g. specially adapted vehicles, or the ability to board a bus, taxi or train in a wheelchair), but also includes movement in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle (e.g. lifts to railway platforms, raised kerbs at bus stops, larger parking bays for disabled drivers), and links up with meso scale access issues. 5. The meso level focuses on the potential for movement at the neighbourhood level. This encompasses a range of issues, in particular the connectivity and permeability of the local street network using different modes of transport. It includes ease of access for various disability groups, through such things as the provision of dropped kerbs at junctions (for people in wheelchairs) and the use of changes in surface texture to assist the navigation of blind and partially sighted people. Several studies have looked at how people’s lives can be blighted through their inability to travel far from home due to such physical access restrictions. 6. Access problems experienced at this level include severance, which might result from the construction of a railway line or high performance road, which forces people to make a long detour and so substantially increase their journey distance and time. However, the barrier that causes severance may be more fluid (e.g. a road with high volumes of fast moving traffic at certain times of day that people feel is too unsafe to cross), or more psychological in nature (e.g. avoiding routes through areas populated by a different religious or ethnic group or by street gangs). Equally, some of the conventional solutions to addressing the problem may themselves be a cause of severance, such as pedestrian underpasses that can be sites for personal attack, or are difficult to access in a wheelchair. 7. Strategic accessibility is concerned with the degree to which a given land use pattern and associated modal transport networks in an area (ranging in size from a town to a region) facilitate travel from one local area to another, in order to participate in a particular kind of desired activity (e.g. health care, education, employment). It is the best documented and addressed of the three scales of accessibility, both in the policy literature (e.g. Social Exclusion Unit, 2003) and by the academic community. 8. The literature recognises a number of dimensions of strategic accessibility, the main ones including spatial, temporal and financial. 9. Accessibility measurements range from simple performance type measures, such as the percentage of a population group (e.g. pensioners) which can reach a given destination (e.g. the nearest hospital) by public transport with a given time period (e.g. 60 minutes), to ‘Hanson’ measures which calculate the accessibility of a zone or area by adding together the opportunities available in each other zone, weighted by a function of the difficulty of reaching that zone. 142

Problems caused by limited accessibility 10. This section summarises key findings from a detailed programme of research that was carried out in three villages in the Barnsley Dearne area of South Yorkshire, in an ex–coalmining area with high levels of social deprivation, in order to identify the accessibility problems and requirements of residents (particularly those without access to a car). It involved work both with local communities and with public and private sector service providers. 11. Eleven extended focus group sessions were held with residents drawn from the three villages. Respondents included younger adults, particularly those with children (including single parents), and older people. Recruitment also took into account the length of residence in the area, to ensure that newcomers were represented. There was a mix of male and female respondents, and a range of occupational types, but with a particular focus on people with no or limited car access. 12. These focus groups were followed by two sessions where some of the participants were brought together to review and validate the report’s draft findings and to give further consideration to possible solutions. 13. Two workshops were then held with senior representatives from agencies which provided services to local residents, ranging from bus operators to the police and health and education authorities. The first involved a general briefing about Accessibility Planning, and a consideration of the full range of problems raised by residents, but illustrated in a hypothetical context. The second workshop looked specifically at service provision in the Dearne, and included a session with two of the members from the resident focus groups, where their views were presented and debated with the professionals. 14. The focus groups identified a wide variety of problems, in particular: • Reductions over time in local services available within the village/town: ‘It’s gone from here; we’ve lost the cinema, 3 or 4 butchers, 3 co- operatives for groceries, a running track…’ • Physical restrictions affecting respondents (e.g. walking and accessing public transport with buggies, or for older people with restricted mobility): ‘I've been on the bus, when he's let me on with a double pushchair, and then actually been asked to get off at Tesco because a lady was getting on with a single pushchair.’ • Psychological restrictions (particularly relating to fear of traffic accidents and personal injury from groups of young people). One young mother reported turning back from a rail station and abandoning a trip, during the day: ‘I went there once with the pram and I got about half way up the ramp, and turned round and came back…there were about ten 18-year …and there was no way I was standing there’. • Lack of information about public transport and pubic agency services: timetables, fares, support on offer. 143

• Restricted availability of public transport (at certain times and places): ‘I went for an interview at XXXX in Doncaster, but they won’t accept me for the simple fact is my first bus is at 6.20 in the morning and they start at 7 o’clock. And I can’t do it. I’m finding it hard to get a job, because with my line of work it’s earlies, lates and nights.’ ‘It's a pain because, the 226 it's every hour. So my shift weren't starting till say, four in the afternoon, I was getting there at ten past three. And I couldn't get the next hour bus or I'd have been late. So I was getting there 45 minutes, 50 minutes before the start of my shift, just sitting there waiting’. • Unreliability of buses: ‘Sometimes you want to get to the doctors, and they just don’t turn up.’ • Scheduling problems arising from a general lack of coordination between agencies in the delivery of services, coupled with personal and childcare constraints: ‘I got on a chair to stand on top of the fridge and I was cleaning the freezer and it [heavy saucepan] whacked me on top of the head. Of course, I’ve got two kids and I couldn’t get to the hospital and I was feeling sick and that. I walked down to the doctors and they wouldn’t see me. They said you’ve got to go to the hospital…And I think, how can I go to the hospital with two kids?’ • In some cases, the cost of bus and taxi fares was also a problem: ‘Last year I got a job in Mexborough…I got a bus pass for a week - which, I don’t know, was £14, whatever. And anyway, after 7pm it changed. The buses changed. They wouldn’t accept that card, your ticket. So it was a case of having to pay twice in one day.’ 15. These discussions revealed a surprising lack of knowledge among respondents of some of the services that were available. For example, in one group of eleven retired people, most of whom were highly articulate and involved in some way with local community activities, only two were aware of the NHS Direct telephone service. 16. It was reported that some employers would not employ staff without access to a car, because of the unreliability of public transport. More generally, people reported being seriously limited in their choices of employment site and further education colleges, as well as services such as maternity care, due to the restricted coverage of public transport services from the Dearne. People also reported difficulties accessing health care (e.g. specialist after care services). 17. A general lack of co-ordination and gaps in coverage between service delivery agencies was a recurring problem, particularly when things did not go according to plan, and usually involved problematic links between a transport and non- transport service provider. For example, if a patient had to wait several hours in the hospital beyond their appointment time, because of staff shortages, then the hospital car they had booked may not be able to take them home at that time. On some occasions, vandalism or flooding had caused the bus company to cut or 144

divert services at short notice, without any arrangements in place to ensure that passengers were able to complete their journeys home safely. 18. One example of the latter involved a couple with two young children returning home from a holiday on a late flight into Doncaster and catching the last evening bus service to their village. On the way they were informed that the bus would not be serving their village that evening, due to vandalism, and the family – with suitcases – were dropped on a poorly lit road over a mile away. 19. Unreliable public transport services were reported to have put people’s employment and benefits at risk – leading in some cases to dismissal after arriving late at work on several occasions. Three parents reported that their children had lost their Educational Maintenance Allowance payments when arriving late at a Further Education College in Sheffield, due to delayed or cancelled bus services. This type of consequence was seen as being very unfair, as it was beyond the control of the individual, but they were being penalised for failures in ‘the system’. 20. A wide range of solutions were proposed by respondents, including: the relocation and retiming of patterns of service delivery; measures to make neighbourhoods safer (both in terms of traffic accidents and personal security); improved childcare facilities at key activity sites; improved information provision; better waiting facilities; improvements to bus/rail services; and, driver training concerning customer care when things go wrong. 21. The table below shows one of the scenarios that were presented to the professional group, and the kinds of solutions that they developed.

Problem: A college student from Village 2 relies on the bus service to get to an FE College in the metropolitan area; there is an hourly direct service, which should deliver the student just in time for his first class. However, the bus is often delayed by congestion and sometimes cancelled, as a result of which he can arrive up to an hour late. He then loses his weekly EMA allowance, since tutors will not sign in students that arrive late. The previous bus gets him to college 50 minutes early, but it is not open at this time, and it means hanging around on the street. Possible solutions: ⇒ Give student permission to arrive late or make provision for early arrival ⇒ Check the regularity of the problem; discuss retiming scheduled service with bus company ⇒ College provides a shuttle service to the local villages ⇒ Car sharing scheme promoted ⇒ ‘Wheels to college’ scheme to enable students to purchase motor scooters ⇒ Bus drivers issue a ‘late ticket’ – giving proof that vehicle was delayed or cancelled ⇒ Relocate tertiary education facilities to more local secondary schools ⇒ Offer distance learning, through a local advanced learning centre

Table: Example scenario used in the first professional workshop

22. Probably the most fundamental problem identified during the resident focus groups and the professional agency workshops was the lack of co-ordinated working between agencies. As illustrated above, this could result in serious problems for some groups of the population, either through agencies making 145

incompatible demands on users (e.g. through the timing constraints of appointments and public transport timetables), or where problems ‘fell through the cracks’ between the responsibilities accepted by different agencies (e.g. late arrival at work or education). 23. There was also considerable scope for service delivery decisions taken by one agency to have negative impacts on the activities of other agencies. In particular, public transport operators were often only consulted about providing services to a new development (e.g. a new hospital site) once both the major locational and site layout decisions had been taken – often making it very difficult at that late stage to provide attractive and commercially viable access for potential passengers. 24. It was recognised by the professional group that a major opportunity to address these problems arose at times when an agency was planning to revise its patterns of service delivery. Were all relevant agencies to be involved at the earliest stages of project planning, then it was felt that there might be opportunities to modify proposals, at minimum cost - at worst to minimise external costs and, at best, to identify synergies that could result in ‘win-win’ outcomes for most or all of the affected agencies. It was felt that a simple tool would help those involved to think through potential impacts and possible amelioration measures. In response to this requirement a simple spreadsheet tool was developed, with one application illustrated below.

Figure: Tool for exploring the wider consequences of a service change

25. At the professional workshop, views were expressed that this was a logical and beneficial way to proceed, BUT as it did not accord with priorities in current incentive structures within sectors (e.g. educational targets), then it would not happen. 146

Transport hardship 26. One attempt to measure transport financial hardship is described in Cain and Jones (2008), which reports on a study looking at the implications for poorer households of introducing a congestion charging scheme in Edinburgh. 27. The study concluded that hardship would be caused if the only practical option for accessing a service required the use of a car, and the cost of using the car including the congestion charge exceeded an affordability threshold. Drawing on experience from other sectors, the affordability threshold was set at 32.5% of disposable income (i.e. the proportion of disposable income currently spent on motoring costs by car owning households in the lowest three income deciles). 28. In principle, the same method could be used to identify transport financial hardship among poorer households needing to use public transport to access basic services; this would need to be linked to wider analysis of loss of income or higher purchase costs arising from limited accessibility.

Conclusions and policy recommendations 29. Accessibility is about linking people with goods and services, in ways that can be scheduled within their complex patterns of daily life, and this requires people to interact with several agencies in the course of a day. 30. Many of the accessibility problems that people experience are due to conflicting requirements of different agencies and lack of inter-agency dialogue and co- operation; these problems are not well understood or documented. 31. There need to be requirements or incentives (both within and between sectors) to encourage agencies to co-operate when developing their patterns of service provision. 32. The approaches to assessing hardship, as used in the energy industries, should be adapted for use in assessing accessibility to basic goods and services. 33. National government is effective at setting up cross-departmental initiatives to investigate problems (e.g. the Social Exclusion Unit’s investigation of transport problems), but much less good at ensuring cross sector delivery – as primary responsibility is often assigned to one department of government.

References Cain, A., and Jones, P.M. (2008). ‘Does urban road pricing cause hardship to low- income car drivers? An affordability based approach.’ Transportation Research Record. 2067, pp. 47-55. Jones, P. (2011). ‘Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups’. Research in Transportation Business and Management Vol. 2, pp. 29-41. Jones, P. (2012). ‘Developing sustainable transport for the next generation: the need for a multi-sector approach’. IATSS Special Issue on ‘Developing sustainable transport for the next generation’. Vol. 35, pp. 41-47. 147

Social Exclusion Unit (2003). Making the Connections: Final report on Transport and Social Exclusion London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

10 September 2012 148

Written evidence submitted by Transport for All

Transport for All represents London’s older and disabled transport users. We are the only UK organisation campaigning exclusively for an accesible transport system.

Summary:

• Disabled and older people face major problems accessing the UK’s transport system. These include: o physical barriers such as steps and poor signage o the rising cost of bus and trains for a population which is more likely to be living below the poverty line o attitudinal barriers such as bus drivers who refuse to let on wheelchair and scooter users and harassment from members of the public

• When travelling is painful, difficult or unsafe, disabled and older people opt to stay at home and get out and about less frequently, becoming isolated.

• The difficulties of getting out and about is perhaps the biggest factor in the exclusion of disabled people from public life – including our exclusion from work; from healthcare, from higher education; from representation in politics and from culture and sport.

• The Government’s 2025 aim is that “Disabled people have access to transportation on an equal basis with others so that they use transport as much as non‐disabled people, and feel safe and comfortable doing so, and are ensured personal mobility with greater independence.” However, other Government policies – notably the rise in rail fares; a reluctance to regulate and cuts to local authorities – have resulted in this target being undermined.

• The problems disabled people face on transport are not just unjust but also have an economic cost.

Where we are now

• 14% of the general population have mobility difficulties ‐ and almost all of us will be disabled at some point in our life. 9.8 million people in the UK are disabled.

• People with mobility difficulties make around a third fewer trips than those without difficulties

• Disabled people are disproportionately dependent on public transport: 60% have no car in their household, compared to 27% in the general population. 149

• In March 2009, only 53% of licensed taxis were wheelchair accessible.

• In 2009/10, 39% of buses in Great Britain did not meet DDA accessibility requirement s

• In London, only 66 Tube stations of 270 are stepfree to the platform ‐ 76% remain inaccessible. Even fewer are stepfree including from platform to train and can be used by those with electric wheelcha irs.

• In London, 30% of bus stops are not fully accessible, and in some boroughs – e.g. Barnet ‐ the proportion of inaccessible bus stops is as high as 66%.1

• Inaccessible transport is trapping disabled people in unemployment. 23% of disabled people have had to turn down a job because of inaccessible transport and 48% have restricted their job search because of inaccessible transport. (Mind the Gap, Leonard Cheshire Disability)

• Inaccessible transport cuts disabled people off from community and family life. 50% say they did not see friends and family as often as they’d like because of inaccessible transport and 20% find it difficult or impossible to get the healthcare they need because of inaccessible transport (Mind the Gap, Leonard Cheshire Disability)

• Disabled people were not able to board the first relevant bus to arrive at their stop in one in three of journeys surveyed – and in more than half of journeys, there was some problem with the accessible facilities on board or at the stop; or with staff. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009)

• On one in four journeys the disabled person was unable to board the first train they wanted to ‐ because of having to wait for staff availability; because the staff could not be contacted at the destination station with the Assisted Passenger Reservation Scheme; or because there was no disabled seating or space available. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009)

• On 50% of rail journeys, surveyors found some form of disappointment with the disabled facilities at the station, on the train or a poor service from members of staff. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009)

Evidence

1 Source: London Travelwatch, bit.ly/OtfB6K 150

1) Cuts to local authority funding has resulted in cuts in many areas to transport to school for disabled children; and cuts to door‐to‐door transport like Taxicard. In many London boroughs, the trip allocation for Taxicard has plummeted so many people only have enough trips to go out once a fortnight. The distance people can travel has halved. For people who are not able to use buses and trains, door‐to‐door services are a lifeline and this cut has had a very damaging effect on people’s mobility and independence. Cuts to local authority budgets have also led to a squeeze on local authorities’ ability to keep pavements clear and free of trip hazards; make bus stops accessible; and keep bus routes going. There is also anecdotal evidence that it is becoming more difficult for disabled people to get a Freedom Pass or Taxicard or Blue Badge through local authority assessments and we believe that turning people down for such benefits may be a ‘stealth cut’ in response to reduced funding.

Each of these has made it harder for older and disabled people to get out and about.

2) The EU regulation on bus and coach passenger rights would improve the rights of disabled passengers including disability equality training for all staff who deal with customers. But Transport minister Norman Baker says the coalition wants to “make use of all available exemptions in order to delay costs to industry and give them more time to prepare”. This will have a negative effect on disabled people’s ability to use buses and coaches.

3) The McNulty review suggests that rail companies in their tenders should cut their numbers of station and on‐train staff. Staff assistance is vital for disabled and older passengers and this will threaten people’s ability to travel safely.

4) The increase in rail fares has has reduced disabled people’s ability to travel at reasonable cost.

5) The increased funding for the Access for All scheme has led to more stations becoming accessible and is very much welcomed.

6) The Government is proposing to remove the statutory duty to consult with disabled people on transport issues.

1) Many transport benefits like disabled person’s railcard, Taxicard, Blue Badge and Freedom Pass are assessed on whether a disabled person has DLA. The Government plans to cut expenditure on DLA by a fifth. We are concerned that this will result in 151

fewer disabled people able to access these transport benefits and thereby having to make fewer journeys.

2) We have seen in London patients finding it harder and harder to be judged eligible for patient transport to hospital. We believe that the shrinking eligibility criteria are in response to squeezed hospital budgets.

The Papworth Trust found that a fifth of respondents had found it difficult or impossible to get the healthcare they needed because of public transport. And a 2005 Health Development Agency report found that over a year, 1.4 million people missed, turned down or chose not to seek medical help because of transport problems, at a cost of £140million to the NHS.

1) Transport‐related accessibility of services needs to take into account whether older and disabled people are disproportionately affected by the location of public services. Disabled people’s transport patterns are very different from the general public’s. Disabled people travel a third less often than the general public. Sixty per cent of disabled people have no car in the household. 2

Decision making needs to take into account the different needs of disabled people. For example, sustainability agendas to discourage driving in town centres and to services like hospitals, while generally a positive step, must retain sufficient Blue Badge parking for those who cannot walk far.

• The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

2) Only 37% of households over pension age have internet access yet so much information is not available offline Even with inititatives like Get Online, this is unlikely to change radically in the next decade. Therefore, for older people, internet access cannot mitigate the need for decent transport links.

2 http://dptac.independent.gov.uk/pubs/research/apt/03.htm

152

3) For disabled and older people no less than for the general population, going out is not simply a practical necessity for accessing public services. It is a way of keeping active and independent, of having a change of scene, of seeing others and avoiding social isolation: it is crucial to wellbeing. The idea that being able to access tele‐healthcare instead of going to the GP; e‐learning rather than participating in face‐to‐face education; doing shopping online rather than going to the local high street or corner shop, are real substitutes for going out is sinister. A virtual world cannot be substituted for older and disabled people being out and visible in the public realm.

Already, much useful information on access (for example, maps) is only available online instead of at stations. This means it is rarely seen by those for whom it would be most useful.

Transport for All reject the idea that internet access to services can mitigate the need for an accessible transport infrastructure.

Conclusion

When inaccessible transport excludes disabled people, there is a net cost the taxpayer.

When disabled people are excluded from getting a job and paying taxes, and so are forced to claim benefits; when we cannot get to the doctor or optician and so have to have healthcare at home; when we cannot do our own shopping and have to get Meals on Wheels; when we get housebound, isolated and depressed and have to use NHS mental health services , it costs the public purse. The Government‐commissioned report ‘Measuring the benefits of the Access for All Programme’ shows that there are significant economic benefits to increasing transport access.

Recommendations:

1) Reducing rail fares 2) Retain the statutory duty to consult with disabled people on transport issues 3) Monitoring accessibility criteria and complaints from older and disabled people when transport services (bus and train routes; stations) are put to franchise and including access improvements as part of the franchising process 4) The Government reject proposals in the McNulty Review to cut staff at train stations,3 who provide essential assistance to disabled and older passengers 5) A change in the law4 to ensure that all buses and coaches are equipped with the audio‐visual equipment that makes them accessible to blind and deaf people 6) Increased funding for Access for All programme to make rail stations stepfree as way of kickstarting economy 7) Protection for bus routes5 which are so essential to avoid isolation and maintain activity and independence, especially for older people6

3 ttp://www.transportforall.org.uk/news/www.transportforall.org.uk/news/unstaffed‐stations‐will‐threaten‐ disabled‐people‐s‐ability‐to‐travel 4 http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/index.php?id=1242 5 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/save‐our‐buses 153

8) Transport concessions to be made available to carers and Pas.

12 September 2012

6 http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org.uk/guest‐blogger/save‐our‐buses/ 154

Written evidence submitted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers

Introduction

The RMT is the largest of the rail unions and organises 80,000 members across all sectors of the transport industry. We negotiate on behalf of our members with some 150 employers.

RMT would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the attached report A Fare Return which was commissioned by the RMT and which deals specifically with the accessibility of Britain’s railway including affordability and the need for a ‘whole journey approach’.1

In our written evidence to the Committee, we will seek to highlight t he following points:

• Access to public services depends upon affordable public transport options, particularly bus and rail.

• Transport costs are a major barrier to using public transport for a number of social groups, including young people, older people, low income families, people with disabilities and jobseekers.

• The government’s policies on rail fares, permitting rises well above inflation, will deter many individuals and families from taking the train to access services, employment or trai n ing.

• The 20% cut t o the Bus Service Operators’ Grant from April 2012 and the 28% cut to local authority funding are devastating local bus services, with one third of local authorities in England confirming that around 1,300 bus services have been either reduced or withdrawn as a result of government cuts.

• ‘Transport poverty’ exists in the UK and should be measured annually by the Department for Transport so that it can be effectively t ackled.

1 http://www.justeconomics.co.uk/app/download/5539414250/XA_Fare_Return_final.pdf?t=133543992 9 pp.20-26

155

How are the government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

Rail

In relation to the rail network and the accessibility of public transport, RMT believes:

• That fares are a major barrier to the accessibility of public tran s p o r t

• That additional commercial freedom will lead to additional fare increase s

• That additional fragmentation will lead to additional fare increases

• That personal security of passengers affects the accessibility of the rail network

Fares

Rail fares are arguably the greatest barrier to the accessibility of public transport.

Britain has Europe’s highest commuter fares for both day returns and season tickets, and for the price of a completely restricted advance purchase ticket in Britain a passenger could generally get a fully flexible ticket in other European countries.

Commercial freedom and fares

The government’s proposals to increase the commercial freedom enjoyed by the private rail industry will inevitably lead to additional fare increases in the future, and also the neglect of less profitable parts of Britain’s rail network.

The establishment of the Rail Delivery Group, and the concurrent increase in regulated fare fares by RPI + 3% (6.2% from January 2013), clearly demonstrates the direction in which both the operation of the industry and the cost to passengers are being dragged.

Fragmentation and fares RMT believes that more fragmentation will lead to more fare increases but the government advocates the further fragmentation and privatisation of the railway by recommending the breakup of Network Rail and the sale or leasing of its assets to the private train-operating companies. These proposals, if implemented, will increase costs and reduce efficiency leading to poorer services and higher fares. Further fragmentation will also have an adverse

156

impact on the ability of the railways to contribute to strategic objectives such as helping economic growth, moving freight from road to rail and reducing carbon emissions.

One report, Rebuilding Rail, which was written by the Transport for Quality of Life think-tank published in 2012, and commissioned by the rail unions ASLEF, RMT, TSSA and UNITE, demonstrated that an average of £1.2billion per annum is leaked from the privatised rail network, and that were this leakage addressed t hrough the reintegration of the railway it would be equivalent to an 18% reduction in fares. The report showed that over £11 billion has been lost from the rail industry as a result of fragmentation and payments to shareholders since privatisation.

One example of both c ommercial freedom and fragmentation being proposed is the Scottish government’s desire to subdivide the Scottish rail network in terms of routes, fares, what is economically viable (profitable) and what is socially necessary (not profitable) in addition to creating entirely separate franchises for services such as the Caledonian Sleeper Services will be disastrous for Scotland’s railway.

RMT believes that the Scottish government’s intention to take a dual focus approach to the main franchise will see the introduction of different levels of specification and regulation on what it considers to be economically viable (profitable) or socially necessary routes.

Essentially this means shifting most of the responsibility for the socially necessary routes from the train operator onto the taxpayer and passenger, leaving the franchisee with the most profitable routes to exploit.

There is a clear danger of performance measurement differing on “economically viable” and “socially necessary” routes.

RMT believes that this agenda will greatly reduce the accessibility of the rail network through both the provision of services and fare increases and subsequently the accessibility of other public services. RMT believes that public transport should always be considered socially necessary and that this is particularly the case when the accessibility of other public services is being considered.

Personal security and accessibility

157

A lack of security for the travelling public can also significantly impact on the accessibility of the railway. There are direct associations between staffing levels and personal security.

Rail unions have identified over 20,000 jobs in the rail industry that would be “at risk” as a result of a number of recommendations arising from the McNulty Review and promoted within the government’s Rail Command Paper and the Initial Industry Plan. 14,300 of these jobs are on-train staff (6,800) and station (5,500) and ticket office (2000) staff.

• Anthony Smith, Chief Executive of Passenger Focus has stated that “all our research indicates passengers really like the re-assurance only the presence of staff can bring. Taking staff away from stations would represent a very short-term, short-sighted savin g . ”

• Passenger Focus’s National Passenger Survey shows that “personal security” and “availability of staff” are two of the worst three areas of passenger satisfaction at stations. Personal security scored more highly on trains but less than half of all rail passengers were satisfied with the availability of a guard on their t ra i n.

• Passenger Focus Wales published its report ‘The Passenger Experience at Unstaffed Stations’ in February 2011. Among its main findings were: “with 54% of passengers rating their personal security as good, 9% lower than the ATW average, personal security at unstaffed stations is a concern for many passen gers. ”

• An Independent Social Research report from April 2009 ‘Passengers’ Perceptions of Personal Security on Public Transport’ stated that: “the presence of uniformed staff provided a sense of order and authority, and gave passengers confidence that anti- social behaviour would be challenged. Women and older people in particular were reassured by staffing initiatives, and often commented that seeing staff on trains, stations and at bus stations made them feel safer.”

In respect to specific security issues facing young passengers, the report found that: “reactions to staffing initiatives – especially among older teenagers – were different for young men and young women. Most of the young women we interviewed were reassured by seeing uniformed staff on trains and stations, especially if they were travelling at night. This was the case for the staffing initiatives included on Merseyrail, Southeastern, and the Colchester to Clacton line. As with adult passengers, they liked to see an authority figure who would keep order and challenge anti-social behaviour.”

158

• In her 2005 research report ‘Women and Transport’, Kerry Hamilton of the University of East London found that: “women feel more vulnerable to attack and harassment than men and their greater concern with personal security ... This deep concern about personal security has important implications for the design of transport interchanges and waiting areas and for staffing le vels.”

The report concluded that reduced staffing levels had direct impact on the perception of women’s personal security: “the removal of conductors, as a result of One Person Operation on buses and trains, which was introduced in the 1980s and was generally commonplace by the 1990s, resulted in reduced personal security for passengers, especially women ... Therefore the quality and level of staffing on vehicles and at bus and rail stations is of vital importance.”

• In their response to the consultation on the Rail Value for Money Study, the RMT quoted research from a report by trade unions and passenger groups in relation to proposed ticket office closures on South West Trains which found that: “only 55% of passengers were satisfied with the current availability of staff at South West Trains stations. Only 62% of passengers say they are satisfied with their personal security while using South West Trains stations. Evidence suggests that staff presence is key to making passengers feel safer when taking the t r a in .”

• The ‘Women and Transport’ report published by the Scottish Executive in 2000 found that: “many transport interchanges are seen to be unsafe by women, and more isolated bus stops and unstaffed railway stations are often avoided after dark.”

• Personal safety was the issue that solicited the largest number of responses to the Scottish Executive study. The report found that: “the change which was identified most frequently related to the provision of increased staffing at stations and on public transport vehicles (as well as in car parks and cycle paths) in relation to women’s personal safety needs (57% of these respondents). Although a small number argued that an increased police presence would be beneficial, many more identified the need for an increase in public transport sta ff.”

• In her report commissioned by the Labour Party Everywoman safe everywhere, Vera Baird QC states that “a significant number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns about cuts to travel budgets and services and the corresponding impact on that could have on women’s perceptions of safety.” Removal of station and train staff a nd closures of ticket offices were chief among these concerns.

159

The Bus Industry

Three times more people travel on buses than travel on the railways, so government bus policies affect more passengers, particularly in the area that the Committee’s inquiry focuses on. Any cuts to bus funding or services also disproportionately fall on people in lower income quartiles who are more reliant on buses than any other income group.

Most significantly in the bus industry since May 2010 have been the Coalition’s decisions to cut the Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) by 20% from April 2012 and local authority funding by 28%. This has led to the reduction or loss of over one thousand bus routes, mostly the result of local authorities either severely cutting back or withdrawing completely from the provision of bus services.

Research in 2011 by the Campaign for Better Transport (CfBT), commissioned by RMT, demonstrated the serious problems, including for accessibility that the Coalition Government’s cuts to BSOG and local authority funding will cause, particularly for the following sections of the population, who rely the most on buses .

Young people

Buses provide young people in further and higher education with vital access to centres of study (colleges, universities, libraries etc), not to mention affordable access to employment, training and other public services. Access to education is particularly vulnerable to rising transport costs. As the government’s Social Exclusion Unit noted in their report ‘Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion’ from February 2003,2 a significant number of young people regularly have to decline further education places because they cannot afford the transport costs.

The cutting of the Educational Maintenance Allowance by the current government will also accentuate the increased problems young people face in using buses to access education, as transport was one of the main costs that t he EMA was used to meet.

Older people

2www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_20 06/making_transport_2003.pdf

160

Whilst older people have benefited from the introduction of concessionary schemes for bus travel, the extent of government cuts will result in some older people, especially in rural areas, not being able to access bus services at all. As we note later in this response, the number of bus services reduced or w ithdrawn as a result of current government policy is at least 1,300 to date. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that older people, who are more reliant on buses, will suffer a consequent loss of access to both bus and public services.

People on l ow incomes

Half of households in the bottom income bracket do not have access to a car – d ouble the national average of 25%. Nearly two-thirds of people receiving income support or jobseekers allowance do not have a car. As a result of this, people on low incomes take three times the number of bus journeys than people in the highest income bracket, where only 10% do not own or have access to a car.

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, quoted in the Passenger Transport Executive Group’s report in 2009 on the effect of bus fare increases on low income families found that the minimum income required to achieve an acceptable standard of living had risen sharply in recent years compared to general inflation because of “significant rises in the price of certain commodities.....such as food and public transport.”3

Jobseekers

Despite Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that jobseekers in Merthyr Tydfil could ‘get on the bus to Cardiff’4 to find work, the reality is that poor and unaffordable public transport links were the biggest barrier to employment before May 2010. The cuts to the bus sector announced since the Coalition came to power will undoubtedly have strengthened this barrier to jobseekers’ efforts to find paid employment, not to mention accessing public services.

Disabled people

3 Pg 5, http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/EDDAC371‐E793‐4B3E‐8A01‐ 06EB32EC3C17/0/Effectofbusfareincreasesonlowincomefamilies.pdf 4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9116107.stm

161

People with disabilities are more reliant on bus services than non-disabled people, and are less likely to have the choice to take a car. Cutting bus services can mean cutting people’s only independent a ccess to transport.

Rural communities

Communities in rural areas have to contend with infrequent, expensive, and in some areas nonexistent, bus services. This causes and increases social exclusion and suffering for many. People who fall into one of the above bus user groups are doubly disadvantaged if the also live in the countryside. We go on to examine the case of FirstGroup’s withdrawal from its bus contracts in North Devon in the next section which further illustrates the vulnerability of rural communities to bus service cuts.

Cuts to bus services and funding

The Campaign for Better Transport is also mapping5 the impact of the government’s cuts to bus services. From information posted by local campaigners on the CfBT map, we estimate that over 1,300 bus services have been either reduced or withdrawn in 53 local authorities (one third) in England since May 2010. This is likely to be an extremely conservative estimate, given that some local authorities, including in metropolitan areas like the West Midlands, are planning to make cuts to bus services at some stage during this parliament.

However, it should also be noted that net public funding for bus services has been on a downward trajectory in recent years, having declined by over 7% between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The loss of bus routes alone would undoubtedly affect the accessibility of public services but coupled with the ongoing problems associated with over 25 years since deregulation of bus services outside London has accentuated accessibility problems, in terms of bus passengers travelling to public services. The absence of bus fare regulation and the consequent year- on-year rises since de-regulation is a particular problem. The most recent rises demonstrate this clearly. In 2011 the cost of an annual bus pass rose above inflation and in one Arriva service in the West Midlands by a massive 20%. Similarly, bus operators exploited the lack of regulation of fares to increase the cost of a single journey above inflation, with Arriva in

5 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/save-our-buses/map

162

the West Midlands again topping the chart with a huge 22% increase on the price of a single journey between Cannock and Walsall.6

We are cynical about private bus operators’ cries of hardship in the face of 28% cuts to local authority budgets. Whilst it is obvious that rising fuel costs, as well as government cuts to BSOG and local government funding, will raise bus operators’ costs, the instant response of either huge fare increases or, in the case of First Group in Devon, cutting and running from their contracts, is only possible due to de-regulation. This will undoubtedly deter passengers from using buses and will inhibit access to public services.

In fact, the recent case of First Group’s departure from its contract in North Devon provides an up to date indication of the cut-throat nature of bus operators’ decisions when there is a reduction in available public subsidy. Despite having made an operating profit of £134.4m on its UK bus activities in the year to March 2012, the company has decided to pull out of around 50% of its UK bus operations. In North Devon in July this year, this resulted in over 100 RMT members previously employed by First Group being left in limbo by the company’s decision to cut and run, a trick FirstGroup have also pulled on a national rail franchise but which do not affect their recent successful (subject to the current legal challenge by Virgin Trains) bid for the West Coast Main Line contract.

The actions of First Group will undoubtedly affect access to public services for communities in North Devon, both in the short and long term.

In order to make amends for the damage visited on the bus industry in terms of wages and terms and conditions of the workforce, not to mention lost routes and reduced services, RMT would like to see the restoration of the National Bus Company to provide a public bus service in every region. A publicly owned bus company would be under no obligation to taxpayers and would simply be concerned with providing access to public services, goods and shops. In terms of the government’s notion of ‘localism’ this should surely be the answer to a local bus market that simply isn’t working.

Responses to de-regulation of the bus industry outside London

The failure to even countenance Quality Contracts with local authorities provides further evidence that private bus operators are not motivated by access to public services or any other social aspect to the essential public service that they provide. Indeed, some of the

6 http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/03/bus-fare-rises-outstrip-inflation

163

intemperate and hysterical language used by private operators in areas like the North East of England, where the local authority is pursuing a Quality Contract, is frankly alarming, particularly to their employees and passengers:

Les Warnford from Stagecoach made clear he found the approach “outrageous”.

Officers were told by the Stagecoach representative that the plan was considered “blackmail” and “theft to keep local authorities officers in jobs and to steal operators’ businesses”.

In a series of threats, Mr Warnford said that he “would not see his buses taken away by some foreign train operator”, as he believes has been the case with Metro, adding that “Nexus and the transport authority were operating in the same camp as Marx, Lenin and Trotsky”.

He added: “If the transport authority were successful in the European Court, they would need to be prepared to take over bus services straight away as Stagecoach would immediately cease operations. Stagecoach would not hand over any of its depots to Nexus; the company would move its buses elsewhere and make all staff redundant.”

A Go North East representative warned the quality contract scheme could ruin the firm’s plans, saying that it could “threaten Go North East investment in the region and made it less likely Go North East would hand over commercial data for any other purposes.” 7

This sort of threatening and aggressive defence of their vested interests is common in the bus industry and suggests that the recent Competition Commission’s report into Competition in the Local Bus Market8 which actually proposed greater ‘head-to-head’ competition between bus companies for bus routes, would result in a repeat of the destabilising and regressive ‘bus wars’ that were waged between operators in the 1990s.

Equally, successive governments’ tinkering at the edges of de-regulation has not worked in favour of passengers or bus workers and we would contend that this has also had a negative impact on bus passengers’ access to public services.

7 North East Journal, 4th April 2012 8 http://www.competition‐commission.org.uk/our‐work/directory‐of‐all‐inquiries/local‐bus‐services‐market‐ investigation/final‐report‐and‐appendices‐glossary

164

Whilst the Labour government were right to suggest remedies, we do not believe that for a mode of public transport as significant to people’s lives as buses should be left to the whims of the market or the political priorities of councillors. RMT believe that Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts have failed to provide an appropriate brake on the excesses of bus companies under de-regulation, with only metropolitan authorities possessing sufficient economic and political power to slow the big five bus operators’ relentless pursuit of profit.

As with other modes of public transport, RMT firmly believe that the solution to the problems caused by bus de-regulation is to remove the profit motive and to restore the clear and coherent lines of funding and accountability that come with public ownership.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment?

The lack of planning laws ensuring that public services are accessible by affordable public transport is a major oversight and contributes to this growing problem.

Similarly, the location of new schools and hospitals should reflect accessibility issues for local populations. Hospitals, for example, are already the most difficult public service to access with a car, so it follows that public transport should be made available to counter this dangerous situation. This would involve a combination of policy changes from within the Departments of Health and Communities and Local Government.

Elsewhere, school transport decisions by central and local government are becoming significant for RMT members and members of other transport unions, as some of the big five bus companies have embarked in recent years on a policy of buying up smaller bus and coach companies to serve as subsidiaries that bid for local a uthority school transport contracts. This policy will undoubtedly impact on the accessibility of schools.

An example of this is provided by Damory Coaches, a small firm in Dorset that was bought up by Go Ahead in 2011. Go Ahead also runs commercial bus routes in Dorset and our members in both Go-Ahead and Damory Coaches tell us that there is increasing amounts of cross over between the jobs they are asked to do. In the longer term this will undermine the terms and conditions of the workforce.

Go-Ahead have also bought up small bus and coach firms in Norfolk, Suffolk, Northumberland and Buckinghamshire in recent months and are expected to bid for local authority contracts through these subsidiary companies.

165

Whilst we acknowledge that this industrial issue i s not the primary concern of the Committee’s inquiry, it is significant because it demonstrates how a market led solution to the long standing concerns of teachers, parents and pupils over the standard of school transport is being pushed through without any consultation or even any impact assessment of accommodating this laissez faire option.

Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them?

Not in our view.

How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

RMT maintains that transport is also a public service which requires high levels of accessibility.

The adverse impacts for accessibility and environment are highly significant, given the fact that the a ccessibility of public transport is key to increasing modal shift.

How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

The Department for Transport is severely restricted in its role due to the government’s policy of introducing permanent austerity onto Britain’s transport industry.

In relation to the accessibility of public transport the Department for Transport’s Code of Practice on accessible train stations, drafted in co-operation with ATOC and Network Rail states that “one of the most effective ways of making services more attractive to disabled passengers is to provide properly trained staff” and continues that “all railway passengers like to know, in advance of their journey, where to go when they reach the station and how to find the appropriate train service. This is especially true of disabled passengers, who may have particular concerns about ... help available from staff.”

Additionally, the Department for Transport accessibility strategy Railways for All states that “staff are seen by many passengers, and by disabled passengers in particular, as important at times of disruption, especially unplanned engineering works or delayed trains and in improving personal security, all of which increase confidence to travel by rail.”

166

This is clearly at odds with the government driven cuts to the numbers of railway workers and staffing on trains and stations.

In terms of the bus network, the Department for Transport is not currently effective in addressing accessibility issues, largely because it does not have a regulatory role, even in London where Transport for London oversees the performance of the bus companies on the franchises in the capital.

Whilst the current Bus Minister’s emphasis on partnerships between local authorities and bus operators is a step in the right direction, it is only a small step and remains to be seen whether or not it will lead to any improvements in the affordability, reliability, extent and accessibility of local bus services in every region of England, where the DfT has notional responsibility.

However, a measure of the difficulties the government and the DfT face in improving accessibility and other areas where private bus operators consistently sell bus passengers and workers short, can be taken in Norman Baker’s own local authority in East Sussex, where spending on buses dropped by £310,000 between 2010/11 to £2,110,000 in 2011/12 and 18 bus services have been either reduced or withdrawn. At the same time, the go- ahead has been given by the DfT for the £16 million Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, clearly promoting car use over integrated public transport in the Bus Minister’s own local authority.

We are also concerned that even the modest improvements in accountability, affordability and reliability that Quality Contracts could bring to local bus services will be blocked by the government’s apparent opposition to including in the ‘Better Bus Areas’ (BBA) any local authorities that sign a Quality Contract. BBAs would attract more funding for bus services and the omission of areas under Quality Contract would effectively scupper QCs completely, despite major Integrated Transport Authorities such as Conservative-run West Yorkshire and Labour-run Tyne and Wear making moves towards QCs for their areas.

This illustrates that the DfT is unwilling, at present, to challenge the power that the big five bus operators have assumed in the bus sector outside of London as a result of de-regulation and which will continue to have negative effects on bus passenger access to key public services.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured?

167

Transport-related accessibility of public services should be measured by the ability of a passenger to reach the public service, on public transport, at reasonable cost and in a safe and secure way, and regardless of any disability.

This requires an end to unstaffed stations, unstaffed ticket offices and substantial investment in improving the accessibility of public transport.

How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations?

Monitoring the age-profile of communities might enable local transport policies to reflect the extent of reliability of local people on hospitals, schools etc but this could also make the local transport budget more vulnerable to political whim, particularly if those funds are not ring fenced.

Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations?

We do not believe that they should conflict, as social need should promote the most accessible and sustainable forms of transport (buses and trains) over the car.

Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

RMT believes that a measure of transport poverty should be introduced and should be taken into account when the government is considering matters should as fare increases.

As the recent Sustrans report9 has demonstrated, ‘transport poverty’ already exists in the UK and we believe that i t should be measured and mapped by the DfT on an annual basis.

14 September 2012

9 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/lockedout

168

Written evidence submitted by Sustrans

Summary

1. Sustrans welcome the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry and this opportunity to contribute. We agree that accessibility should not be seen as just a transport problem, a nd that a wide range of policies – in health, education, housing, planning, welfare and taxation – s hould give greater priority to tackling transport poverty and ensuring that people are able to access essential public (and other) services.

2. Access to public services is part of a wider problem of transport poverty. Although transport poverty is not widely recognised and there are no measures to tackle it, millions of people face barriers to accessing public services because of the costs of car ownership and the absence of practical alternatives. Sustrans’ recent report, Locked Out, highlights the issue of transport poverty in England, defines and assesses the scale of the problem, and proposes a number of policy measures to tackle it.1

3. Sustrans wants to see a wider public debate around the issue of transport poverty. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to get transport poverty recognised alongside fuel poverty as a meaningful concept, and to frame recommendations to tackle its consequences for millions of people across the UK. Sustrans has identified the following recommendations in our report:

4. Practical measures including: promoting alternatives to full car ownership; making public transport available to all through conventional and demand responsive services; incr easi n g awareness of existing alternatives; and making walking and cycling safer by developing high quality walking and cycling networks and instating 20mph as the default national speed limit.

5. Action by local government including: introducing smart ticketing to improve access to the best value fares and concessions; pooling local authority vehicle fleets sitting unused whilst travel needs go un-met; and undertaking a strategic analysis of public transport demand to make more complicated journeys e asi e r.

6. Action by national government including: redeploying a proportion of the existing £1 billion school transport budget to active travel; refocusing public transport subsidies; targeting affordable fare schemes; securing a cross government commitment to tackling transport poverty; and reviewing accessibility planning. 169

7. Rather than attempting to tackle transport poverty through cutting fuel duty, the hypothecation of additional revenues to create a fund to invest in increasing transport choice would ensure that people are not trapped in transport poverty by the costs of car ownership and the absence of alternatives. The postponement of last month’s fuel duty rise cost £550 million in just five months: almost the total amount invested in the Local Sustainable Transport Fund over four years. This money could and should be used to tackle the root causes o f t ransport poverty, rather than increasing our dependence on cars to access essential public servic e s.

Introduction

8. This submission provides a summary of Sustrans’ views, based in part on our practical work over three decades to improve people’s access to opportunities in education, training and employment through independent and active means of travel:

• We create networks of walking and cycling routes to create safe routes that enable people to get about more easily and safely on foot and by bike. For instance we work with local authorities to link homes, schools, local services and employers to the National Cycle Network, which is used for over a million active jour n eys every day. The design standards for the Network call for the routes to be suitable for use by a novice adult cyclist, a family with young children or an unaccompanied twelve-ye a r - old.

• We work with people in communities, schools, colleges, further and higher education institutions, and with jobseekers and those in work, to change travel behaviour and create a pro-cycling and walking culture. For instance Sustrans’ Bike I t officers have worked successfully with thousands of schools across the UK, typically doubling levels of cycling and reducing car trips while improving young people’s confidence to travel safely and independently for other trips.2

• We work to influence policy and practice. For instance Sustrans policy call More Haste Less Speed called for action and investment by government to realise the potential that exists for over 80% of local journeys to be made by walking, cycling or public transport.3 Our curre nt work on transport poverty, in partnership with Save the Children and Age UK, aims to achieve wider recognition of the issue and the urgent need for both p o licy and practical measures to ta c kle it.

Transport poverty

9. Sustrans has recently released a report, Locked Out, which highlights the issue of transport poverty in England, provides an assessment of the scale of the problem, and proposes a 170

number of policy measures to tackle it.4 This builds on previous work in Wales.5 A detailed series of maps and an explanation of the methodology that underlies our assessment and mappi n g o f transport p o ve r ty is annexed to this submission.

10. There is no officially accepted measure of transport poverty and no strategies are in place to address it, but our figures show that millions of people are already affected or are at risk of being cut off from opportunities and essential services including education, work and healthcare because of the rising costs of car ownership and a lack of practical alternatives. Transport poverty is a complex issue, but it is a growing problem with a c lea r negative impact on millions of people across the UK, forced to c hoose between car ownership they simply cannot afford or being unable to access key public services and other facili t ies.

11. Our report outlines a package of policy measures that will tackle transport poverty, increase transport choice and improve access to public services and jobs. With up to half of low income househo lds already car-less, it is clear that policies which focus solely on reducing fuel costs will fail, and would also require government to take on an additional financial burden that is only forecast to rise. Improving accessibility by investing in alternatives and planning to minimise the need for car ownership would not only address growing social and environmental concerns but would also help us build a stronger, more resilient economy, improving access to opportunities, encouraging investment and reducing congestion, while also cutting carbon emi s s i o n s.

12. Unlike fuel poverty, at the moment there is no officially accepted def in i ti o n o f transport poverty and no strategies are in place to address the issue. Sustrans wants urgent action to ensure that everyone has access to the opportunities and services they need, regardless of where they live. This inquiry offers an opportunity for the committee to widen the public debate about transport poverty, its definition and scale, and how best to tackle it.

Current transport policies

13. For decades, transport policy has focused on the needs of motorists and has assumed that everyone has access to a car. Sustrans is concerned that current transport policies – for instance bus grant reforms, increases in rail fares and the loss of ringfenced investment in cycling – are continuing to reduce people’s ability to access key public services without 171

the use of a car. As a key element of current t ransport policy, we are also concerned that planned infrastructure investment in roads are likely to further increase car dependence, for instance by enabling the development of additional road-based out-of-town employment and shopping sites rather than accessible local services.6

14. Our transport poverty report highlights the problems arising from a transport policy that is focused on car use. Schools, hospitals, job opportunities, leisure facilities and shops have become inaccessible to many. In rural areas, where activities and services are more widely dispersed, high public transport costs, inadequate information and non-existent, infrequent or impractical transport services are major concerns.7 A lack of transport options limits school choice and young people’s educational opportunities, whil e p oo r access to health facilities can mean that people miss health appointments or suffer delays in being discharged from hospital.8

15. In terms of public transport, we a gree that p olicy and investment should ensure that it mee t s four tests set out recently by PTEG – that it be available, accessible, affordable and acceptable for all – but this is clearly not the case at the moment, particularly in rural England.9 Public transport systems could be improved through more effective coordination and brokerage of conventional services; demand responsive transport and taxibus operators; school, community transport and volunteer car schemes; car sharing; and pooling existing assets such as private cars and local authority vehicles. We would urge the committee to explore the potential that exists to tackle transport poverty through better targeting of public transport funding and policy in order to address transport-related social exc l u s ion.

Other policies

16. Evidence demonstrates that land use planning policy has a significant influence on how people travel, most notably on how close key local facilities and opportunities (e.g. schools and jobs) are to where people live. Solutions such as travel planning, new bus services and cycle routes are can only partially mitigate the consequences of poor site choice, for instance locating shops and hospitals on out of town sites which are expensive or take longer to access without a private car. Sustrans is very concerned that the new National 172

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gives accessibility planning a low priority, and urges the committee to recommend that national and lo cal planning policies should ensure that key facilities are in locations that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.10

17. Sustrans is particularly concerned by the lack of accessibility planning in education policy, as young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of transport poverty. Evidence suggests that children from low income families without private means of transport miss out on opportunities in education, training and employment: 40% of young people have said that their decisions on post-16 education had been influenced by the availability of transport, particularly in rural areas.11 Trends towards increasing school travel distances, school choice and travel within the school day for older children has heightened the need for affordable travel for young people. Withdrawal of support for educational travel has already had a disproportionate effect on access to educati o n f or young people in lower income families.12

18. In Sustrans’ experience, transport is frequently overlooked in the planning and design of new public services schools, HE and FE institutions, despite school travel contributing 17% of the carbon footprint of the education sector. This situation may be due to l ack of knowledge of young people’s travel needs, and previous guidance which has focused on building design with little information about the importance of site selection, site planning and local transport facilities. There is a strong case for updating and improving existing guidance on cycle and car parking and pl anning for higher levels of sustainable transport and lower levels of car use as a means of increasing choice of travel modes f or young people.13 We would welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in making recommendations to education and local government ministers on this issue.

19. Providing safe walking and cycling routes and promoting a ctive travel can bring about significant travel behaviour change. For example Sustrans’ work in schools consistently doubles cycling and achieves an 11% reduction in regular car use on school journeys. As a result of investment in packages of measures to promote sustainable travel in the Sustainable Travel Towns, car use fell by around 10% and transport-related carbon emissions fell significantly, enabling employment and housing growth without creating unacceptable levels of congestion. Car use fell but access to services improved through better information about travel options, and by improving those that were on offer.14

20. There is significant potential for accessibility planning to play a key role in job creation, welfare and wider economic policy. For instance there is good evidence that investment in alternatives to the car can be effective in tacking worklessness and enabling people to 173

return to work. In Liverpool, the Workwise Wheels scheme improved access to employment and removed transport barriers through providing bikes, public transport passes and mopeds. Bikes for 349 low income jobseekers resulted in 296 retained or new jobs at a cost of £151 per job, at half the c ost of providing travel passes or mopeds.15 In South Yorkshire, new cycling and walking routes in the Dearne Valley are enabling sustainable travel to employment and training sites, connecting areas of high worklessness and low educational attainment to employment and training.16

21. Recent work by Centre for Cities highlights the potential for smaller scale and low cost transport measures (including active travel and travel behaviour change) t o address the existing mismatch between areas with j ob vacancies and high unemployment, and the loss of low income occupations from city centres to out-of town retail and business parks.17 Sustrans agrees with the conclusion that ‘Lower skilled workers’ spatial mobility is more constrained than higher skilled workers …Welfare to work policy needs to look beyond its core remit and work with partners from across other policy areas, such as transport and planning.’18

Local transport plans

22. Sustrans welcomes the DfT’s work on access to key public services - indeed we have used it in developing our own definition of transport po verty - but although this indicates the scale of the problem it is unclear that it is driving either access improvements for existing public services or accessibility planning for new ones. For instance, a number of new hospitals are being developed on sites that are difficult to access by public trans p ort. This highlights the problem with accessibility being seen as solely or largely a transport issue at both national and local lev e l.

23. It is unfortunate that this approach tends to suggest that accessibility is an issue which local transport plans can “solve”, rather than one which needs to be addressed through coordination of policy and investment at both national and local levels. In developing this framework, little thought has also been given to whether the accessible services are those that people need or want. For example, a local shop selling basic groceries may be within the predetermined limits, but may not provide the range of fresh produce needed to 174

maintain a healthy, balanced diet, and food is often far more expensive than it would be from a supermarket.

24. Sustrans is concerned that existing Local Transport Plans (LTPs) do little in terms of creating an environment that enab les access by active travel, and levels of investment in alternatives to car use remains low.19 One of the major obstacles is the obesogenic physical environment we live in, for example polluted, congested and dangerous roads which deter walking and cycling. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has made recommendations on how to improve the physical environment to encourage physical activity.20 These have been adopted in Swansea.21 The committee may wish to recommend that local and national government in England adopts this guidance to improve the environment for active travel.

25. The availability of safe routes is a key factor in determining whether people are able to travel actively, whether walking to the bus stop, cycling to school or commuting by train and bike. Safe routes may be on-road, off-road and/or traffic-free, and are most effective as part of a package of measures including marketing and behaviour change initiativ e s. Sustrans’ defines a safe routes in terms o f u ser attitudes and behaviour (i.e. are people actually happy to use it) rather than technical standards of highway design (e.g. path widths). Evidence points to the importance of segregated Dutch-style cycle infrastru c t u r e - as well as slower speeds and reallocating road space from cars to cyclists and pedestrians - in persuading more than a minority of people to regard cycling as a safe and viable alternative to car use.

26. The White Paper on the Active Travel (Wales) Bill sets out proposals to require local authorities to identify, map, plan and deliver a n etwork of routes that are safe and appropriate for walking and cycling. This will create a network of safe routes of the type that already exists in other European countries such as the Netherlands, where young people make the majority of their daily trips by bike or on foot, transforming young people’s travel. We would urge the committee to recommend that similar mechanisms for local authorities be adopted in England, together with an ambitious vision for increasing active tr a vel.

27. Our report on transport policy recommends that there should be a review of ‘accessibility planning’ as a valuable mechanism in tackling social exclusion. This should involve government departments responsible for health, education, planning, welfare, employment in order to better support local authorities in using accessibility plan n i n g 175

tools, focusing particularly on access to the o pportunities that have the most impact on life chances (such as work, learning and he althcare. We would urge the committee to recommend that accessibility planning should become a cross-departmental agenda, rather than one that DfT is solely responsible f o r.

Measuring accessibility

28. Sustrans agrees that a better measure of the transport accessibility of key public services would be very useful, and our definition of transport poverty is intended to provide a starting point. Transport poverty is a complex issue and is therefore inherently difficult to measure. For the purposes of our transport poverty report, w e developed a new methodology based on three indicators that could be used as proxy measures for each of the issues faced: access to eight key services in less than an hour using walking, cycling or public transport; distance from the nearest bus or rail service; and family income. Combining these indicators has enabled us to estimate the level of risk that people living in a particular area face of being in transport poverty.

29. These figures are robust but are not intended to be definitive, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to stimulate a wider debate on how to define and assess transport poverty. We strongly agree that such a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, would be useful.

30. We do not take the view that social and accessibility concerns necessarily conflict with environmental considerations: indeed by ensuring that more public and other services are available locally, this is likely to reduce carbon emissions, particularly if this is done alongside measures to increase low carbon and active travel i.e. walking and cycling.

Alternatives to travel

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services. 176

31. Sustrans recognises the important role that alternatives to travel may play in improving access to some public services, but we would question whether this is likely to be a solution in the short term, or for all services, or for those most at risk of transport poverty. There are many essential public services – education and healthcare for instance – which are likely to require a physical journey for the foreseeable future. Also many of the groups at greatest risk of transport poverty (e.g. lower income groups, older people, rural communities) are among those who also face the greatest barriers to accessing gateway services such as high speed broadband. There is good evidence that alternatives, including measures to change travel behaviour and increase active travel, offer more immediate and low cost ways to improve access to public services without additional high-cost transport infrastructure.22

18 September 2012

177

Written evidence submitted by Patsy Ormrod, Wyre Council

I am writing in connection with the above, to give you a small insight to some of the problems we are experiencing here in Wyre. As you will know Wyre Borough has one of the oldest populations in Lancashire (44.5%, with 49% aged 50 and over), and as I am Wyre’s designated Lead Member for the Older People, I am increasingly concerned about the problems they are encountering, due to cut-backs in public transport.

• Many bus routes taken out of service completely on initial announcement of cut-backs, eg the No 2 to Poulton and No 84 to Bispham, both of which go through Thornton. • No 84 bus service used to be every 20 mins – now only half ho url y • No 84 always went to Blackpool Victoria Hospital – it has now been taken off during the daytime hour s • No 84 service to Bispham from Thornton has been terminated • No 14 to St.Annes direct from Fleetwood no longer continues to St.Annes but now terminates at Marton, Blackpool • No 14 going North from Blackpool no longer continues to Freeport Shopping Centre in Fleet w ood

With regard to the No 84 service no longer going to the hospital, this is the one causing so much stress for many elderly residents, as they are the ones who most frequently need to go there, either for appointments or to visit friends and relatives. It is also an inconvenience to other age groups dependant on this service as well, especially for parents with children who are struggling to get there, as now the only way from Thornton, without a car, is to catch a bus to Poulton-le-Fylde and wait for a connection for another bus to get to the hospital.

To add insult to injury the No 84 does now run a service to the hospital, BUT ONLY IN THE EVENING FROM 7PM. To expect the elderly to travel on a bus to hospital at that time of night, especially on dark winter nights is unbelievable.

I mentioned above that this service used to run every 20 mins, but since it abandoned continuing on to the hospital, it now only runs every half hour, which makes no sense at all, as it is now a considerably shorter distance to travel without the extra journey time to the hospital, so in effect could run more frequently.

Keeping with the No 84,which used to travel to Bispham, the way to get there now is to first catch a bus to Cleveleys and then catch another bus heading to Bispham. This again is an inconvenience, and time consuming for people going to work etc, but not an option for many elderly, as it is just too much of an effort or a strain on them to be able to manage to do this.

The No 14 discontinued service from Fleetwood to St.Annes was a very popular direct route. To attempt it now takes up most of a morning, as most people travel to Blackpool town centre and then wait to catch another bus to continue their journey. There are many buses going from Blackpool, and it is only by trial and error to find the quickest one, as many go up and down so many different roads, and in some cases almost seem to go backwards before finally arriving at their destination. You really do lose the will to live, especially having travelled so long to get there.

Still with the No.14 and the cessation of the service to Freeport. This is a very popular shopping centre for the elderly, which also had a marina and many coffee and food outlets to spend a pleasant visit, as well as the shopping itself. Now that the bus no longer goes there, residents have to alight in Fleetwood Town Centre, walk to a very busy and dangerous dual carriageway which they have to cross over, and then to walk from one end to the other of a large car park before coming to the entrance of Freeport. Needless to say, this is just to much for many elderly people to attempt. It’s not even that Freeport is a lot further to travel once in Fleetwood, not even 5 minutes in time. 178

Not only are older people having to struggle to make necessary hospital visits, which many will now be unable to do so, but they are unable to enjoy the things that most people take for granted, and that is to simply enjoy getting out of their houses where they are alone, to shop, to visit friends, to visit a local park etc, to generally just to see other people.

Social isolation is on the increase, and without the means of easy access to regular public transport as an “escape” for these residents, one of the side-effects will be for more illnesses to develop, both physical, and mental which in itself can lead to physical illness.

6 September 2012 179

Written evidence submitted by Simon Trevan, support worker, Plymouth City Council

Background Part of my role and the role of St George Community Resource Centre, within Plymouth City Council is to support adults with learning disabilities to access community based facilities, usually facilities such as sports centres, shops and voluntary work places.

Where possible we enable people to access public transport services, mainly buses.

The people that we support, in the St George CRC, require support to access these services. There are a few people attending St George who can access transport (buses and taxis) independently.

There are many people in Plymouth, with Learning Disabilities, who live more independently (living on their own or in supported living situations) than attendees at St George (mainly living in their family homes).

To support this group of people a Consultation Event relating to transport and associated issues was launched to help enable access to public transport and thus services that people need within their communities.

Consultation Event Slides from the Transport Consultation Event held in Plymouth have not been reproduced here.

Part of the event was to gather feedback from people who attended to inform the council and other service delivery.

Below is the feedback as recorded.

180

Transport Event Consultation Feedback What’s good about travelling on buses and taxis? Buses Taxis • Get on with the drivers (poli t e ) • Availability – particularly taxis • Can get any bus, on a good bus route • You get to your destination quicker when in • It’s free x 2 a taxi • Drivers telling people that are drunk to get • Taxi be t ter - w ait out in the cold bu s stop off the bus • Taxis – are quick e r - n ot waiting f or a bus • Some people enjoy travelling on buses • Lots of taxis, more than b u ses • Nice people on the bus • Taxis come to your doo r • Nice bus drivers • I like to travel on taxis then buses - too • To help to travel around many people on buses • Safe on the bus • Gets yo u to A-B • Lots of buses on different routes, most areas cove red • Nice scenery • Drivers are very helpful x 2 • Buses have cameras to help protect the passengers • I got no problems with buses • I can use my bus pas s x 3 • Indepe ndence • Warm and clean • Ok when they are on time • Great as I have a bus pas s x 2 • Being able to get out and about x 2 • Key card good for travelling • Frequency of First – Park and Ride Milehouse Service • Get’s you to your destination • I can travel independ e ntly • Park and ride a lot cheaper

Transport Event Consultation Feedback 181

What’s bad about travelling on buses and taxis? Buses Taxis • Journeys take too long • Taxis are very expensive x 9 • Move off before you sat down x 2 • I don’t trust taxi dr i vers • Not enough time to set o f f • Taxi far e starts o ff before it sets off • Paying for suppo r t st a f f • You can not eat food in Taxis • They don’t run on time and are always late x • Taxis are not safe 4 • Some taxi drivers, pedestrians make me • The teenagers swear a lot on the bus feel ner v ous • Rude and unhelpful driver s x 5 • Bad time keeping for buses and taxis • The bus service stops too early on a • Taxis don’t always park on the right side of Sunday x 2 the road and I don’t feel safe crossing on • Prices on the bus my own. • Need to put more buses • Relying on staff to book my taxis, I would rather do it my self • Not letting blind people sit down before setting off • Need more room for prams and wheelchairs • Cost (concessions) before 9:30 am • Dodgy readers • Support worker (named – n ot n a med ) • Multi-trip – (£1.50 per journey) – share? Just Plymouth?

• Not park and ride • Don’t turn up on time or don’t turn up at all x 5 • Buses break down often, people left standing outside in the c o ld x 3 • When buses are running late they will drive through on amber light or they don’t stop at the bus stop at all • Too expensive • Too man y lights • People at the back of the drive r • Bad time keeping for buses and taxis

What’s bad about travelling on buses and taxis? continued 182

Buses Taxis • Prices of bus fares went up just before Christmas, no explanation why prices went up just a notice on a board. But some people with learning disabilities did not understand or could not read it. • School kids do not give up their seats for the needy • Lots of drunken people on buses x 2 • Drivers not happy • School kids vandalise the seats and play around on the buses • Not enough time to get up off the seat • Not many buses on Sundays when most people need to travel • Some buses are overcrowd e d • Not enough buses on certain days (weekends, holidays) • Drivers don’t wait if they see you rushing for the bus • Confusing timetable to figure out (holidays etc) • Not happy because we cannot use bus passes before 9:30 • Sometimes people are bullied on the bus and the driver may not have noticed • Some buses have litter on th e f loo r • Where to catch the bus • Waiting outside in the cold bus stop • Me and my mum don’t like the bus being late • Sometimes have to walk too far • More money

183

Transport Event Consultation Feedback What would make travelling on buses and taxis better?

Buses Taxis

• Making the timetables easier to understand, • Taxis should be cheaper - stick to a firm you explaining things b e t t e r trust • Making the timetable more realistic – length • Taxis drivers should treat people b e t t e r of time it takes a bus to travel from one place to a n othe r • Taxis are expensive, they should be cheaper to use x 2 • More buses on th e r oad • Have taxis drivers CRB checked • Would like to use travel pass before 9:30 x 7 • Provide a taxi service that is suited to • More security cameras on b o ard transport vulnerable adults • Cheaper tickets x 2 • Proper monitoring of cars and drivers • To lower floor more to make it easier to get • All women taxi service on • More CCTV in taxis and buses • More room for prams and wheelchair s x 2

• Make buses that don’t break down • The bus arriving on time and being more reliable x 4 • More ‘electronic table’ information at bus stops • Patience and understanding of my disa b i l ity • I want to be able to use my free bus pass x 2 • Sunday times more frequent • More buses at peak times • Better communci ation • Rural buses stop early in the evening prepare to have later b u ses • More drivers and more buses/route

184

Transport Event Consultation Feedback What would make travelling on buses and taxis better? Buses Taxis

• Timetables easier to read, digital screens are easie r • More CCTV in taxis and buses • Having good looking bus drivers, not having bad tempered ones • Letting people get on with a £5 note and refusing them and telling them to get change from the shop and missing the bus • More considerate st a f f • Drivers could be more polite and friendlier and more patient x 2 • The drivers being more helpful x 3

5 September 2012

185

Written evidence submitted by the Government

Introduction

1. The Government welcomes the Committee’s timely inquiry into transport and accessibility to public services.

2. The Government acknowledges the findings in the 2003 report by the then Social Exclusion Unit, that problems with transport provision and the location of services can prevent people from accessing not just key public services such as learning and health care, but also activities such as employment, food shopping or leisure, and visiting family and friends.

3. The Government recognises that accessibility has many different guises. Whether people are able to get to key services will depend on being able to overcome barriers such as the availability and physical accessibility of transport, the cost of transport, safety and security, travel horizons and staff attitudes.

A research study carried out by the Commission for Rural Communities - Rural Insights 2009,1 found the following:

... “Transport was mentioned ...... as having a significant impact on people’s lives. Ten out of 12 groups felt the public transport available in their local area was inadequate. Major barriers to use were infrequency and lack of flexibility, and the cost, which was seen as high. People’s ability to access and participate in many other aspects of life, such as employment, education, health services and shopping, was largely contingent upon their access to transport. In most conversations on these issues, the lack of access to adequate transport was raised as a contributing factor to experiencing other types of disadvantage. For example, lack of access to a car meant some participants were unable to access suitable employment opportunities.”

4. Accessibility also depends on where those services and activities are located. There are relatively few areas of the country with totally inadequate transport links, but some areas are clearly better served than others. Those in rural and small urban areas are 2-3 times more likely to report that their local bus service is fairly or very infrequent than those living in other urban areas.2 Rural areas w ith low population densities may not support a public transport network. Only 50% of households in villages and hamlets have an hourly or better bus service within 13 minutes’ walk (compared with 96% of households in urban areas).3 In other areas, it may be the distance (and hence cost) to services and facilities, rather than a lack of transport, that defines the level of accessibility. The cost of running a car for people located in

1 Qualitative Research into Rural Deprivation, OPM, for Commission for Rural Communities 2009/10 2 Ad hoc analyse of 2010 National Travel Survey (GB) Table NTS0802 by type of area: 31% of adults living in rural areas, 20% of adults living in small urban areas (population of 3,000‐10,000) and 8% of adults living in other urban areas reported local bus services as ‘fairly infrequent’ or ‘very infrequent’. 3 State of the Countryside Report 2010 186

villages and hamlets is approximately 20% higher than urban areas and rural towns4 and residents in villages and hamlets spend 20–30% more on transport than those in urban areas.5

5. The Government recognises that accessibility can also have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, those on low incomes, whether in rural or urban communities, may be poorly served by public transport. Around a fifth (22%) of disabled people across the country report having difficulties related to their impairment or disability in accessing transport.6 The Department for Transport (DfT) will be publishing a disability action plan at the end of September 2012.

6. Many older people also rely heavily on public or community transport to access facilities or services such as healthcare. Approximately 350,000 (35%) of pensioner households in rural areas have no access to a car or van.7 Driving licence holding is lower for older people, and fewer older women hold driving licences than older men, meaning that older people (particularly older women) are disproportionately dependent upon public or community transport. In 2010, 78% of men aged 70+ held a full car driving licence compared to 90% of those aged 50-59, and 41% of women aged 70+ held a full car driving licence compared to 77% of those aged 50-59.8 The majority (78%) of eligible pensioners hold a concessionary travel pass and, on average, those aged 60 and over make more trips by local bus than those aged 30- 59.9 An increasing older population means that reliance upon public or community transport will also increase. This has implications for public service provision. This is exacerbated by the higher proportion of older people living in rural areas.10

7. These problems are particularly acute in rural areas (see definition at Annex 1) - 19.1%, or nearly a fifth of the population, live in rural areas and transport is therefore critical to the social and economic viability of rural areas. Evidence suggests that the decline in rural services disproportionately affects women living in rural areas.

4 State of the Countryside Report 2010, Commission for Rural Communities 5 State of the Countryside Report 2010 6 Office for Disability Issues sponsored module from the Office for National Statistics’ Opinions survey, 2011 http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability‐statistics‐and‐research/disability‐equality‐indicators.php#f2 7 Based on Census 2001 (no car or van estimates at LSOA level for pensioner households. Figure is expressed as a proportion of all pensioner households (2001 Census). This compares with 41% of pensioner households in non remote areas) 8 2010 National Travel Survey Table NTS0201 9 2010 National Travel Survey Table NTS620 (Take‐up of concessionary travel schemes) and NTS0601 (average number of trips per person per year) 10 Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications, Office for National Statistics, 2011http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/images/rt43-rural-urban- areas_tcm97-107562.pdf 187

The Office of Fair Trading recently published a report11 Prices and Choice in Remote Communities (March 2012) which stated:

“It can be costly to access options that are further afield and some consumers may be uncomfortable using, or do not have access to, the internet. People without cars, driving licences or with limited access to public transport will also find their range of options constrained. Even for those who own a car, high fuel prices are a very pressing concern.....”

“.....publicly subsidised buses play an important part in giving consumers more choice about where and from whom to buy goods and services from the private sector or even which public services to use, which in turn drives competition in private markets and choice in public markets.”

8. The Government recognises that transport has a key role to play in improving accessibility and, as such, has a key role to play in helping deliver the Government’s wider agenda – economic growth, social inclusion, environmental protection and carbon reduction. This is reflected in the fact that the Department for Transport is providing £600m through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) to support the delivery of 96 sustainable transport packages across the country, aimed at promoting local economic growth and reducing c arbon emissions.

9. The evidence presented here focuses on land transport and, in particular, public transport – it does not cover air and maritime services though it is acknowledged that these have a particularly important role to play in some communities. Nor does the evidence focus on the private car, although again it is acknowledged that the car has an important role to play, especially for those who live in areas where public transport is not available, or who cannot physically access public transport.

Buses 10. Outside London, 63% of all public transport trips are made on a local bus; t here were 2.3 billion bus journeys in 2010/11. Many people rely on their local bus to get to school, to work, to the doctor, to visit their friends and family, or to go shopping. Given their importance in providing employers and businesses access to labour markets, buses are important for a well-functioning and growing economy.

11. Through a combination of bus company investment, local council infrastructure improvements and Government regulation and funding, buses are more accessible with more high-tech information and ticketing facilities for passengers than ever before.

11 Price and Choice in Remote Communities’ March 2012 188

12. Some 85% of households in England (excluding London residents) live within a six minute walk of a bus stop, and the more people that can be encouraged out of their cars and onto buses, the greater the positive impact on congestion, air quality and noise pollution in our towns and cities. A Green Light for Better Buses 13. In March 2012, the Government announced a series of reforms to improve the system of local bus subsidy and regulation in England. These are set out in the paper ‘A Green Light for Better Buses’. The Government’s vision is for a ‘better bus’ with more of the attributes that we know passengers want: more punctual, inter- connected services, an even greener and more fully wheelchair and buggy- accessible fleet, and the widespread availability of smart ticketing. The proposals have been carefully formulated to attract more people onto buses, to ensure better value for the taxpayer and to give local transport authorities more influence over their local bus networks. Programme of Action 14. The DfT recognises that all bus markets are local, and so is taking different approaches to commercial and supported bus services. The Department’s aims are to:

• Reform the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) to ensure better value for money and to cut the link with fuel us a ge .

• Make the bus more attractive through partnership between local transport authorities and operators and the correct subsidy incentives – thereby increasing passenger numbers and providing more, better quality ser vi c es.

• Increase competition by implementing the Competition Commission’s recommendations (includi n g o n multi-operator ticketin g ).

• Encourage innovation in procurement and service delivery at the local authority level to get more for l e s s.

15. These proposals aim to build on existing DfT investment in bus travel made through major scheme funding, the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Better Bus Area Fund and Community Transport Funding. Concessionary Travel 16. The right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in Primary Legislation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed the Government's commitment to protect key benefits for older people, such as free bus travel, in the 2010 Spending Review.

189

17. Around £1bn a year is now being spent on concessionary travel. There was a change in 2010 to the age of eligibility for the national entitlement, which should help with the longer term financial sustainability of the statutory concession.

18. Local Authorities spent the following on concessionary travel, the majority of which is for reimbursing bus operators for the statutory concession, but spend also includes authorities' own discretionary enhancements such as free travel in the morning peak as well as scheme administration costs: ¾ 2008/09: £0.990 b i llion ¾ 2009/10: £1.000 b i llion ¾ 2010/11: £1.072 b i llion ¾ 2011/12: not yet published

19. Local authorities have the freedom to offer additions to the statutory minimum local bus travel concession, as well as alternatives such as taxi tokens/cards. [See case studies 1 and 2 – A nnex 3 ]

Bus Service Operators Grant 20. BSOG is currently paid by DfT to bus operators in order to support local services. In 2012/13, BSOG payments are expected to total around £360 million. At present, BSOG is paid quarterly, based on an estimate of how much fuel operators will use during their claim year.

21. In ‘A Green Light for Better Buses’, the Government set out policy proposals for reforming bus subsidy. These reforms include:

o devolution of BSOG to local authorities where the funding relates to services they support – i.e. tendered services – to allow decisions to be taken locally on how it should be spent; o devolution to Transport for London (TfL) of BSOG paid to London bus operators who operate services on contract t o TfL; o possible changes to the incentive payments which bus companies may qualify for; and o tightening the existing rules defining which bus services can claim BSOG, so that the funding is put to the best possible use.

Better Bus Area/Green Bus Funding 22. In March 2012, DfT announced the winning bidders for the £70m Better Bus Area and £31m Green Bus Fund competitions. Together, this package will encourage people onto the bus, cutting congestion, improving air quality, promoting a low carbon transport infrastructure and encouraging growth.

23. Projects under these two funds will help drive forward bus travel in England, helping to buy, amongst other things: 190

• the development of hop-on hop-off multi-operator tickets that put spontaneity back into the hands of the passen g er; • real time information (including audio visual systems) for bus passengers and for bus operators to cut down waiting time and prevent buses bunching up; • smarter traffic lights that recognise buses and give them priority with barely an impact on other traffic; and • lead local transport authorities across England will benefit from the £70m Better Bus Area Fund. 24. The Government has also supported retrofitment of pollution abatement equipment to buses in London, to reduce pollution. Defra has provided funding to local authorities, such as Oxford and Norwich, to support bus-based low emission zone initiatives. Competition Commission 25. DfT has made clear throughout the two years of the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the UK Bus market that what matters is encouraging more passengers onto buses, and getting best value for the considerable amounts of money the taxpayer puts into local bus markets. The Competition Commission has a particular and well defined remit that is more narrowly focused on ensuring competition takes place.

26. Nonetheless, the remedies it has suggested will provide real benefits to passengers by encouraging new players into local bus markets, and helping bus passengers understand the public transport options open to them. So, for example, there will be better quality buses and information through partnership working between local transport authorities, and more tickets that can be used on any bus operator on a given route.

Physical Accessibility on Buses 27. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport services and opportunities to travel as other members of society. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a bus operator to discriminate against a disabled person simply because they are disabled, treat disabled people less favourably or fail to make a reasonable adjustment to the way they provide their services.

28. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) require facilities such as low floor boarding devices, visual contrast on step edges, handholds and handrails, priority seats and provision for passengers in wheelchairs. All buses carrying more than 22 passengers used on local or scheduled services will be required to be fully PSVAR compliant by 2015, 2016 or 2 017 (depending on the bus type). The transition will take place over time and transport operators will inevitably use a mixed fleet of accessible and non-accessible vehicles.

29. Latest statistics (March 2011) show that 60% of buses in Great Britain (almost 100% in London) meet these accessibility requirements, and 85% are low floor. The 191

Government will continue to monitor progress towards full compliance with PSVAR. The DfT will liaise with bus companies to ensure investment in accessible buses remains on track.

Taxis 30. The Government has asked the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) legislation. They are consulting from May to September 2012. The final report and a draft Bill is due in December 2013. The Commission’s consultation document asks for views about how to make most appropriate provision for people with disabilities. The Government will be responding to the consultation in due course.

31. The Government has commenced a number of the taxi sections in the Equality Act 2010, principally those which simply transferred existing obligations from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so, for example, taxi drivers cannot refuse to take a guide dog. The Government is still considering its commencement strategy for section 165 of the Equality Act (placing duties on taxi drivers to assist passengers in wheelchairs).

Community Transport 32. The Local Transport Act 2008 increased the flexibility of arrangements for providing community transport services, and expanded the provision around taxi- buses, both of which can help to fill the gaps where commercial transport services are not viable. In 2009/10, over 15m passenger trips were provided by at least 1700 community groups. The community transport sector has been building capacity and is able to offer services that address local needs and increase patronage.

33. In recognition of the important role community transport can play in delivering local services, the Government provided a total of £20m across two rounds of Community Transport Fund between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This funding has been distributed to 76 local transport authorities (Councils and Passenger Transport Executives) to support the establishment and development of more community transport links to employment and services, particularly in rural areas. This additional funding complements the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, to which all English local authorities have been able to submit bids for a share of £600m over 4 years, aimed at encouraging sustainable transport solutions. [See case study 3 – Annex 3]

Trains 34. The Government remains committed to the legal deadline of 1 January 2020 by which time all rail vehicles must be accessible. 41% of all passenger rail vehicles currently in use in Great Britain (over 6800 rail vehicles) have been built or fully refurbished to modern access standards, including 47% of the heavy rail fleet.

Improving access at rail stations 192

35. The Railways for All Strategy published in March 2006 sets out what the rail industry is doing to improve the accessibility of the rail network. The Strategy takes a “whole journey” approach, from the provision of information and purchase of tickets to the accessibility of station buildings and vehicles. The Department for Transport is providing funding through the ring fenced £370m Access for All programme for an obstacle free, accessible route to and between platforms serving passenger trains at 154 priority rail stations by 2015. An additional £100m of funding has recently been announced to extend the funding until 2019.

36. The 154 stations have been prioritised in terms of footfall, then weighted by the incidence of disability in the local area, based on the 2001 Census. This targets spending at the most heavily used stations where it can benefit the largest number of disabled people. A proportion of stations has also been selected to ensure a fair geographical spread.

37. Since 2006 an annual Small Schemes fund of up to £7m has also been available that enables local authorities, train operating companies and other interested groups to bid for funds to make locally focussed access improvements to stations. More than 1,000 stations (including some in rural areas) have so far been offered grants on a match funded basis totalling approximately £25m towards more than £70m of station access improvements.

38. From 1 April 2011, a new Mid-Tier Access for All programme was launched for projects requiring between £250k and £1m of Government support. By March 2014, more than 150 stations will benefit from a range of access improvements such as new lifts and ramps, etc.

39. Each train operator is required to produce a Disabled Persons’ Protection Policy, available at stations and on their websites, that sets out the facilities and services available to disabled passengers.

The pedestrian environment

40. There is little point in improving the on-board accessibility of particular transport modes if the passenger cannot get to them in the first place. The Department for Transport will be publishing a Door-to-Door strategy later this year to align with its planned Transport Strategy. The aim is to set out the short, medium and long term vision for taking forward the door-to-door initiative. It is intended that the strategy has buy-in across government, with industry and with external stakeholders so that it will provide a lasting vision with stakeholders committed to seeing improvements in this area.

41. The pedestrian environment is important as part of the door to door experience. The Department for Transport has published a number of guidance documents that emphasise the importance of accessibility and inclusivity in the design of streets and other such public places.

193

42. In November 2002, the Department published Inclusive Mobility - a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure. This guidance concentrates on accessibility issues for disabled and older people. The Department’s Manual for Streets published in 2007 stresses the need to design inclusively, and this ethos is embedded in all relevant guidance produced subsequently in the form of Local Transport Notes. For example, the latest Local Transport Note, LTN 1/11 Shared Space, focuses heavily on the needs of older people, disabled people, and blind or partially sighted people in particular. It also draws attention to duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Availability of information

43. The absence of travel information can be a barrier to travel. The London 2012 Spectator Journey Planner was delivered in August 2011 with the capability of identifying routes that are level access and/or with staff assistance from a core network of 600 transport locations (National Rail, London Underground and Docklands Light Railway stations and accessible coach stops) to every London 2012 venue. As part of the legacy, the Government’s aim is to embed the journey planning functionality into existing journey planning software, and develop a new network of accessible locations and services that can be reliably operated and advertised in normal operating conditions.

44. The Department for Transport is building in principles of accessibility into future developments such as the reform of t icketing.

45. DfT published Transport Solutions for Older People on 13 February 2012, which signposts local authorities to existing resources, information and practices, including innovative examples of tailored transport solutions around the country: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/transport-solutions-for-older-people/

Training 46. Physical accessibility is not the only potential barrier passengers face. Staff attitudes can also play a large part in passengers’ ability and willingness to travel. The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 place an obligation on drivers of regulated buses to assist disabled persons when asked, and this may include announcing the required stop or safely deploying lifts, ramps or “kneeling” systems in order to assist wheelchair users boarding or alighting a bus.

47. Since September 2008, all professional bus and coach drivers have been required to hold a Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) and carry out 35 hours of periodic training every five years as a requirement of the EU Directive 2003/59. Approximately 75% of drivers have completed some form of disability awareness training through the Driver CPC, and this figure continues to rise each year.

48. The DfT is also encouraging the development of travel training schemes which will help to give disabled people and others the skills and confidence to travel 194

independently and safely. The Department is also looking at how to encourage more travel training schemes across the country. In May 2011, it published ‘Travel Training Good Practice Guidance’ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/tts/traveltrainingguide/. [See case study 4 – A nnex 3]

49. The importance of accessibility is recognised in a number of cross-government initiatives.

Access to Work Reduced cost travel for Jobseekers 50. Some Department for Work and Pensions claimants already get concessionary bus fares because of age (usually 60plus - although that is being changed to 65plus gradually from April 2011), or disability or by being on benefits. 51. Jobcentre Plus District Managers have access to a new discretionary Flexible Support Fund, which they can use to supplement other mainstream services to address individual and collective local needs. It is for district managers to decide individually how to make best use of the fund, which, in appropriate circumstances, could include helping someone with the cost of travelling to an interview where (perhaps) the journey is particularly expensive or difficult. Where appropriate, District Managers may also use the Fund in collaboration with partner organisations and funding streams to help address specific employment-related needs, which could include transport-related issues. 52. On behalf of the rail network, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has had a long-standing agreement with Jobcentre Plus to provide reduced rail fares in England and Wales for long-term benefit claimants or those with additional barriers. In the recent past this included all New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25+ participants as well as the additional groups listed below:

o N ew D eal f or Disabled People o New Deal for Lone Parents o New Deal 50 Plus o Jobseekers Regime and Flexible New Deal (Stage 3 only )

53. These travel concessions were valid while seeking work and for the first few months after starting a job. An attractive feature of the New Deal travel card was that it provided a 50% reduction to peak tickets as well as off-peak tickets, thereby helping with job-search and interview costs. As ATOC members include some 195

companies that operate both rail and bus services, the bulk of the use of the New Deal travel card has been on the bus network. DWP is in discussion with ATOC about its continuing support for out of work claimants.

‘Holistic’ schemes to tackle worklessness barriers 54. A number of Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) have also run forms of WorkWise schemes which combine a number of elements to help people overcome transport barriers to employment. Schemes comprise the core elements of free or discounted travel to interviews and to meet the costs of travel in the first weeks of a new job, combined with personalised travel advice to broaden horizons and job search. According to the PTE Group, this is offered by a number of their members to reasonable success.12 [See case study 5 – A nnex 3 ] 55. Evaluation of WorkWise schemes run by Centro has shown that 70 per cent of beneficiaries are still in their new jobs after six months and, in one PTE-led ‘WorkWise’ scheme, 80 per cent would have struggled to reach employment opportunities without WorkWise support. (However, it is not possible to say how much of this was genuinely additional). Subsidised hire of motorised or pedal transport 56. Particularly in rural areas, a lack of regular public transport can limit opportunities to work and study, particularly for young people. Schemes exist that aim to tackle this barrier through short term loans of mopeds and bicycles. A typical loan period might be 6-9 months to allow time to save up for a more permanent travel solution. 57. Wheels to Work (W2W) was originally trialled in Shropshire with 50 bikes and gained national prominence in 2002, when a best practice guide was published by the Countryside Agency. Since then, Wheels to Work programmes have been established in a number of local authority areas around the UK and these were initially supported via grants from the Countryside Agency through Rural Transport Partnership funding. In December 2004, the Countryside Agency commissioned the consultants Steer Davies Gleave to undertake an evaluation of twelve of the Wheels to Work or Learning schemes. Their full report can be downloaded from the Commission for Rural Communities website: http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk 58. W2W is one of the innovative solutions delivered at a local level which aims to break the cycle of young people in rural areas in particular being unable to take up work or training opportunities. Without a job, they cannot afford to buy a vehicle to get them from A to B, but they do not have adequate transport to get them to employment or training opportunities in the first place. W2W operates by providing young people with a means of transport such as a motorcycle (and safety equipment/training) for a period of around six months so that they can take up training or work offers and make the money to purchase their own transport. There are currently around 38 schemes spread across the country. There has, however, been a reduction in the number of W2W schemes across the UK. All of the schemes

12 MVA Consultancy (2009) Evaluating Performance: Qualitative Study of WorkWise in North Solihull (DRAFT) 196

have been dependent on intermittent grant for local funding, creating an uncertain future for the remaining W2W schemes. Some existing and some new schemes have benefited from successful LSTF bids.

59. Whilst schemes are successful in many areas, delivery is fragmented, without any coherent overarching strategy for integration with other services. The Government has recently identified this issue and is actively seeking a way forward with local operators; a national Wheels to Work co-ordinator is being funded. However, not all Local Authorities recognise the value of such schemes and, consequently, many areas exclude such projects in their proposals for Government funding under schemes such as the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. The Government welcomes a more consistent approach from Local Authorities, and greater recognition of the value of Community Transport in strategic transport provision.

Planning

60. The National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England, and provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities. The core planning principles which should underpin both plan making and decision taking require local authorities to “actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”.

61. In the section on ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’, the Framework States that Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:

o accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and su p plies ; o give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

o create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between t r a f fi c and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and, where appropriate,

establishing home zones;

o incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and o consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

Localism

62. The Government recognises that decisions about sustainable development and service provision are best developed at a local level. The Localism Act 2011 and its 197

provisions encourage local communities to engage in and influence decision making and delivery of services and infrastructure (including transport) which benefit their local area. This is at an early stage and successful application of these provisions will need to be monitored to ensure that communities, including rural ones, benefit fully.

Education

63. The Department for Education and local authorities provide financial support to enable access to school for eligible children, including those with special educational needs. DfT works with DfE to promote sustainable travel to school. A recent example is a series of joint-ministerial stakeholder roundtables to identify the issues facing both customers and suppliers of school transport.

Health

64. From April 2013, local authorities will take on responsibility for improving public health, supported by a newly devolved and ring-fenced budget of over £5 billion per annum. These developments offer the prospect of a step change in accessibility to public services, both by active modes such as walking and cycling and for people with reduced mobility.

65. There is a particular problem for rural residents who have to travel often considerable distances t o access acute health care at specialist centres, in nearby towns and cities. Around 54% of people in remote rural areas are more than one hour travel time from a hospital, compared with 38% in non remote rural areas.13

66. These longer distances and journey times mean that rural residents can experience ‘distance decay ‘ where there is a decreasing rate of service use with increasing distance from the source of health care.14 Studies have shown that, t he closer the service, the more likely it will be used.15 Rural and remote populations are therefore more likely to be affected by ‘distance decay’.16

67. It should be noted that, whilst ‘distance decay’ i s a reflection of utilisation rates, and cannot be taken as a direct proxy for health care need, it is still a cause for concern, since it leads to delayed intervention and treatment and hence poorer health outcomes become more likely.17 However, where localised health services are provided in rural areas, for example GP surgeries, the situation can be different.

13 Core Accessibility Indicator: Proportion of households 60 minutes travel time of a hospital by public transport/ walking, Department of Transport (2005). 14 Deaville, J. A. (2001) The nature of rural general practice in the UK – Preliminary research Institute of rural Health & the General Practitioners committee, 15 Stark, C., Reay, L. & Shiroyama, C. (1997) The effect of access factors on Breast Screening attendance on 2 Scottish islands Health Bulletin 55, 316‐321 16 Pugh, R, Scharf, T., Williams, C. & Roberts, D. (2007) Obstacles to using& providing rural social care Briefing 22 WWW.scie.org.uk/publicatios/briefi ngs/briefi ng22 17 Niggerbrugge, A., Haynes, R., Jones, A., Lovett, A. & Harvey, I. (2005) The index of multiple deprivation 2000 access domain: a useful indicator for public health? Social Science and Medicine 60 2743‐2753 Campbell, N., Elliot, A., Sharp, L., Ritchie, L., Cassidy, J. & Little,J. (2001) Rural & urban differences in stage at diagnosis of colorectal & lung cancer British Journal of Cancer 84, 910‐914 198

The distribution of GPs is relatively equitable with regard to the size and need of the population; and rural areas generally have higher access levels to GP services than urban areas as measured by their ability to see a doctor fairly quickly. Given that rural areas tend to have older populations, there is likely to be greater demand on GP-led services, a s GP consultation rates increase with age. The data at Annex 2 illustrates the GP situation.

68. There is existing good practice regarding input into Local Transport Plans by some Primary Care Trusts, and these are encouraging, but more joint transport planning needs to take place. The move to more localised Clinical Commissioning Groups may create opportunities to engage at a local level with Transport Authorities, and the Government is keen to encourage any such engagement between these tiers of decision makers, which enables transport planning to take health service needs into full consideration for the benefit of residents.

Rural Transport alternatives

69. Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) has been established to provide a centre of rural expertise within Government, and is able to advise Whitehall departments on the likelihood and possible scale of rural impacts, and to suggest actions that might be taken to mitigate these.

70. With an existing minimal level of public transport provision in many rural areas, a small change in transport provision can have a very significant impact upon the daily lives of people living and working in rural areas. A rural resident recently confirmed that the withdrawal of one morning bus service now meant that there was no public transport to convey her children to school in the morning. It is very important that consultation and engagement guidelines and good practice are followed to ensure that the needs of rural communities can be represented.

Post Offices

71. Post Offices provide a range of services to customers across the socio- economic spectrum, carrying out a critical economic function for many small businesses, and often playing a significant social role in rural communities. Previous network transformation programmes have resulted in nearly half the rural network closing and, currently, 6,500 rural post offices remain in operation. As well as five national access criteria, there is a local access criterion which stipulates that 95% of the total rural population across the UK should be within three miles of the nearest post office outlet.

72. New models of service delivery are being rolled out and it is important that the full impact of these and transport connections are considered in future planning and service delivery.

199

73. Although DfT no longer monitors Local Transport Plans (LTPs) or local authorities’ performance against them, the LTP guidance issued in 2009 says that accessibility strategies and accessibility planning are key elements of local transport planning as a whole.

74. Evidence from rural stakeholders has reported an inconsistent approach to engagement with Local Authorities on the development of Local Transport Plans and how accessibility is addressed within them. Often these stakeholders represent small rural communities and networks and it is recognised that they need capacity support to engage at this strategic level.

75. The Department for Transport has undertaken its own evaluation of accessibility planning. The report was published on 6 September, and shows that the approach is working overall: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-planning-policy- evaluation-report/ . The Department published accessibility planning guidance18 in 2006. It was designed to help local authorities develop their Local Transport Plans and ensure that accessibility problems faced by people from disadvantaged groups and areas could be identified and addressed. Anecdotal evidence suggested that the guidance was making a significant difference to people and communities, but a more robust evidence base from which its effectiveness could be more accurately judged was felt necessary. In December 2008, the Department commissioned an evaluation of accessibility planning to understand the processes by which accessibility planning is operationalised and the impact that it has on the work of local authorities, wider partners, individuals and communities. I ts main focus was:

• to assess whether the guidance developed by DfT was effective in enabling delivery of accessibility planning as it was intended; • to examine the sorts of processes that lead to good outcomes for accessibility planning strategies and individual initiatives; and • to identify lessons learnt about how to develop and implement those strategies and initiatives.

76. The evaluation report is being submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee as part of the Government’s evidence. The DfT will await the Committee’s recommendations before addressing specific points raised within the evaluation report.

77. The Government regularly publishes statistics on accessibility, providing a small area measure of the availability of transport to key services covering food stores,

18 http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility‐planning‐guidance/ 200

education (primary, secondary schools and FE colleges), health care (GPs and hospitals), town centres and employment centres, for the populations who use them. They are widely used in local service planning by local authorities. A summary of the latest statistics on accessibility at national and regional level is set out below. More detailed information, including figures at Local Authority and Lower Super Output Area level, are available on the website at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-statistics-2011/ 78. The Department for Transport produces the accessibility statistics of eight key services (listed above) in England, by three modes of transport. The three modes of transport are public transport/walking, cycling and car. For each of the services, apart from further education, accessibility is calculated for the relevant at risk user population as well as for the general population of users. The data can be used to identify the average shortest time by mode to the nearest service, the proportion of users and at risk users able to access a service within a specified time and the number of opportunities for accessing each key service available to the resident population. 79. Key statistics from the most recent bulletin (2011) include:

• The average minimum travel time across all seven key services was 14 minutes by public transport/walking, 9 minutes by cycling and 6 minutes by car. These times were about 2.5 to 4 per cent (or 0.2 to 0.55 minutes) longer than in 2010. • As in previous years, hospitals had the longest average minimum travel times of the seven key services in 2011, with average minimum travel times of 30 minutes by public transport/walking, 21 minutes by cycling and 9 minutes by driving. Primary schools and foods stores were the most accessible services. The main cause of the difference in travel time between each type of services is how the locations are distributed throughout England and how the locations relate to the population. • Users in urban areas could access key services by public transport/walking, on average, in 12 minutes compared with 22 minutes in rural areas. • The proportion of users able to access key services by public transport/walking in a ‘reasonable’19 time was highest for employment centres (81%). The lowest was for hospitals ( 2 9 %). • Overall access to key services by public transport/walking within a ‘reasonable’ time was greatest in London and lowest in the East of Engl a nd .

80. The National Travel Survey provides information about travel behaviour and accessibility by the socio-demographic characteristics of the population. The latest information is available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/national-travel- survey-2010/ The Department for Transport also reports on the household

19 The ‘reasonable’ time is a measure of accessibility which takes into account the sensitivity of users to the travel time for each service. 201

expenditure on transport using the ONS Living Costs and Food Survey. In 2010, 13.7 per cent of household expenditure in the UK was on transport.20

81. WebTAG is a resource developed by DfT that gives guidance on transport modeling and appraisal that is used across the spectrum of transport analysis, covering local major schemes, national road schemes, airport capacity, and rail schemes. It is widely used to inform value for money and overall business case assessments, by showing the impacts of transport schemes on the economy, environment and social and distributional impacts.

82. The DfT has introduced the concept of accessibility into the WebTAG guidance. In general terms, accessibility can be defined as ‘ease of reaching’. In WebTAG http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/overview/accessibility.php accessibility is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations, and with differing availability of transport, can reach different types of facility. The term ‘accessibility’ is used in several different ways, including:

• measurement of ease of access to the transport system itself in terms of, for example, the proportion of homes within x minutes of a bus stop or the proportion of buses which may be boarded by a wheel-chair user. • measurement of ease of access to facilities, with the emphasis being on the provision of the facilities necessary to meet people’s needs within certain minimum travel times, distances or costs. • measurement of the value which people place on having an option av ailable which they might use only under unusual circumstances (such as when the car breaks down) – ‘option value’ – or even the value people simply place on the existence of an alternative which they have no real intention of us i n g - ‘existence value’. • measurement of ease of participation in activities (for personal travel) or delivery of goods to their final destination (for goods travel), provided by the interaction of the transport system, the geographical pattern of economic activities, and the pattern of land use as a whole.

83. DfT’s current Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG) policy is the main form of bus subsidy we provide. This policy allows bus fares to be approximately 4% lower than it otherwise would be and results in bus service levels to be approximately 6% higher than they otherwise would be – therefore making bus travel more attractive and accessible to transport users.

84. The Department for Transport is currently undertaking a research project that aims to look at monetising the social impact of bus travel. On the successful completion of this research, we hope to be able to incorporate this in the Department’s WebTAG guidance so that transport appraisals will be able to take account of the social value of buses. This will help decision-making i n the Department to reflect more accurately the social benefits attached to buses.

20 Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011, table TSGB0121 available at: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/tsgb0121.xls

202

85. The Open Public Services agenda contains a Fair Access objective to ensure that public services are delivered in a way which does not disadvantage certain groups including those living in remote rural areas. It does not explicitly refer to transport accessibility, and the Open Public Services agenda places considerable emphasis upon delivering services using technology. This relies heavily upon Broadband provision.

86. Previously, transport authorities were required to include local assessments of transport-related social exclusion and to deliver action plans to address these problems within their Local Transport Plans. On the ground research suggests that delivery is patchy and fragmented, and that many local authorities do not have the skills or capacity to assess local transport disadvantage and/or do not know how to address this as part of their local corporate agendas.21

87. The most commonly used software package used by local authorities, Accession, is currently being revised with a new software package due for launch later this year. Enhancements include improved performance times and increased functionality. The DfT has not funded any of this development work but has been actively involved in identifying what improvements were required.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

88. The UK Government is investing £530m t o improve access to superfast broadband for 90% of the UK population, with the aim of the UK having the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. In addition, £150m is being invested in super connected cities and up to £150m on improving mobile networks.

89. However, there is currently limited data on which to assess the actual impact, or quantify the benefits, that improved broadband will bring. This is in part due to the short amount of time that superfast services have been available in the UK. This extends to our understanding of the impacts that increased availability and improved quality of broadband, and online services, including those provided by the public sector, may have on both individual and business travel, and transport demands.

90. The Government’s case for investment in broadband is in part premised on an assumption that improved broadband will lead to improved information flows and increased access and use of online services, both public and private – with consequent potential reductions in the need for individual and business travel. Improving access to online public services through improvements in broadband and telecommunications infrastructure is of particular importance to those living in rural areas. People in rural areas may not have the range of public services available to them which people living in urban areas may benefit from, or may have greater difficulty accessing services due to the distance needed to travel, or due to a lack of available travel options.

21 Centre for the Research of Social Policy, 2009 203

91. We know that people already use the internet in their interactions with public services – in 2011, 32% of Internet users obtained information from public authority websites, and 27% submitted official forms electronically.22 We also know that the channel shift to online public services has been shown to provide public sector efficiency savings associated with the reduction in government transaction costs.23

92. Evidence from Berkshire shows that the public sector would save £25m p.a. in transaction costs if the digitally excluded were able to access the internet and undertake similar numbers of transactions on line as the digitally included currently do, whilst 120,000 fewer visits to GPs would be possible if the 140,000 digitally excluded people in Berkshire were able to access the internet.24 Other evidence has shown that use of telehealth technologies could reduce hospital admissions, and therefore also associated journeys, for Long Term Conditions, by 24%-54%.25

93. Further, increasing the use of online services can help improve information flow between government and citizens, and can open up new ways of organising, communicating and collaborating to deliver services. This will result in consequent economic benefits from efficiency gains.

94. There is evidence of the economic benefits of what is known as ‘agglomeration’ – essentially spatially concentrated economic activity.26 Improved broadband and increased use of online services can enable the economic productivity benefits typically associated with urban agglomeration to be realised more widely, but without physical agglomeration. This could have consequent benefits for rural communities in particular, and could help ameliorate the costs associated with travel congestion. It is not thought that the potential benefits from this have been quantified, but they could be large.27

95. Further, there is evidence from the US that existing developments in terms of information and communications technology, broadband and mobile communications are changing road traffic patterns, and that growth in peak time congestion has stopped.28 However, other studies have confirmed that the relationships between improved communications and travel is not necessarily straightforward. It has been found, for example, that, in relation to the consumer sectors of society, improved communications can both reduce and increase travel; improved communications can reduce the need for travel, whilst consequent economic improvements could at the same time increase the demand for travel.29 This US study shows that there is little

22 Office for National Statistics. Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_227158.pdf 23 Shifting 30% of UK Government service delivery contracts to digital channels has the potential to deliver gross annual savings of more than £1.3 billion, rising to £2.2 billion if 50% of contacts are shifted to digital, according to a report prepared by PWC for the UK Government Digital Inclusion Champion: The economic case for digital inclusion, October 2009. 24 Sheppard, S, and Spillane, S, 2011. Economic and Social Impact of Broadband in Berkshire. A report prepared by Adroit Economics for the Thames Valley Local Economic Partnership. 25 Kings Fund WSD Action Network Evidence Database 26 Venables , 2 004. Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost-benefit analysis in the presence of agglomeration and income taxation. http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/tony.venables/Xrail7.pdf 27 Plum Consulting (2008) A framework for evaluating the value of next generation broadband. This report can be accessed at: http://www.broadbanduk.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1009/Itemid,63/ 28 The Economist. 1 0 April 2008. The new oasis – nomadism changes buildings, cities and traffic. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10950463 29 Choo, Lee, and Mokhtarian, 2010. Do Transportation and Communications Tend to Be Substitutes, Complements, or Neither? U.S. Consumer Expenditures Perspective, 1984–2002. 204

evidence that improved communications reduces private vehicle travel in particular, although some evidence has shown reductions in use of some forms of public transport.

96. In summary, from the evidence currently available, we do not yet fully understand the actual impacts that improving access to online public services, or broadband, may have on the need for people to travel to access public services, and that it may not necessarily be the case that improved communications mitigates against either total travel demands, or the need for transport infrastructure.

97. Broadband Delivery UK and Defra are currently developing a programme of research and evaluation to assess the range of socio-economic and environmental impacts which will arise from the Government’s investment in improving broadband infrastructure. These studies will aim to better understand the economic benefits of faster broadband and whether the investment represents good value for money. The studies will also investigate the social impacts (such as social behaviours, community engagement and effects on well-being or quality of life measures), and the extent to which access to public services have been improved. Environmental impacts and cost savings resulting from reduced travel, and decreased reliance on car use will also be considered.

98. This investment in broadband could create new and attractive locations for businesses, improve the reach of online businesses and allow many more people the real opportunity to take up remote working.

99. Maximising the potential of remote and flexible working is an important ambition for the Department for Transport. With high quality communications networks, people are being given real choices in the way they work – replacing the need for a long daily commute, with a more flexible approach to working life, gives people the choices they need to meet work and personal commitments in a flexible and environmentally sustainable way.

100.The Department’s message is not ‘don’t travel’, but ‘travel only when necessary’. Where travel is unavoidable, we want cost effective and environmentally friendly transport to be the number one travel option. Individuals and businesses will have their own reasons for wanting to adopt a smarter way of working and travelling, be it for financial, environmental or social reasons. The key is that we end up with reduced congestion, reduced carbon emissions and improved quality of life. 205

ANNEX 1

Rural Context.

Areas are defined as rural if they fall outside of settlements with more than 10,000 residents. The Rural Urban definition30 defines four settlement types: • Urban (with a population of more than 10,000) • Rural town and fringe • Rural village • Rural hamlet and isolated dwellings (also known as dispersed).

The main characteristic about rural areas is that they contribute to the social, economic and cultural fabric of the country and have considerable potential for supporting both economic and social growth. Approximately 9.8 million people, or 18.9% of the population, live in rural areas. The majority of these (9.2 million people) live in Less Sparse Rural areas.31 With approximately 50% of those living in rural areas aged over 45 years, the rural population is on average older than in urban areas. Rural areas are ageing at a faster rate than urban areas. The fastest rate of growth is amongst the older age groups (age 85 years and over). Disadvantage, deprivation and isolation can be hidden in rural areas and older people who are generally disadvantaged do not stand out as a visible group.

Rural England is not homogeneous. It is made up of a wide range of differing types of places, including remote upland farmsteads, fishing communities, former mining areas, small market towns, and prosperous peri-urban villages. The rural population is diverse in its demographic make-up, and the rural economy is as broadly-based and varied as the urban one – agriculture contributes only a relatively small amount to the wider rural economy, which is worth around £200bn p.a. (19% of national GVA) and there are more manufacturing jobs per capita in rural areas than in urban ones.

30 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide‐method/geography/products/area‐classifications/rural‐urban‐definition‐ and‐la/rural‐urban‐definition‐‐england‐and‐wales‐/index.html 31 England Statistical Digest 2012, Defra 206

ANNEX 2 Distribution of GPs

Chart 1:

Distribution Patients per GP by PCT Rurality

1.80

Primary care needs 1.60 adjusted patients per GP (thousands) 1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 Thousand of Patients per FTE GP FTE per Patients of Thousand 0.20

0.00 Large Urban Major Urban Other Urban Rural 50 Rural 80 Significant Rural

• Distribution of GPs is relatively equitable with regard to the size and need of the population.

Results taken from the 2010/11 GP Patient Survey. 32

32 http://www.gp‐patient.co.uk/results/

207

Annex 2 continued Chart 2:

Access to GP services by location

88%

86%

84%

82%

Large Urban 80% Major Urban Other Urban Rural 50 78% Rural 80 Significant Rural Percentage of Patients Percentage 76%

74%

72%

70% % able to see a doctor fairly quickly % satisfied with opening hours

• Rural areas generally have higher access levels to GP services than urban areas as measured by ability to see a doctor fairly quickly. Satisfaction with opening hours is broadly similar, suggesting general practice has adapted to meet the requirements of their populations.

208

Annex 3 Some local case studies

1. Concessionary Fares for Young People on Metro Transport, West Yorkshire

Metro have a number of travel offers for young people:

• Under 5’s – free on most bus and all rail with Metro symbol when accompanied by adult • 5 -10 – half fare on most bus and all rail with Metro symbol, no photocard re q uir e d • 11 to 16 – half fare on bus and rail on production of photocard • 16-18 – half fare if attending school or college and in receipt of child benefit on production of photoca r d.

There are also day, weekly and monthly discounted tickets available for regular bus and train users that will provide cheaper travel than the basic half fare. Metro also have a dedicated website for young people and teachers: http://www.generationm.co.uk/ This gives details of fares, special offers, and has a teachers section giving details of training programmes, including the SAFEMark scheme that helps prepare children to use public transport.

2. Blackburn GoNOW Youth Zone Travel Card

Blackburn with Darwen Council has introduced the GoNOW Youth Zone Travel Card for young people in Blackburn travelling to the Youth Zone centre. This travel card scheme offers up to 40% off bus journeys for members of the Youth Zone aged between 8 and 19. The scheme has been developed by Blackburn with Darwen Council working with Blackburn Youth Zone and local bus operators Veolia Transdev, Darwen Coach Services, Rossendalebus and Holmeswood Coaches. The Youth Zone opened in June 2012 and is open to all young people in the area aged between 8 and 19. Facilities include a rooftop football pitch, a sports hall and variety of music and art open spaces, and is open every day of the year. More on the centre can be found at http://www.blackburnyz.org/ .

3. Dales Integrated Transport Alliance (DITA)

DITA’s aim is to ensure that a sustainable transport network is provided throughout the Yorkshire Dales area, to benefit both the local communities and visitors. The 209

organisation is a community-led group of individuals and businesses, and is currently funded primarily by Tranche 1 LSTF. Examples of DITA projects include: evening bus services between Harrogate and Pateley Bridge, and between Grassington and Skipton; and a car share scheme. DITA also provide sustainable travel information from a number of ‘hubs’ based in the villages around the Dales area which are staffed largely by volunteers. DITA’s website can be found at www.dalesconnect.net

4. Middles brough– I ndependent Travel Package from successful Tranche 2 LSTF bid

The Independent Travel package consists of 2 elements; the first will engage and empower local residents with disabilities to deliver Community Access Audits. Middlesbrough Shopmobility will act as the delivery partner through recruiting a co- coordinator to manage a programme of community access audits, and report the findings back to the Council, who will rectify the physical accessibility issues highlighted by the findings. As unemployment reaches critical levels, the most disadvantaged social group, are those with disabilities. Building on a previous Working Neighbourhoods Fund project with Shopmobility, these audits will include and ensure that disabled people can get to bus stops and local facilities. This will result in the required infrastructure improvements, such as footpath re-surfacing, introduction of drop kerbs and the removal of unnecessary street furniture, being of an adequate standard to encourage accessibility throughout the town by low carbon modes of transport. This will reduce the physical barriers to employment, education and training opportunities. This will be delivered in the town centre, as well as a satellite station at Stewart Park (with the assistance of the Vocational Training Centre). The Travel Training (TT) element will follow on from and complement the access audits; delivering an independent and impartial assessment process and a dedicated Travel Training programme. It will work with a wide age range, and produce and procure training resources / materials, and teach people with learning and physical disabilities about journey planning, road safety and independent travel skills, in a safe environment, enabling them to access employment, education, training and leisure opportunities via sustainable modes of transport. A training co-coordinator will be provided by Middlesbrough Council to develop the package, co-ordinate employees, recruit and train volunteers to deliver learning outcomes. Practical training will utilise the purpose built, travel training and road safety facility at Priory Woods School. The facility is an innovative, and the only purpose built site in the Tees Valley capable of delivering such a programme. There is a large physical environment located on the site for practical training, and a designated indoor area for the classroom based learning aspect of the training programme. Travel training has added value, offering a sustainable alternative that not only instigates cultural change but also reduces dependency on local authority home to school, and social care, transport. In order to achieve the above, and address transport as a barrier for disabled people, the package is split into unique and focused areas of work.

210

5. Merseyside Travel Solutions 2011-15

This is a scheme targeted at young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) who, as a result of their situation, were at a disadvantage and less able to travel further afield to find work either because of financial reasons, o r low travel horizons. The solutions offered can also be used for training opportunities as well as employment. This scheme is being offered by Merseytravel, and all 5 local authorities, ensuring consistent county wide best practice. Between October 2011 and March 2012:

• 40 NEETS have been supported via Connexions Greater Merseyside , including journey planning support, and help in getting NEE T s a scooter licence. Bus passes were issued to five NEETs which enabled them to undertake fork lift truck tr a ining.

• An additional 480 interventions were achieved by the travel teams, with 325 receiving a travel solution such as a scooter, bike or trave l pass .

In recognition of the success of this and other accessibility schemes, Merseyside was awarded Beacon Status in 2008 and their on-going accessibility work is now integrated with the City Region Employment and Skills Strategy and the City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Strategy. More information, including guides and printed travel aides for the service users, is available at http://www.letstravelwise.org/content95_Travel-Solutions-Guides.html .

20 September 2012

211

Annex Measuring and mapping t ransport poverty

Transport poverty is a complex issue and is therefore inherently difficult to measure. In undertaking this study, Sustrans has developed a new methodology – i dentifying indicators that could be used as proxy measures for each of the issues faced.

Mapping contains Ordnance Survey data supplied by Welsh Assembly, HMSO, DEFRA and Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence nos 100017916, 100020540 and 100019918. Also OpenStreetMap © www.openstreetmap.org (and) contributors licence CC-BY-SA (www.creativecommons.org)

Combining these indicators, using the method outlined below, has enabled us to estimate the level of risk that people living in a particular area face of being in transport poverty. These figures are not intended to be definitive; we hope through demonstrating how widespread transport poverty is we can stimulate a much wider debate on the issue. 212

Method

Sustrans’ map of transport poverty in England is compiled using Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) data relating to three indicators of transport poverty: time taken to access essential services; distance to the nearest bus stop or train station; and family income.

Each indicator was used to assign a score to an area. The three scores generated were then combined to create a final ‘transport poverty’ figure - placing individual areas into one of the following three categories:

LOW RISK MEDIUM RISK HIGH RISK

Areas awarded a score of Areas awarded a score of four Areas obtaining a final score of three points were identified as or five points were identified between six and nine points being at ‘low risk’ of as being at ‘medium risk’: were identified as being at suffering transport poverty, People in this area may face a ‘high risk’ of transport scoring low scores across all significant risk from one or poverty: It is likely that a three indicators. two of the indicators significant proportion of the identified, but not all three. As people living in this area will car costs and public transport already be struggling to afford fares continue to rise, and the the cost of running a car and full impact of bus cuts is felt, those without a car are very people living in these areas likely to be excluded from will face an increasing risk of accessing essential services by falling into transport poverty. walking, cycling or public And it is likely that those transport. families without cars are already struggling.

Once each LSOA had its own risk rating they were then regrouped to provide local authority and constituency-wide figures.

The individual scores for each of the three indicators were calculated as follows:

Income

Sustrans used benefit and tax credit data, made available by the Department for Work and Pensions, to identify the number of households that would need to spend 10 per cent or more of their income on the costs of running a car (whether or not they are actually running 213

one). This will include those households that cannot afford a car at all. For the poorest households, research shows this figure can be as high as 25 per cent.

The LSOAs were then ranked according to the number of people on low incomes in the area:

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Those LSOAs in the bottom Those LSOAs in the middle Those LSOAs in the highest third – indicating they had the third scored two points. third – indicating they had the lowest number of households highest number of households needing to spend ten per cent that would spend ten per cent (or more) of their income on (or more) of their income on the costs of running a car – the costs of running a car – scored one point. scored three points.

Access to essential services

The second indicator used Department for Transport data to identify areas where residents would take longer than one hour to access each of the eight services defined as ‘essential’ by walking, cycling and public transport:

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Those LSOAs where no Those LSOAs where between LSOAs where five or more essential services took longer one and four (inclusive) essential services were more than one hour to access were services were found to be than one hour by walking, identified as ‘low’ risk and more than one hour from cycling or public transport scored one point. residents were identified as were identified as ‘high’ risk ‘medium’ risk and scored and scored three points. two points.

Access to bus and train stations

The final indicator used mapping data to identify the number of people who were further than one mile from their nearest bus stop or railway station.

214

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

If less than five per cent of the If between five and 30 per If more than 30 per cent of the population lived further than cent of the population lived population lived further than one mile from their nearest further than one mile from one mile from their nearest bus bus stop or railway station, their nearest bus stop or stop or railway station, the area the area was identified as railway station, the area was was identified as ‘high’ risk ‘low’ risk and was awarded identified as ‘medium’ risk and was awarded three points. one point. and was awarded two points.

1 Sustrans 2012 – Locked Out: Transport Poverty in England http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Press/Transport%20Poverty%20England%20FINAL%20web.pdf 2 Sustrans 2012 – Transforming young people’s travel: smarter choices for everyday journeys 3 Sustrans 2010 – More Haste Less Speed 4 Sustrans 2012 – Locked Out: Transport Poverty in England 5 Sustrans 2012 – Access Denied: Transport Poverty in Wales 6 Sustrans 2012 – Sustrans response to DfT consultation on devolving major transport schemes 7 Commission for Rural Communities 2009 – R ural Insights 8 Consumer Focus 2011 – Rural consumers in the UK 9 PTEG 2010 – Transport and Social Inclusion 10 Sustrans 2011 – Planning for schools development: Sustrans response to Communities and Local Government consultation 11 SDC 2011 – Fa irness in a Car-dependent Society 12 Barnados 2012 – Staying the course: disadvantaged young people’s experiences of the 16-19 Bursary Fund 13 Sustrans 2008 – Response to DCSF consultation on BSF waves 7-15 14 Sustrans/Socialdata 2009 – Travel behaviour research in the Sustainable Travel Towns 15 Merseyside Transport Partnership 2010 – Work Wise Wheels evaluation report 16 South Yorkshire 2011 – Cyclin g strategy consultation draft 17 Centre for Cities 2011 – Access all areas: Linking people to jobs 18 Centre for Cities 2011 – Moving on up, moving on out? 19 Sustrans 2011 – Moving towards smarter travel? 20 NICE 2008 – Physical activity and the environment 21 Labour Party 2012 Local election manifesto for Swansea 22 Sustrans/Socialdata 2009 T ravel behaviour research in the Sustainable Travel Towns 215

Written evidence submitted by t he Mayor of London and Transport for London

1 How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (i.e. whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ea s e)?

Background 1.1 It is recognised that London, like many other large urban centres in Europe, has an extremely dense and extensive transport network serving a large urban population with access to an extensive range of services. However it is acknowledged that certain areas will be disadvantaged by poorer access to opportunities and services relative to the rest of the city. This is in part due to the transport options available to individuals, for example access to public transport or private vehicles, as well as the location of the services themse l ves.

1.2 In many cases accessibility in terms of travel times is not always the main issue. In a predominantly dense urban environment, such as London, services will often be geographically close, often within walking distance, yet other issues such as service quality and capacity may be more significant. For example, the existing establishments may already be full or do not meet the specific requirements of an individual.

1.3 The Mayor is responsible for delivering a range of services alongside public transport in London. One of the six goals set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy1 is to improve transport opportunities for all Londoners. This addresses accessibility from both a physical access to the transport system perspective as well as improving access to services. The Mayor also has a framework to address deprivation and inequality via “Equal Life Chances for All”.2

The role of transport in accessibility 1.4 Much has been achieved in London over recent years in terms of accessibility of transport services, more than 90 per cent of Londoners now live within 400 metres of a bus stop (five minutes walk at an average walking speed). Furthermore, the London bus network is kept under continuous review and is therefore able to respond to changing travel needs in London.

1.5 With regards to the physical accessibility of the transport network this has also improved greatly over recent years. All of the bus fleet, bar heritage Routemasters, are accessible. The New Bus for London also has enhanced accessibility. In addition, the proportion of the Capital’s 19,000 bus stops which meet accessibility specifications has increased from around 30 per cent to more than 65 per cent since 2008, and will reach 70 per cent by the end of the financial yea r.

1 Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2010) - http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-transport-strategy 2 ‘Equal Life Chances for All’ (2012 update) - http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Equal%20Life%20Chances%20for%20All%20FINAL%202 012.pdf 216

1.6 The proportion of all stations and stops across London’s rail-based public transport system with step-free routes between street and platform is approaching 40 per cent and will rise to 45 per cent by 2015. It is expected to reach 50 per cent before the end of the decade. How this will be achieved is set out in “Taking forward the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Accessibility Implementation Plan”.3 It also demonstrates how a series of strategically placed interventions significantly reduce the difference between the journey times on a step-free network against a non step-free network.

1.7 The Mayor recognises that there is still more to do in order to make transport accessible to all Londoners and additional funding is still needed, particularly for the step-free network. This is a key theme of his Transport Strategy, with improvements set out in greater detail in the Accessibility Implementation Plan.

Affordability of transport 1.8 Whilst London has an extensive public transport network, it is important that those who are most in need of it are able to access it. The Mayor has to balance the affordability of public transport against the need for significant investment to address the underinvestment of the past and meet the growing demands of the future. However, there is a comprehensive package of concessions for older people, students, Veterans and disabled Londoners. This means that 40 per cent of bus passengers will continue to travel free or at a substantial concessionary rate. The average bus fare per journey, including concessions for 2012, is around 60p, compared to an average typical bus fare of around £1 in other UK cities. It should be noted that the cash fare for the remaining 60 per cent of passengers is £2.30 and the Oyster fare is £1.35.

1.9 In addition to public transport in London, there has been a significant growth in walking and cycling over the past 10 years. With the relatively high density of services available, these modes of transport are affordable and healthy alternatives to reach destinations. The Mayor and TfL continue to invest in measures to maintain and encourage walking and cycling in Lon d on .

2 Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

Service planning 2.1 Land use planning and other Government policies can have a significant impact on access to services. For example, poorly planned developments or services removed from the local population with little thought of how easily they can be accessed by a variety of modes of travel will contribute further to poor

3 Taking forward the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Accessibility Implementation Plan (2012) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/taking-forward-the-mts-accessibility-implementation- plan-march-2012-final.pdf 217

accessibility. It is important that the impact of any new development on the transport network, particularly public transport services such as buses, is fully understood before planning permission is granted. Where appropriate these developments through Section 106 agreements or mayoral/local Community Infrastructure Levies (CILs) should provide towards suitable mitigation measures to improve accessibility. In addition to improvements to services accessibility can be significantly improved through physical measures (i.e. provision of new bus stops or pedestrian/cycle links).

2.2 In London there is a measure of accessibility to the transport system PTALs - Public Transport Accessibility Levels; and we have developed a measure reflecting access to opportunities and services (ATOS). The latter has been developed to reflect choice for education and health services, for example by measuring access to the nearest three schools or GP surgeries. Further information on TfL’s measures of accessibility is provided in section 5.

Working in partnership with service providers 2.3 In order to get the best decisions regarding the location of public services it is essential that the impacts on the surrounding transport network are taken into account at the start of the process. One example of TfL working in partnership with other agencies (in this case the NHS) is H-STAT – Health Service Travel Analysis To o l k it.

2.4 H-STAT is a travel time database for both highway and public transport modes in London. The database provides travel time information from each individual lower super output areas (LSOA) in London to a wide selection of health services related sites.

2.5 H-STAT is one outcome of TfL working in collaboration with the NHS dating back to 2008 developed following the review of NHS service provision. However, the principles are relevant to current NHS reconfiguration and could be adapted to other service providers. It is also one of the projects included in TfL’s best practice guide

2.6 Travel times are derived from TfL’s strategic models. Calculating realistic travel times between locations can be difficult – times will vary due to a wide range of conditions and issues (e.g.’ diversions, delays, and cancellations). The value of H-STAT is that it provides a consistent set of travel times across London at a detailed zonal level that can be used in a variety of health related studies. How the data is used is very much up to the analyst: linking the travel time data with other datasets including census data, patient records etc.

2.7 H-STAT is primarily a strategic tool, allowing the user to prioritise schemes and undertake optioneering based on travel time and demographic analysis. Once an initial analysis has been made using H-STAT, then more detailed studies can be undertaken on specific sites, looking at routing patters, trip rates, etc.

218

2.8 H-STAT is also one of the projects included in TfL’s best practice guide: “Transport planning for healthier lifestyles”.4

2.9 The gui de is a n o ut come of T fL’s consultation with the public and stakeholders (including London health organisations) during the development of the MTS. Feedback identified a need for information on projects promoting sustainable transport and healthy lifestyles. It is intended to be a dynamic, evolving source of information, arranged in themes that cover these i s sues.

2.10 The main themes a r e:

• Integrating the planning of healthcare with transport provision, through use of tools, to consider access to healthcare facilities, transport assessments for new developments and bus route planning; and

• Encouraging a shift towards more sustainable and active transport modes – public transport, walking, cycling – and ultra-low-emission vehicles through facilities, promotion, travel planning information and infrastructure for electric and other ultra-low-emission ve h i c les.

3 Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

Local transport plans 3.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act (1999) the Mayor, in addition to producing a number of other strategic documents, must produce a spatial plan for London (The London Plan) and a Transport Strategy (MTS). These documents were developed closely reflecting the interrelated elements of land use and transport planning. The London boroughs are required to produce Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) which are in conformity with the MTS and will contribute to the delivery of the targets and aspirations set out in the Strategy .

3.2 The London Plan requires issues such as access to public transport to be taken into account when permitting different densities of residential developments in different settings, e.g. central, urban and suburban. The greater the level of public transport accessibility, the higher the level of density permitted. Furthermore, the London Plan sets policies which aims to ensure equal life chances and opportunities for all.

3.3 In addition to boroughs and developers responding to these requirements through LIPs and planning applications, service providers should be encouraged to take accessibility into account when planning or altering services; as has been done through TfL’s partnership working with the NHS.

4 Transport Planning for Healthier Lifestyles (2012) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/tfls-healthier-lifestyles-best-practice- guide.pdf 219

The accessibility agenda in London 3.4 As has been set out already, the Mayor and TfL have significantly furthered the accessibility agenda in London. The DfT’s core accessibility criteria were not considered appropriate for London, in part due to the high availability of public transport but significantly due to the high density of public services. Furthermore, the level of accessibility in London is much higher than those set out in the DfT measures. The indicators developed for London reflect a degree of choice for services (see section 5), however TfL is happy to work with the Committee further to reflect other aspects of accessibility they consider imp o rtant.

4 Should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy- making (and if so, how should it be defin e d? )

Measuring accessibility in London 4.1 In planning terms it is useful to understand where is the most appropriate location for new facilities as well as public transport services. Therefore an accessibility measure taking into account the dense urban environment of a city such as London is needed. This supports the Mayor in setting regional priorities, as well as improving collaboration between transport providers, such as TfL, with service providers in London. For these reasons TfL has developed a London-specific measure of Access to Opportunities and Services (ATOS) as a response to, and building on, the DfT’s initiatives.

4.2 TfL currently has two significant accessibility measures PTALs (Public Transport Accessibility Levels) and ATOS (Access to Opportunities and Services). The former measures access to the network (network density), whilst the later measures access though the netwo r k .

4.3 PT ALs are a relatively simple calculation which provides a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of any point in London to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. As such it does not measure access to services directly. Although this may be seen as a limitation to the methodology, one can assume in London that if you can access the network you will be able to connect to the rest of the system and reach a range of services within a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore a high PTAL will include more routes than a low PTAL and hence reach more destinations. Another advantage of PTALs is that their simplicity means they can be calculated at a highly disaggregate level (50m grid) which can highlight local variations .

4.4 ATOS was designed to resolve some of the short comings of PTALs by measuring travel time access to a basket of services including: GP surgeries, food shopping, primary schools, secondary schools, further education and open spaces for the whole of London. It also incorporates many of the principles behind the DfT’s methodology for measuring accessibility: the main difference being that it accommodates for choice by measuring travel time to the three 220

nearest services to give an average value rather than just the nearest service. Although London has an extensive public transport network together with a large number of public services, (which means that most public services can be reached within an acceptable time) it does flag areas of relatively poor accessibility. This measure could be enhanced by including the cost of travel, relating travel times to deprivation especially for those households where more than 10 per cent of income is spent on travel. This could be the basis for a “fuel poverty” type measure which could be of greater value in the London context.

4.5 Accessibility to services by transport is not necessarily the key issue in London: other factors such as service choice, quality and capacity may be of greater significance to the user. Calculating the number of services that can be reached within a designated time period by public transport, car, cycle or walk could be a more appropriate tool for assessing access to services in larger urban areas, such as London. A dense public transport network together with a numerous range of services means that choice of services rather than proximity to them is the principal consideration.

4.6 TfL is also interested in the impact that strategic transport schemes such as Crossrail have on accessibility to services. Using the ATOS approach which calculates proximity to services will not reveal significant improvements because most service locations will be accessible locally (possibly by bus) without the need to use the new scheme. However, strategic interventions will have a London-wide rather than a local impact and will therefore be best measured by analysing London wide outputs, such as access to employment. The types of measures TfL have developed for this purpose include:

• average travel time to all zones across London from or to the destination (with and without a new scheme); and • or the number of services (metropolitan a n d m ajor town centres, Further Education Colleges, etc) that can be accessed within an agreed time period (say 45 minute travel t ime).

We could expect the number of locations reached will rise where the impact of the scheme is significant.

4.7 In large urban areas such as London t ransport accessibility should not be the only consideration but equal weight should also be given to accessibility by walking and cycling modes. TfL has applied the ATOS methodology using walking or cycling modes only i.e. measuring local accessibility without the need to use the public transport network. This is particularly useful for services such as food shopping, GP surgeries and primary schools. Isoline maps for walking and cycling modes based on the existing and proposed distribution of public services can be used to identify those areas that are beyond different time limits; for example an agreed maximum walk time of say 15 minutes. This could be used to identify appropriate policy or transport responses to increase the accessibility. Furthermore these results can be combined with PTAL outputs to identify those areas that may have poor access to the public transport network but good access to local ser v ices.

221

4.8 Most of these measures are based on real travel time times and have been applied primarily to the public transport network. The ATOS methodology could also be used in association with private vehicle modes. When considering car based accessibility measures and when comparing them to the public transport modes, car parking and other factors need to be taken into account. One way to accommodate for this is to use generalised travel costs which take into account the full cost of travel. In this way more realistic comparisons can be made between public and private modes.

4.9 TfL is continually reviewing and updating its suite of strategic and accessibility based models. We are currently reviewing the PTAL methodology and its appropriateness as a tool for use in strategic policy documents such as the London Plan. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee and other organisations on the development and enhancement of these measures.

5 The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public se r vices

5.1 London already has excellent broadband coverage which, for those who have access to the Internet, has an influence on the ability for individuals to access public services online as well as to facilitate them working from home. However, it is likely to have a negligible minimal impact on the amount of transport infrastructure needed, or the coverage and operation of the network. If there is an increase in the local provision of services then it could increase the level of access by walking and cycling. Any changes in transport service need would be reflected in the continuous review of bus services in Lo n do n .

28 September 2012 222

Written evidence submitted by Consumer Focus

About Consumer Focus Consumer Focus is the statutory consumer watchdog for the postal and energy markets for England, Wales, Scotland and (for postal consumers) Northern Ireland. We work to secure a fair deal for consumers across the economy.

Consumer Focus has a statutory responsibility to monitor the number and location of and service standards in post offices, as well as any changes to the network. Part of our statutory responsibility is to ensure that consumers have access to services of general social and economic interest through the Post Office network including, but not limited to, mail products and a range of government and financial services such as pension and benefit payments and banking services.

1 Executive summary 1.1 With its unrivalled reach, convenience and reputation, the Post Office network can play an important role in helping consumers and businesses access a range of government and other key public services i n addition to the services of social and general economic interest currently offered in local communities throughout the UK.

1.2 Transport is a crucial factor in determining consumers’ ability to access key public services. With a reduction in funding for local authority supported bus services,1 links to key public services are potentially under threat at a time when consumers face longer journeys to access public services and amenities, particularly in rural communities.2

1.3 While the provision of public transport will remain crucial, the Post Office can help mitigate the adverse impacts of the reduction to funding for local authority supported bus services3 on consumers’ ability to access key services. The Post Office will be a particularly vital face-to-face channel for those consumers without access to the internet as Government’s ‘digital by default’ agenda is rolled-out.

1.4 In 2010, Government announced investment of £1.34bn in the Post Office network together with plans for restructuring of the network4 which will see 4,000 Post Offices convert into Post Office Mains (PO Mains) and 2,000 into Post Office Locals (PO Locals) by 2015. Government also stated its ambition to increase the range of local and central government and financial services offered through the Post Office network.

1.5 Due to the scale and nature of the proposed changes to the Post Office network, a strategic approach between the Post Office Limited (POL), local authorities and transport service providers will be vital to mitigate any adverse impacts on consumers’ ability to access key services. Our recent research showed that a strategic approach between local authorities and POL during the previous restructuring programme maintained consumers’ access to services through the Post Office network, despite closures.5 Crucially, a planned approach allowed local authorities and POL to consider the availability of public services alongside accessibility via public transport.

1 House of Commons Transport Select Committee (2011), ‘Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth Report of Session 2010-12’; available online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750vw.pdf; 2 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Accessibility statistics: 2011’, available online at www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility- statistics-2011; 3 House of Commons Transport Select Committee (2011), ‘Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth Report of Session 2010-12’; available online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750vw.pdf; 4 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010), ‘Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age’; available online at www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/s/10-1260-securing-the-post-office-network.pdf 5 Consumer Focus (2011), ‘Devon knows: Long-term impacts and lessons from the Post Office closure programme’; available online at www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2011/12/Devon-knows.pdf; 223

2 The accessibility of public services 2.1 The provision of public transport is vital to ensure consumers have reasonable access to key services such as employment, food stores, health (GPs and hospitals) and education (primary, secondary and further education institutions).6 The Department for Transport measures the proportion of users who can access services within set time limits as well as the number of services accessible within set time limits to users in a given area.7 Lower and upper threshold time limits are bespoke to each service.8

2.2 According to the Department for Transport accessibility statistics, apart from food stores, the percentage of consumers with reasonable access to all other services has fallen since 2010.9 These statistics show that consumers face longer average journeys to access key services. Rural consumers in particular are finding it increasingly more difficult to access these services, with a disproportionately longer average journey time of 22 minutes in comparison to 12 minutes for urban consumers. These average journey times equate to a 6 per cent and 3 per cent increase from 2010 for rural and urban consumers respectively.10

2.3 Reductions in funding for bus services have the potential to further adversely affect consumers’ ability to access key services. Net public funding for local bus services in England was reduced by 7.3 per cent in real terms between 2009/10 and 2010/1111 whilst budgetary pressures from the CSR resulted in 70 per cent of local authorities reducing funding for supported bus services.12 From April 2012, t he amount each bus company receives per year from the Government through the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) has been reduced by 20 per cent,13 potentially placing supported bus services at further risk of reduction.

2.4 The risk of further reductions to local bus services comes at a time of increased total passenger journeys and bus fares. Bus passenger journeys in England have increased by around 15 per cent since 2004/0514 while b us fares have increased in real terms by 6.8 per cent outside London and 18.4 per cent in London between 2005 and 2011.15 Although the provision of transport links remain vital to allow consumers access to key services, providing additional government and other services through the Post Office network can help to mitigate the adverse impacts of any further reductions to local transport services.

3 Role of the Post Office network in aiding access to key services 3.1 The Post Office n etwork has an unrivalled and nationwide reach of over 11,800 branches with nearly 6,500 of those branches situated in rural areas.16 The geographic distribution of those branches throughout the UK is underpinned by five access criteria which specify minimum coverage levels in urban; urban deprived; rural; and deep rural areas.17 The network offers a diverse range of vital services of social and general economic interest.

6 Social Exclusion Unit (2003), ‘Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion’; available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/making-the-connections.pdf; 7 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Guidance on what the accessibility statistics contains and how to use them’; available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/accessibility/accessibility-statistics-guidance.pdf; 8 Ibid; 9 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Accessibility Statistics: 2011’; table acs0201; available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/accessibility-2011/accessibility-statistics-2011.pdf; 10 Ibid; 11 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Annual Bus Statistics 2010/11’, available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/annual-bus-statistics-2010-11/busstats2010.pdf; 12 House of Commons Transport Select Committee (2011), ‘Bus Services after the Spending Review: Eighth Report of Session 2010- 12’; available online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750vw.pdf; 13 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Green Light for Better Buses’; available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/green- light-for-buses/green-light-for-buses.pdf; 14 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Annual Bus Statistics 2010/11’, available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/annual-bus-statistics-2010-11/busstats2010.pdf; 15 Ibid; 16 House o f Commons Library (2012), ‘Number of Post Office branches’, available online at www.parliament.uk/briefing- papers/SN02585; 17 Five national access criteria specify minimum coverage levels in, but not limited to, rural, deep rural and remote areas. Details available online at www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/postal-services/post-office-network/access-criteria; 224

3.2 Previous research suggested that due to its reach, convenience and ability to offer access to vital services, the Post Office network produced a net saving of £18 million per annum for local authorities as a result of having to provide less free bus travel.18 Providing key services through local and conveniently located Post Offices could help reduce the financial pressure on local authorities for expenditure on concessionary bus services. This is particularly vital as local authorities and bus operators are being confronted with a reduction in funding to provide supported bus services while, proportionally, costs to provide concessionary bus services increase. Expenditure on concessionary bus travel has increased by 78 per cent since 2004/05 and constitutes the largest proportion, 43 per cent, of public funding support provided through the BSOG.19

3.3 Our recent research on the previous Post Office restructure programme, the Network Change Programme (NCP), showed the impact of post office closures in Devon on rural consumers’ ability to access key services.20 Without access to a local post office, consumers were confronted with lengthy journeys to access key services at an alternative location. Consumers who had access to public transport had to plan their journey well in advance due to inadequate public transport with some reporting that there was a bus service only once or twice a week.

3.4 While consumers with access to private transport were able to adapt quicker to the loss of their local Post Office, they were confronted with additional petrol costs due to the distance needed to travel to an alternative Post Office or retail outlet.21 Extra costs associated with parking fees, as a result of accessing a Post Office or retail outlet in a town centre, were often incurred too.22

4 Impact of the ‘digital by default’ agenda 4.1 The Government’s ‘digital by default’ agenda (the ambition to make products and services available online) can potentially help to reduce demand on public transport services to access key public services. However, online access to local and central government and financial services will remain a challenge for particular groups of consumers. Some consumers will still require a local, face-to-face channel, such as the Post Office, to access key services or the provision of transport services to enable them to access key services at other physical outlets.

4.2 According to recent statistics, 20 per cent of UK households do not have home internet access, fixed or mobile, with older and low-income consumers less likely to have or to take up internet access.23 Rural consumers will face a particular challenge in accessing government and other services online. Rural areas experience poorer broadband speed and coverage in comparison to urban areas with 3.5 Mbps being the average speed for rural areas and 10.5 Mbps the average speed for urban areas.24 Consequently, rural consumers, particularly older consumers and those on a low-income, are likely to be more dependent on a convenient, face-to-face channel to access government and other public services.

4.3 Ultimately, for consumers without internet access or those who do not want to conduct transactions online, a face-to-face channel to access services, such as the Post Office, will be vital.

18 NERA Economic Consulting (2009), ‘The Social Value of the Post Office Network’, Report for Postcomm; 19 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Annual Bus Statistics 2010/11’, available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/annual-bus-statistics-2010-11/busstats2010.pdf; 20 Consumer Focus (2011), ‘Devon knows: Long-term impacts and lessons from the Post Office closure programme’; available online at www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2011/12/Devon-knows.pdf; 21 Ibid; 22 Ibid; 23 The Office of Communications (2012), ‘Communications market report: UK’; available online at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr12/uk; 24 The Office of Communications (2012), ‘UK fixed-line broadband performance, May 2012’; available online at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds- may2012; 225

5 Strengthening access to key services through the Post Office n etwork 5.1 In December 2010, the Government assigned £1.34 billion to undertake a significant restructuring of the Post Office network.25 Between now and 2015, more than half of the network will convert into new operating formats; 2,000 Post Offices will convert into Post Office Locals (PO Locals) and 4,000 into Post Office Mains (PO Mains). Both operating models will facilitate extended opening hours however, PO Locals will offer a more restricted range of services in a variety of retail outlets which could include convenience stores or petrol stations.26

5.2 Government has also stated its ambition to increase the range of local and central government and financial services offered through the network with the Post Office becoming the ‘front office’ for government.27 Services range from identity verification and driving licence renewals to council tax payments, travel permits and bus passes. There is also scope for the Post Office to play a critical role in assisting in the delivery of Universal Credit.

5.3 A forthcoming report from Consumer Focus sets out the potential for the Post Office to perform an expanded role as the ‘front office’ for local and central government services. Emerging findings show that older and low-income consumers are disproportionately more likely, than any other age or socio-economic groups, to visit the Post Office on a regular basis. 42 per cent of elderly and 28 per cent of low-income consumers report visiting the Post Office once a week.28

5.4 Our research also highlights the considerable appetite among consumers in general to access a range of local and central government services through the Post Office. The Post Office was also identified as the most preferred channel, among other face-to-face channels or online, for accessing a range of government services. When asked how they apply for or renew their passport, 79 per cent of consumers cited the Post Office as opposed to 10 per cent online; 60 per cent reported using the Post Office to apply for or renew their car tax with 32 per cent reporting doing so online; and 19 per cent purchased or renewed their local travel pass or concession scheme at the Post Office as opposed to 18 per cent at the local council office.29

5.5 The reach, convenience and trusted brand of the Post Office network, together with the range of services currently and capable of being offered, means the Post Office is ideally positioned to help to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of cuts to funding for supported bus services30 on consumers’ a bility to access key public services. This will be particularly vital for older and low-income consumers who are less likely to have or to take up internet access and for rural consumers who are likely to experience poorer broadband speed and coverage.

25 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010), ‘Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age’, available online at www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/postal-services/post-office-network; 26 It is envisaged that some banking transactions, bill payment services and more complex transactions will not be available as part of the core menu of services available in PO Locals outlets. See ‘Open all hours? Consumer experience of, and service standards in Post Office Locals’, Consumer Focus (2012); available online at www .consumerfocus.org.uk/publications/open-all-hours-consumer- experience-of-and-service-standards-in-post-office-locals; 27 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010), ‘Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age’; available online at www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/s/10-1260-securing-the-post-office-network.pdf; 28 Research conducted for Consumer Focus by GfK NOP, Feb 2012; 29 Research conducted for Consumer Focus by GfK NOP, F eb 2012; 30 Department for Transport (2012), ‘Annual Bus Statistics 2010/11’, available online at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/annual-bus-statistics-2010-11/busstats2010.pdf; 226

6 A strategic approach to the Network Transformation programme to ensure access to key services 6.1 With over half the Post Office network being converted to new operating models by 2015, it is essential to ensure that consumers’ access to a range of vital public services will be maintained or improved. A strategic approach between the Government, POL, local authorities and transport service providers will be crucial to mitigate any adverse impacts on consumers’ ability to access key services. This will be particularly vital for areas where transport services such as concessionary and supported bus services are under pressure due to budgetary constraints.

6.2 Our recent research on the effects of the NCP in Devon demonstrated the importance of POL working with the local authority and other stakeholders to ensure minimal disruption to consumers’ ability to access key services through the Post Office network.31 Through the establishment of a local taskforce, Devon County Council and other stakeholders were able to develop a strategic plan to mitigate the difficulties that the closure of local Post Offices would present. Whether through ensuring full-time post office services were available when the local Post Office outlet closed or working with the Community Transport sector to ensure local bus, ring and ride and fare car schemes were available,32 the task force enabled access to key services with much less inconvenience and cost than would otherwise have been the case.

24 September 2012

31 Consumer Focus (2011), ‘Devon knows: Long-term impacts and lessons from the Post Office closure programme’; available online at www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2011/12/Devon-knows.pdf; 32 Ibid;

227

Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK

The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK

1. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK (“the Institute”) is a professional institution embracing all transport modes whose members are engaged in the provision of transport services for both passengers and freight, the management of logistics and the supply chain, transport planning, government and administration. We have no political affiliations and do not support any particular vested interests. Our principal concerns are that transport policies and procedures should be effective and efficient and based, as far as possible, on objective analysis of the issues and practical experience and that good practice should be widely disseminated and adopted.

2. The Institute has a specialist Accessibility and Inclusion Forum, a nationwide structure of locally based groups and a Public Policies Committee which considers the broad canvass of transport po l ic y .

Executive Summary

3. The past decade or so has seen a good level of attention being given to transport accessibility at the local and national levels. More recently though, we observe signs that accessibility is being relegated in its level of importance to local and national policy objectives, and the social, economic and environmental consequences of this give us cause for great concern. The past decade has also seen substantial steps forward in the functionality and availability of technological solutions to accessibility, not least through information and communications technologies. Whilst this is exciting and a cause for optimism, the current levels of unavailability and inaccessibility of these technologies to particular groups in society, along with people’s inherent desire to be mobile and access services in traditional ways, should caution us against an over-reliance on ‘the technology’.

4. Taking the questions raised in order, we make the following comments; but before doing so, we put forward two broader principles for the Committee to keep in mind when considering the topic of this enqu i ry:

i. The concept of universal design – planning for the accessibility of the ‘average person’ serves to exclude consideration of the real diversity across the population, whilst planning for that diversity – drawing on the concept of universal design – will tend to benefit everyone;

ii. Change over time – this is not a static environment, and developments in information and communication technology, independent travel training, the use of mobility scooters etc, are changing how we travel and will continue to do so over the coming years, requiring us to think about how best to promote accessibility amidst this changing environment.

5. Some progress has been made, but still significant difficulties are being exper i enc e d:

i. Accessibility Planning, introduced following the Social Exclusion Unit’s report on transport in 2003, seems recently to have been downgraded – i e inclusion/accessibility is no longer identified as a key objective in DfT guidance for Local Transport Plans;

ii. Equality Impact Assessments in relation to transport, which one would expect to pick up on disproportionate accessibility impacts for the identified ‘Equality Strands’, appear not to be being undertaken consistently; and are always purely responsive;

iii. The general shift away from funding of local schemes and toward the major investment projects is likely to be detrimental to local accessibility, where most people’s trips are ma d e;

iv. The switch of responsibility for Concessionary Fares fr o m District Councils to Transport Authorities has coincided with: - a reduction in the rate of reimbursement to public bus operators, leading to withdrawal of ma n y, margi nal, servic e s; - withdrawal of many travel token schemes often used by those unable to access public buses to subsidise their use of taxis or community transport services, this in turn affecting the viability of the latter; - withdrawal of discretionary agreements that reimbursed dial a ride, other demand responsive transport and community transport services for travel by concessionary pass holders, consequently lead i ng to these schemes having to introduce charges to pass holders and other disabled people.

v. Advances are being made in relation to technologies f or delivering services which support accessibility, general and individualised journey planning, service information ticketing, connections, response to disruption etc, though access to these technologies can be problematic;

vi. Greater integration and coordination o f services, often growing out of pressures brought about by the current financial climate, are leading to some innovative solutions in terms of accessi b il i ty.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment?

6. Wi thdrawal of Disability Living A llow a nce and, specifically, Mobility Allo w an c e, is likely to have a significant detrimental impact on disabled people’s individual budgets for travel and mo b il i ty.

7. Centralisation of health services is likely to require longer-distance travel for vulnerable tra v e l lers .

8. Delivery of some health services in community settings (eg L ift Centres) rather than in hospitals is making access by public transport more difficult (eg podiatry services away from a hospital setting but serving a whole district may mean that more users 229

have more complicated journeys involving local interchanges or walking further (with ‘bad feet’)).

9. ‘Free Schools’ could lead to constraints on inclusive education at the local level, leading to longer distance travel to school for disabled children.

10. L ocal authority budget cuts in Education appear to have led to the withdrawal of independent travel schemes for children with special needs, reducing their acq u isit i on of independent mobility skills.

11. T he relaxation of planning regulations is likely to lead to increased new build in less accessible locations and reduces the scope for the implementation of innovative planning principles, such as ’Universal Design’ (referred to above) or ‘Permeability’ (taking account of individuals’ ‘sight-lines’, ‘travel lines’ and how people naturally seek to permeate through an area).

Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them?

12. N o, economic drivers trump available public transport infrastructure, sustainability and accessibility in most cases .

How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

13. Inaccessibility is a significant barrier to disabled people’s employment and social inclusion in general - leading to impacts at a personal and macroeconomic level. This is particularly important in the current context of increased attention being placed on moving greater numbers of disabled people into work.

14. I naccessibility is a barrier to getting outdoors and to supporting physical activity and wellbeing for older and disabled people. Again, this is particularly important in the current context of an ageing populati o n.

15. A ccess to local services is the first step to bringing about inclusion as those who are excluded are often those with the narrowest travel horizo n s.

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working?

16. P atchy; and with the downgrading of accessibility planning and each authority no longer required to produce an LTP, likely to de c li n e.

17. B y far the majority of accessibility planning is based on an acceptable walk distance of 400m either directly or to public transport. In rural areas this can increase to as much as 800m or more. As 70% of mobility impaired disabled people cannot walk a distance of 100m without stopping or severe discomfort and 100% cannot walk 400m, this misrepresents accessibility for this entire group of the population (ie aroun d 10%). 230

18. There are many examples of transport authorities seeking to massage their accessibility rating by proposing the introduction of demand responsive services across a wide or the whole of their area but under resourcing the provision (ie 1 bus to cover an area of 40/50,000 population + or 1 bus covering 5 separate a reas each 1 day a week) such that it is imposs ibl e fo r it to meet the needs for access that the rating suggests has been ac h iev e d.

19. G overnment has commissioned a study of the effectiveness of Accessibility Planning, but the publication of this is delayed.

How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

20. T he DfT has been effective over the past decade or so in getting accessibility on to the agenda, at a local and national level;

i. The DfT has made available new funding for community transport during 2011/12 and 2012/13, helping local authorities to develop this provision to improve accessi b il i ty; ii. The DfT has been working hard toward developing guidance on the use of mobility scooters and their carriage on public transport;

iii. However, more recently the Team within the DfT focusing on accessibility has been cut back to the absolute minimum in terms of staff numbers;

iv. The publication of the DfT’s review of Accessibility Planning has been delay e d;

v. The DfT’s publication of its Equality Objectives, in line with the Equality Act , has been delayed;

vi. No guidance has been published relating to the preparation of Equality Impact Assessments in relation to transport schem e s;

vii. The DfT is consulting on the abolition o f the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), a committee that has effectively promoted the cause of accessibility over the course of more than 25 y ears;

viii. The recent Local Sustainable Transport Fund announcements include several references to accessibility improvements, but these require some analysis and tracking of outcomes produced.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured?

21. A number of means could be fruitful: i. Realistic time and distance measures for disabled people combined with the availability of appropriate and affordable modes/infrastructure for those not able to walk (far) or use conventional public transport;

ii. Refinement of Geographical Information Systems (GIS);

231

iii. Consultation and liaison with a user panel.

How can decision-making in government better reflect ‘social’ and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations?

22. B y greater emphasis on presenting those different sets of impacts in broadly compatible terms (ie measurement units);

23. B y identifying and highlighting the direct and indirect costs to individuals, public services and society as a whole of not taking account of social and accessibility impacts;

24. B y seeking to value the benefits associated with greater accessi b il i ty;

25. B y requiring those organisations (eg areas of government) who benefit from accessibility and inclusion to contribute to the costs of providing the transport services and infrastructure that enables this;

26. B y always seeking to take into account the Personal, Environmental and Trip (PET factors associated with travel needs.

Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations?

27. I ncreasing accessibility does, in part at least, imply making travel easier; which in turn implies a reduced cost of travel, which would, all other things being equal, lead to increased levels of travel. Indeed, if disabled people’s suppressed travel is to be addressed, there is a question of whether their travel should be levelled up or general travel should be levelled down. At the same time however, the environmental consequence of more travel depends upon the pattern and mix of that travel. If accessibility is increased via improvements to non-motorised modes and to public transport there will be a beneficial environmental impact; and this would apply to disabled people too. Currently, the best evidence shows that disabled people’s primary mode of transport is the car; either as a driver or passenger. So if we can improve access and enable greater levels of walking, cycling and public transport use amongst disable people, travel can increase whilst minimising the environmental impact. Furthermore, the social consequences of poor accessibility – in particular, isolation as a result of not being able to travel, contributing to levels of loneliness, poor mental health, loss of independence, etc- will have an environmental impact down the line. For example, this will manifest itself in terms of the need for delivery of goods and services to isolated individuals, increased health related costs, etc. Hence, it is clear that economic, social and environmental factors o v erlap .

Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty’, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

28. T his might be useful, but could be a bit simplistic/blunt.

232

29. C ould there be a basket of ‘key public services’ and then a ratio constructed which expresses the cost (as a function of time or distance) of getting from home to a weighted basket of public services as a proportion of income?

30. T here are statistics on actual proportions of family expenditure spent on transport, and these tend to show that more affluent people spend more on transport, but this is because they are choosing to engage in a lot more travel. Perhaps a travel poverty ratio might seek to normalise the mount of travel, but according to being able to access some normalised set of services and facilities. However, these normalisations are likely to be quite crude, and the whole thing could take a lot of time to estimate .

31. S ustrans re port on transport poverty – Locked Out- referred to in the press this month, is relevant here and seeks to highlight numbers of those affected.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services.

32. T here i s a lot of evidence in this area, much of which provides contradictory signals. Being able to access things remotely does increase accessibility, but only where the technology is available and accessible – and it is often not (indeed, there are great concerns about over-reliance on ‘virtual’ accessibility when it is estimated that, at present, millions of people have either no internet access or insufficient computing skills). At the same time, if the remaining physical infrastructure is then rationalised, to reflect the fact that more people are accessing services remotely, then the travel involved when, inevitably, one wishes to or needs to access that physical infrastructure, becomes more difficult and time-consuming. There is also a wellbeing issue regarding the need to ‘get outdoors’; so being able to access things remotely doesn’t mean that this is what is preferred and what is best for the wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the research seems divided, and it appears that ICT is as likely, if not more so, to increase people’s travel as their horizons are broadened and aspirations are heightened, as it is to reduce their travel. Over time, one would expect ‘virtual’ accessibility, as it is currently understood, to improve and to b e embraced by a greater proportion of the population, but this could take quite some number of years, by which time concepts of virtual accessibility themselves may well have moved on.

21 September 2 012

233

Written evidence submitted by RAC Foundation

1. The RAC Foundation (Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring) is a transport policy and research organisation which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and their users. The Foundation publishes independent and authoritative research with which it promotes informed debate and advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist. 2. We welcome the opportunity to provide input into the Committee’s inquiry into accessibility of public services. 3. When talking about accessibility generally it is important to highlight the reliance on the car in British society. 84% of personal distance travelled within the UK (excluding walking or cycling) is done by cars, vans and taxis. This compares with 6% by bus, 8% by rail and less than 1% by pedal cycles.1 It is important to point out that this is a national average, and that outside London or the major conurbations, the proportion by car is higher. 4. 64% of all trips are as a car driver or passenger, compared with 22% on foot and 7% by local buses. Only 2.8% of trips are done by rail (which includes London underground).2 5. The main purposes of car travel are leisure (29%), e.g. visiting friends and family at home and elsewhere, shopping (20%) and commuting (16%). Car travel for education accounts for 8%.3 6. Factors which influence the distance and number of trips – one, albeit indirect, indicator of access – people do by car include: the availability of/access to a car; the price of running a car (fuel, maintenance, insurance, tax); the availability of public transport to access public services; congestion; and parking availability. 7. For many journeys, public transport outside London or any of the major conurbations is poor. It is difficult to complete an entire journey without access to a car, be it as a driver or passenger. This forces people into using their cars, which is exacerbated by the fact that integration between cars and other modes of transport is generally poor. Therefore, if the costs of owning and using a car are high (as a proportion of income), access generally will be constrained, especially for low‐ income households. 8. For most car journeys, most notably medium‐distance ones (10–50 miles), which account for 16% of journeys and 43% of miles travelled, there is often no realistic alternative to the car.4 9. While it is true that in absolute terms better‐off car owners pay more on owning and running their cars, as a proportion of income low‐income car‐owning households pay a greater share.5 This means they are more reliant on using their cars than the better‐off, which is evidenced by the fact that car use in low‐income groups is high.

1 Department for Transport (DfT) (2011). Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011. Table TSGB0101. London: DfT. 2 DfT (2011). National Travel Survey. Table NTS0409. London: DfT. 3 Ibid. 4 DfT (2010). National Travel Survey. Table NTS0501 and NTS0503. London: DfT. 5 Bayliss, D. (2009). Low income motoring in Great Britain. RAC Foundation. Retrieved 7 Septemb er 2012 from www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/low_income_motoring‐bayliss‐ 280909.pdf. 234

10. According to the Office for National Stat i stic s transport is the single biggest area of household expenditure at £64.90 a week. This is followed by housing, fuel and power at £60.40, recreation and culture at £58.10, and food and non‐alcoholic drinks at £53.20. Of the £64.90 spent on transport, 49% was spent on the operation of personal transport (£33.30 – of which £21.60 was spent on petrol, diesel and other motor oils), 30% was spent on the purchase of vehicles, and 19% was spent on transport services such as rail, tube and bus.6 11. The high proportion of weekly income spent on transport underlines households’ vulnerability to insurance costs, the cost of fuel, and, for younger drivers, the cost of acquiring a driving licence. 12. According to a recent report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,7 “In 2012, for the first time, families with children (but not households without children) living in urban areas outside London defined a car as essential. Focus groups’ perceptions of the declining adequacy of public transport seemed to resonate with evidence of cuts in services and sharp price rises since 2007/8. Parents taking part in the resear ch agreed that public transport is expensive and not sufficiently flexible and reliable to meet the needs of families with children.” 13. Buses are also important in providing certain groups of people with access if they do not have access to a car. According to Greener Journeys: 25% of households do not have access to a car (although the share of number of people is lower) and are completely reliant on the bus for many of their essential journeys; 43% of regular bus commuters do not have access to a car; and 70% of those with no car available use the bus frequently, compared with 20% of those with car available.8 14. Students are one of the major groups using buses – over 50% of students over 16 are frequent bus users. 30% of those who are dependent on bus services to access their education and training courses live in areas in the top 10% of most deprived areas in Great Britain.9 15. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report quoted above highlights “the vulnerability of low‐income families to the effect of cuts in services (including bus services, which can raise family transport costs) and in support through tax credits.” 16. It is important to highlight, however, that, in England, over 50% of passenger journeys on local bus services take place in London, and that outside London bus use is generally lower.10 17. While there has been a big growth in train travel, according to a National Rail report Britain relies on rail, 70% of all rail journeys start or end in London – if London underground is included, this figure is even higher.11 Rail is used more by wealthier

6 Office for National Statistics (2011). Family Spending. A report on the 2010 Living Costs and Food Survey. Retrieved 7 September 2012 from www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family‐spending/family‐spending/family‐spending‐ 2011‐edition/family‐spending‐2011‐pdf.pdf. 7 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2012). A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2012. Retrieved 7 September 2012 from www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/minimum‐income‐standards‐2012‐full.pdf. 8 Mackie, P, Laird, J. & Johnson, D. (2012). Buses and Economic Growth. Institute for Transport Studies report for Greener Journeys. Retrieved 10 September 2012 from www.greenerjourneys.com/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/06/BusesEconomicGrowth_FINAL‐REPORT.pdf. 9 Ibid. 10 DfT (2012). Bus Statistics. Table BUS0106a. London: DfT. 11 Network Rail (2011). Britain relies on rail. Retrieved 7 September 2012 from www.networkrail.co.uk/Contents/AboutUs/Documents/11865_BritainReliesonRail.pdf. 235

households, thus further highlighting lower income households’ reliance on the car.12 It would therefore be more appropriate to state that “London relies on rail and bus”, and that “Britain relies on the car”. 18. The abandonment of detailed Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG), specifically PPG13 on transport, and replacement with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) may mean that reliance on the car is increased and access for those without a car restricted. Of particular concern in the NPPF are the requirement that planning authorities must prove that the transport/traffic impact of a development must be severe for this impact to be treated as a reason to reject an application, and the move away from requirements to produce a travel plan, which might mitigate the transport impacts of a development proposal.13 19. As mentioned above, 64% of all trips people make in the UK (as driver or passenger) are by car. Unless the trip being made is just an escorted trip where the passenger will be ‘set down’, the car will require a parking space within walking distance of the destination. The walking distance will vary from person to person and will depend for all on the time available. So if suitable parking is not available at the destination or at a convenient distance from the destination access will be compromised or denied for car users. This may mean that a driver will go to another location for shops and services, not be able to access an alternative mode of transport for a long trip, or have to rely on publicly supplied and funded transport, for example an ambulance service to access health services. For older or disabled drivers, for whom parking can be the major obstacle in a journey, the last point is particularly important: parking availability can be the difference between being independent and being reliant on external provision of transport. 20. Increasing access could be achieved thr o ugh increasing car ownership. This may conflict with our environmental objectives as, on a per capita basis, car travel tends to emit more greenhouse gases than its alternatives. However, this will not always be the case, as in rural areas buses and rail tend to be older‐generation technologies, are likely to operate with low(er) ‘load factors’, and therefore have higher per capita emissions than cars with more than one passenger. 21. One solution to this could be alternative forms of car access: car clubs, car rental, lift sharing, peer‐to‐peer car clubs and one‐way car clubs. Although the net environmental impact of these services is a much debated topic, research suggests that overall mileage (and therefore emissions) do decrease: those who drive more, drive a bit more, but those who drive less, drive a lot less.14 To maximise the mobility benefits provided by these alternatives of car access, they must be integrated

12 RAC Foundation (2010). Rail use in Great Britain in 2007. Retrieved 7 September 2012 from www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/rac_foundation_rail_use.pdf. 13 Joint Campaign for Better Transport–RAC Foundation letter to the then Minister for Decentralisation and Cities, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Department for Communities and Local Government, 14 September 2011: www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/cbt‐ racf%20comment%20on%20nppf%20‐%20joint%20letter.pdf. 14 Le Vine, S. (2012). Car Rental 2.0. Car club innovations and why they matter. Retrieved 7 September 2012 from www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car_rental_2.0‐ le_vine_jun12.pdf. 236

efficiently and effectively with public transport.15 However, they also require increased access to the Internet and smartphones. 22. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK population will increase to 73 million by 2035.16 Accommodating 10 million more people should not only require the building of new homes, but also the provision of services to go with them. It is important that planning policy ensures that communities are built with community facilities to minimise the need to travel. 23. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that more than 10 million of the existing population will live to the age of 100.17 Albeit of a different type, an ageing population will still have transport demands to access services. 24. This may require a change in the way in which services are provided in order to reduce the need to travel in the first place. Examples of this already include NHS Direct, an extension of opening hours of the NHS, grocery deliveries, distance learning, and so on. However, many of these services will require the roll‐out of virtual infrastructure – physical phone and broadband networks, as well as mobile networks – and access to the Internet for the whole population. 25. It is also possible to combine public services in one location. This has happened in certain places, for example Ashford Gateway Plus (formerly Ashford Library), which now provides full library facilities, civil ceremonies, housing and benefits advice, adult education courses, and many more public services.18

17 September 2012

15 This is discussed in a note currently being prepared by the RAC Foundation on the findings from a seminar on car clubs and rental co‐hosted by the Foundation and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. Although currently in draft form, we would be happy to share this for the benefit of this inquiry. 16 Office for National Statistics (2011). National Population Projections 2010‐based Statistical Bulletin. Retrieved 10 September 2012 from www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national‐population‐projections/2010‐based‐projections/stb‐2010‐based‐npp‐ principal‐and‐key‐variants.html. 17 RAC Foundation (2011). Keeping the Nation Moving. Retrieved 10 September 2012 from www.racfoundation.org/research/mobility/keeping‐the‐nation‐moving. 18 www.kent.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/libraries/using_the_library/library_refurbishments/ashford_gateway_p lus.aspx

237

Written evidence submitted by Kerry Bentley, Community Organiser for High Green and Chapeltown

• Comments from me as Community Organiser based in the community of High Green in Sheffield S35 postcode with the knowledge of the community I work in being us ed t o consider a response. Comments are very basic and not what is in line with what should be expected for this type of consultation but there has been no opportunity to undertake proper re s e a r c h. • High Green is a community of around 10,000 residents in t h e n orth of the cit y . • The community has no library, 4 primary schools, no secondary school, and a school for conductive education and has part of its community in the top 10% most deprived wards in the country and a disproportionately elderly population. • Th e com munity has not been given any amount of time to respond to this consultation as it only found out about it very recently.

1. How are the Government's current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services? Can people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable e a s e ?

This consultation came to our attention too late to be able to find and study the full policy. Local people are able to access a GP and dentist surgery in the community but due to the topography of the area some elderly people have to rely on buses to get them around the village. Buses are notoriously unreliable in the area and the community has just had to petition against a plan in the Sheffield Bus Partnership consultation proposals to s crap one of its bus services that were vital for sections of the community to access health and education facilities in Rotherham. Out of hours GP surgeries in High Green send patients to Rotherham hospitals. The local secondary school in Ecclesfield is a partner school of two colleges in Rotherham and there are around 150 students travelling from the S35 postcode to the colleges relying on buses to get there.

As I say we haven’t had time to see and analyse the transport policies but we know that local peo ple do find accessing services (as they are predominantly outside the village) costly and difficult. Access to the city centre for example on public transport takes around an hour and new bus proposals mean a new route being introduced which will now extend these journey times by an additional 15 minutes. (not accounting for peak times, road works etc).

2. Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) affecting the accessibility of public services and the environm en t?

Again without having chance to read the policies a full appraisal can’t be made.

Planning policy locally is affecting the health of local people. RecyCoal has recently submitted a planning application to extract 395,000 tonnes of coal from a 40 year old ex coking plant spoil heap in the Hesley Wood area of the Chapeltown area which neighbours High Green. The site was purchased by RecyCoal in January 2012 from the Homes and Communities Agency. Their policy allows ‘economic assets’ that it holds to be sold on for the money to be used elsewhere by Government to help the economy. The sites should be then used for community benefit. Schemes of this nature will offer 4-5 years of drastic health issues for local people. Planning policy is so in favour of the 238

developer local people are at a real disadvantage to fight against it. The HCA policy contradicts the governments Big Society agency.

3. Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect the public transport that is in place to allow people to access th e m?

No. The bus petition I mention earlier was partly arguing the change to a bus service from High Green to Sheffield City Centre. We were told by the authorities involved that the bus route was being changed to coincide with a new health centre that was being built in a different part of the city. Residents that would be negatively affected in our community by the bus change will not be in the catchment area for the new surgery so will be unable to use it so the bus change will be of no use to them for this purpose. The health centre should have been built where existing links were already available.

4. Are environmental impacts considered when planning where to build/position public services? e.g. if a hospital is built far away from public transport links, do you think planners consider the environmental impact of people using cars/taxis to access it? How significant do you think this is to deciding where public services should b e ?

No they don’t. Planning policy allows for a travel plan to be s ubmitted but this is never enforced / monitored or fined against if the applicant doesn’t implement it. Often stating that staff / customers etc will travel via public transport or is just a paper tick box exercise. I think it is very significant, local p eople should be correctly liaised with PRIOR to any changes being made, it is them that have to live with any consequences and they should be LISTENED to correctly about how they will be impacted but also so they properly shape services. Too many authorities choose to ‘do things’ to communities rather than spend the time finding out what they actually need and want first.

5. The Government has asked that the accessibility of public services is considered when planning local transport links, do you think this is working? Do you think that the Department for Transport has taken forward the accessibility agenda?

When transport is provided by private companies, profit will be prioritised over public need / benefit. Transport infrastructure is often already not 1 00% right .

6. How should you measure how accessible a public service is by public transport?

Length of time taken to travel, frequency of services, affordability.

7. When planning transport infrastructure, do you think the social and accessibility needs conflicts with environmental considerations?

Unsure without being given enough time to consider the policies behind this, but social and accessibility needs often get left until the last consideration.

8. Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as ‘fuel poverty', be useful for policy-making? If so, how do you think it should be measu r e d ?

Possibly, but again without the correct amount of time to consider a response I can’t say.

9. Do you think that having broadband networks and the internet is lessening the need for transport infrastructure to access public services? 239

No not at all. Our community is limited in its access to the internet anyway. In terms of library services perhaps but other services no I don’t think s o .

7 September 2012 240

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Cambridgeshire County Council

This paper provides two examples of accessibility focused projects that Cambridgeshire is implementing.

Cambridgeshire Future Transport

1.1 This is a joint initiative with partners from across Cambridgeshire including local authorities, health services, community groups and transport providers, working together to find solutions to Cambridgeshire's transport and accessibility challenges. It aims to improve local transport provision to better meet local needs while at the same time reducing the amount of subsidised bus services.

1.2 The purpose of this programme is to identify practical, achievable and sustainable transport solutions through more effective, efficient and coordinated transport delivery mechanisms.

1.3 The programme is exploring new approaches that:

• strengthen the connections between transport solutions and community outcomes, • enable the pooling of resources across boundaries where applicable • provide a strategic framework to bring partners together • stimulate opportunities to create new community joint ventures to operate as local delivery bodies • engage more widely with other services to explore the potential to innovate and improve service accessibility in ways that reduce the need for journey. • provide transport solutions that better meet communities’ needs at less cost than traditional bus subsidies

2. Background

2.1 The background to this is that on 30th January 2012, the County Council committed to a three year phased programme of phasing out the £2.7 million used to subsidise bus services. Cabinet also approved the allocation of £1.5 million per annum funding for the Cambridgeshire Future Transport (CFT) project to support the provision of focused, alternative, more appropriate and better value-for- money transport solutions. The aim of the project is to work with local communities and service providers to invest this more targeted budget in providing transport solutions that better reflect the needs of the local areas.

2.2 The majority of subsidised services operate in the more rural areas of the county where passenger numbers are low or where the lengths of journey mean that operating costs are high, making the services unviable to operate commercially. On some of these services the level of subsidy required is very high in, one example it costs the authority £12 per person, per single trip. This does not represent good value for money, this project is therefore looking to work with the local communities to investigate alternative ways to provide transport which provides a solution to the transport need but is also cost effective. It is appreciated that these are also the areas where there is the greatest need for transport. For some, the subsidised service will be the lifeline that enables them to access services. For this reason a new transport solution must be in place before any subsidies are stopped.

2.3 In the early stages of the project, work was undertaken to look around the country to find examples of local transport solutions. Solutions will vary across the County and one size will not fit all. Solutions may include community operated schemes, smaller vehicles, demand responsive transport, links to commercial hubs, such as the Busway or Park and Ride as well as direct routes to certain 241

destinations and the many variations in-between. The project aims to be creative and find innovative solutions to historic problems.

2.4 A key element of CFT is encouraging local communities and service providers including partners to become more involved in the process of designing and delivering transport, developing a culture of co-production. This moves away from the historic approach whereby subsidised services have been designed based on previous or existing provision. The first step is working with local communities to asses the transport need in their local area to then work with transport providers and the local authority to design transport solutions that best reflect the identified need. By encouraging community involvement throughout the process and broadening the reach to include potential passengers, as well as existing, the resulting transport will be more sustainable and appropriate.

3.Investing in Local transport Solutions

3.1 A first phase of this project is developing a programme working with local members and their communities along with transport providers to co-produce local transport solutions. This programme will integrate with bus subsidies withdrawal and will need to identify solutions that offer better value for money and better meet local needs. Some of the proposals coming out of this so far include

3.2 Co-producing a new service to better meet local needs; In Area B, a geographical area to the south of Cambridge, the working group worked on a number of local transport solutions eventually narrowing the options to two. Of these the one that gained support from the community and local parishes is a 1hr 15 min loop which feeds passengers into the Citi 7, Whittlesford rail station and the Park and Ride at Babraham. A tender process for the new service has now finished and it is anticipated that this service will begin to operate in March 2013.

3.3 Better integration One of the key areas being explored is how better integration can be achieved within the provision of statutory transport and the potential for budgets to be pooled both internally and externally with partners such as the NHS.As part of this work we are looking to enable the aligning of resources and priorities across organisational boundaries – Looking at pooling budgets both internally and externally and providing a framework to bring partners together.

3.4 One such example is working to deliver improved access to healthcare (Doddington Hospital) where there has been join up between the initial work within the CFT programme and the Fenland Area Community Transport and Access subgroup to deliver improved access to the local Hospital. The theory is to use a local community transport operator to run an hourly door-to-door dial-a-ride service that can be used by patients entitled to non-emergency transport help, but to also provide a service for non-entitled passengers and relatives/friends. This would then free up the ambulance service to concentrate on its core business of emergency or high risk non-emergency transport. The cost of this alternative provision could reduce the NHS funding by providing the service at a lower cost than the current ambulance service and the income to the community transport operator would hopefully make the service viable. If successful the model could then be rolled out to other areas where there are significant patient movements and a local community transport provider.

Fenland Area Approach

1.Introduction

This is a highly successful programme which is aimed at addressing accessibility issues in Fenland District, north Cambridgeshire. 242

2.The Challenge

• Fenland district covers some 54,645 hectares of mostly agricultural land in Cambridgeshire. It is predominately rural and sparsely populated with services and facilities found within the market towns or within neighbouring districts • There is a population of 94,200 (2010 ONS) with around three quarters living in the market towns. There are over 20,000 people living in villages or more sparsely populated settlements. • Around 20% of households within Fenland do not have access to a car • Fenland has a higher population of people aged 65 and over (around 20%). At ward level, by assessing the number of older people, with the % of households without a car and the IMD access to services data, it has been possible to show that these issues are linked. • Traditional public transport is limited in many parts of Fenland with the predominant level of service being off peak from 9.30 am to 4pm. • There are also difficulties for children and young people to access services with limited or no public transport at evenings and weekends.

3.Addressing the challenge – Fenland DC Transport Approach

The Fenland Approach to the Access to Services Challenge has 5 key elements:

• Partnership Working and Stakeholders Transport and Access Group – This is an important group that drives the project. This group works together to align interests and reduce duplication to find solutions to resolve transport issues more quickly.. Its membership includes local authorities, public and community transport providers NHS and voluntary groups. Links with Town and Parish Councils are also very important. • Evidence Gathering & Data - A significant barrier to addressing access to services issues is a lack of evidence and information. E.g. Access to healthcare is an issue; however there is a need to scope what the specific issues are and the scale of the problem. Accessibility issues are also different within each settlement and as such it’s important to have an understanding of how each place works. Data and evidence was gathered and a review undertaken to highlight gaps and where further work was needed. • TAG Work Programme – Subsequent to the review, a focussed work programme has been developed and agreed by all partners. The Fenland District TAG has 4 work areas – Children and young people, Healthcare and older people, Transport infrastructure and community rail. • Access to Information - Promotion & Publicity – the provision of transport services are supported by ongoing promotion and publicity. A change in a person’s circumstance can mean that they need information at short notice that they have not needed before. Transport services are also subject to change. Information must also be available in places where people can find it such as GP Surgeries, Libraries or the Post Office. • Policy Development & Approach - It is clear that no one size fits all approach was going to address access issues in Fenland. The nature of the District is so varied that a policy approach was needed which would be flexible enough to address the full range of needs. The most critical requirement overall is that people can meet their daily needs without access to a car. A policy approach has therefore been developed using three tiers, which are as follows: • Public Transport – traditional bus and rail services • Dial-A-Ride – Semi scheduled minibus services that collect people from their homes, meeting the needs of people who cannot access public transport or who do not have any public transport services • Community Car Schemes – these are schemes established by Care Network, a Cambridgeshire Charity concerned with ensuring that older people can maintain independent living. Community Car Schemes are run by volunteer drivers and are completely flexible catering for individual specific journeys. • Market Town Transport Strategies – joint strategies for each market town that include programmes of improvements for walker, cyclists and public transport users. Typical each strategy will be a programme of improvements for 5 – 10 years. Schemes are generally funded through the Local Transport Plan also S106 from developments. Fenland has MTTS for March and Wisbech with a Chatteris Strategy due to be adopted in June 2010

243

4.Implementation and Outcomes

Policy & Project Implementation - Access to services

An initial starting point was to recognise the inconsistency in the level of transport available across the whole of Fenland. Some significant gaps were identified including access to information and the cost of travel.

The Transport and Access Group has implemented a varied work programme including evidence base research, large programmes of marketing and advertising transport services and working with local communities and stakeholders to improve services. Further details are provided in table 1 below which sets out the main projects and the reasons why they were considered as solutions.

The outcomes of all the above work are as follows:

• An effective Transport and Access Group which includes all key partners, is effective as a champion of local transport and is focused on the delivery of improvements now and in the future. This ensures that transport improvements are made more quickly. • There is one approach to the delivery of public and community transport at the local level in Fenland. This enables improvements to be made quickly and more easily • Greater awareness of the public and community transport available in Fenland across the whole community. This is leading to greater use of the services • A targeted approach to delivering new and improved public and community transport which meets local need. • Local people are seeing transport improvements that they requested • Significantly higher levels of use of public and community transport 244

Table 1 – Implementing Solutions

Solution/Project Year Reason for Solutions Comments

Map Based Research 2007 - There is a need for evidence showing where bus Promotion of local bus services, Linking different GIS layers such as bus routes and the location of ongoing services travel, where the infrastructure is located FACT Dial A Ride services and bus bus stops with the location of Concessionary Bus Pass Holder and where people live. Many people did not live stop infrastructure made residents postcodes. This assesses whether bus users live near bus stops and near a stop. aware of the transport available. services. Use of Map Based Research to improve bus stop infrastructure and 2007 - There are over 2,000 unmarked bus stops in There is a bus stop with locations ongoing Cambridgeshire. infrastructure now located within 400m of most of the homes in the 4 Using the evidence, FDC & CCC discussed with the town councils Fenland market towns. and local bus companies the best locations for new bus stop infrastructure. Fenland Transport Directory 2011 - There is a need to provide information about all The directories are available in the By mapping bus stop infrastructure that was already in Fenland, ongoing types of public transport in one place. This avoids One Stop Shops, Libraries, GP FDC and CCC were able to discuss with the town councils and the confusion and helps to Surgeries; health care groups are local bus companies the best places to place future infrastructure providing them to their members. Getting from A to B Case Studies 2011 - Local residents, particularly people with more Access to hospital booklets are now Part of an initial series of 6 – aimed at giving real life scenarios on a ongoing complex needs did not know what transport options in development. variety of transport related issues. The aim is to assist people to were available for accessing hospitals, shopping, make better transport choices to meet their needs. education etc. Health and social care workers are also now always aware. Patient Transport Questionnaire and Access to Healthcare Research 2011 - Access to Healthcare is a big issue in Fenland due to Around 1,500 people completed a The results of the questionnaires, along with site visits and survey ongoing its rural nature. Research was needed to understand questionnaire in the GP surgeries or days. Map based results together with an action plan to address the the difficulties people face accessing healthcare. the hospitals in Fenland. issues.

Disseminating transport information & policy 2009 - Local residents were providing feedback suggesting DAR passenger figures continue to Promote the three tiers of transport on FDC Website, One Stop ongoing they did not know what transport was available. The increase month on month. All DAR Shops and local newspapers. Work with operators of public and original DAR leaflets were outdated and needed a and Community Car Scheme details community transport including developing new community transport new image to attract new customers, especially are available to download on FDC leaflets. younger people. This promotion and publicity has website along with copies in printed to be sustained over time and cannot be a one off format. exercise. 245

Solution/Project Year Reason for Solutions Comments Public Transport Operators – in partnership with the TAG we 2007 - There was a need to better integrate the Parish Plan We have been able to address known established meetings with operators to discuss Parish Plan actions ongoing process with organisations that deliver public and future gaps in the transport and develop extensions or changes to bus services. transport. Allows the Town and Parish Councils network more easily. more opportunity to assist with improving transport services. Concessionary Fares (DAR) – the scheme was extended in 2008 2008 - Residents with a very limited or no bus services Many comments have been made by with a local add on to include Dial A Ride services. CCC and FDC ongoing were severely disadvantaged by the national scheme residents that the DAR service is a now cover the cost of dial a ride services for local residents if they did not have a bus service. With a large lifeline to them. The con fares elderly population where people cannot use public scheme allows them to make more transport DAR is often their only option journeys that improve their quality of life. Concessionary Fares (Rail) – Discounted senior railcards. In 2006 - By purchasing the cards in bulk with the other Around 700 discounted senior rail partnership with the other Cambs districts Fenland residents can ongoing districts we able to help local residents make costs cards are issued through FDC each purchase senior railcards at a rate below the price they can be savings. year. obtained at railway stations. Dial A Ride Services – work with operators to introduce a revised 2007 – New timetables were needed to meet demand and These questionnaires helped FACT DAR timetable. This includes 4 routes across Fenland There are 3 ongoing also due to bus service changes and withdrawals. to put on services to places that services each way per day Monday to Saturday for 3 DAR routes. New 4th FDC worked with operators to develop people wanted to travel to. Doing this The 4 route has one journey each way per day. New weekly and route 2009. questionnaires for current users as supporting made sure that services are well used. monthly services are also added. evidence.

Assist Community Transport operators – helping operators to 2007 - There is a need to sustain Community Transport develop their business plans, marketing plans and approaches, ongoing services both now and in the future. There is a need including a Councillor being elected to their board for better use of existing minibuses to meet local needs. New and improved links have been made with healthcare providers as well as developing a better understanding of wider transport links. Rail Strategy & Community Rail Partnership 2009 - Fenland has 3 rail stations in the district, with The Rail Strategy was adopted by ongoing various levels of services and facilities. There is FDC Cabinet in April 2012. Some of Development of a rail strategy including policy issues, a Stations strong local support for rail in Fenland but people the proposals have been included in Investment Plan and proposals for a Community Rail Partnership. want to see improvements to services and stations. the Market Town Transport Delivery of a Community Rail Partnership (CRP) to support local They also want a greater voice for improvements. Strategies. Station Master plans are community involvement in the railways in development.

28 February 2013 246

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Merseytravel

Below are some case studies from projects that are current or have operated in the past in Merseyside.

Scooter Commuter Case Study Wirral NTT Alan contacted the Travel Team through his local Job Centre. He had been offered a position over on Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool. The position was full time and permanent. He desperately wanted to take the job but he was worried about how long the journey would take and what the travel costs would be each week. Alan was given a personalised journey plan from his home address to his place of work; to enable us to do this we took his home and work postcode and work times. From this we were able to tell him about the journey and how long it would take him to get there. The journey would take him 59 minutes; it involved walking, a rail journey and one bus, this journey would cost him 65.10 per month for a Trio 2 area bus pass. Due to the length of the journey Alan was eligible to apply for the WorkWise Scooter Scheme, which would enable him to have the loan of a scooter for 6 months, receive all the relevant training, protective clothing and cost of the licence if required. By offering this service to Alan he was able to accept the job and have the peace of mind that he could get back and to from work each day.

Wheels to Work Case Study Sefton When Sefton@Work asked the Sefton Travel Team to assist 4 clients who had been offered a work trial in Kirkby, they knew it would be a challenge given the location of the employer and public transport provision between Bootle and Kirkby, particularly when it was discovered they were required to be at work for 8am. Due to the nature of the work, there was no flexibility with start times. On researching the transport options, it became apparent that the location was not served directly by any buses. It was also some distance from Kirkby station. However, it was noted that the clients could cycle to Kirkdale station, take the train to Kirkby, and then cycle to their place of work. The overall journey time for this would be 40 minutes. This suggestion was presented to the clients who were less than enthusiastic with the suggestion. It had been some time since each had cycled, and they were not convinced that they would be able to manage the route. Given their reluctance, a 247

travel officer offered to take all 4 individuals on the route the day before the work trial, to demonstrate how quick and easy it would be. 1 client insisted he would prefer to walk from Kirkby station, but 3 very wary and nervous cyclists joined him on the route to their prospective new place of work. The travel officer provided some basic travel training along the route, and despite some particularly wet weather, all returned tired but enthusiastic and surprised that the cycle route had been so easy. The officer met all 4 cyclists again on the morning of their work trial to accompany them on the route, and all arrived safely and were particularly impressed that they had enough time for a bacon butty before starting work. All 4 clients were all offered permanent positions.

Free Travel Pass Case Study Michael rang me. He had got himself a job in the Whitechapel Centre. It’s about two miles out of town and it caters for homeless people. They’ve taken on these support workers in order to accommodate that and they’re working from about eight o'clock at night to eight o'clock the next morning. Michael found out that we did these travel passes and he contacted me and asked whether he could come down and get one. Obviously I did the check and everything and he was fine. This must have been the Wednesday or the Thursday by the time he realised that we were there in operation and he lived in Liverpool 11 which is about eight miles from where he was working. He’d been walking in and back again. Sixteen miles a day and the weather was freezing! He had to come out two hours before his start time and walk in that freezing cold weather, then do a twelve hour shift and after doing the twelve hour shift a two hour walk back home again because he didn’t have the fare. He was saying, “I can’t praise this enough, it’s a life-saver”.

Personalised Journey Plans Case Study We worked with youngsters and I was quite surprised. We said we are going to go through to the IT suite and do some journey planning and stuff like that and they were all sort of, “Oh yeah we know what we’re doing, we know all this already”. We couldn’t believe it when got them on the journey planner, we gave them sort of scenarios - You’ve got to be at MBNA Bank on the other side of Chester at eight o'clock in the morning and this, that and the other ... And they were doing them and they were getting to the bus stop at five to eight! We said to them, “But have you worked out just how far you’ve got to travel there and where you’ve got to walk to?” 248

And it was all these sort of time-management issues that came up. People just don’t realise about the planning process to get you there on time, things you’ve got to think about what might happen you know and it was quite good.

A People-Centred Holistic Approach

We had a lady who started seeing us about twelve months ago. She had been made redundant a couple of week previous and was just looking for jobs. She was a single mum, two kids, mortgage and all of that and within that month she was struggling to get to interviews because she had nothing coming back in. She had job search after job search.

We had the money from Starting Point to send her to interviews and training and the more we saw her, because I’d say we saw her probably once a month, the more desperate she was becoming. The more anxious and in financial danger she was becoming. She expressed it because we built up, as you do, you build up a relationship, we knew that her mortgage was in jeopardy, her house was ready to be repossessed and she kept plugging away and plugging away.

I think the job she actually got, she had four interviews, one in St Helens, one in Liverpool, one in Lancaster and one in Preston. We totted it up, it was something like £45 travel which she just couldn’t have afforded, no way, especially with trying to pay something towards her mortgage, bring up two kids and live, no chance!

Finally she found a job, we provided her with a pass which she admitted at the time there was no way she could have afforded, especially the job she was doing. Not only did she need to get into work, as part of her duties she needed to travel around the borough. So even if she’d have got a daily saver, which is £4.20 a day, that’s £22 a week. And just the saving of that £80 a month meant she could start paying early towards back payments to her mortgage.

We saw her a couple of weeks ago and she’s a completely different woman. She’s independent again, she’s got some financial worries but she knows that they’re in hand; there is a means to pay them off. She’s left us a couple of cards and a couple of bottles of wine as thank you.

29 January 2013 249

Supplementary written evidence from the Department of Education

Qs 138 &139 Examples of joint working with Department for Culture Media and Sports

There is shortly to be a cross-Government announcement on school sport. Once this has been made, the Department will be in a position to share details of the impact of this work.

Q 191 Does the Department have any examples or analysis of transport costs borne by local authorities as a result of education policy changes (since May 2010).

There has not been any specific analysis of the impact of education policy changes. Anecdotally we are aware that:

• general cuts in local authority funding have led to many authorities cutting discretionary transport or introducing charging for it. Typically this is transport to faith schools, where traditionally local authorities have provided free transport. Before taking such steps, local authorities should consult widely for at least 28 working days during term time; and

• some local authorities are facing increased transport costs resulting from Academies making changes in session times. Under Section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 a local authority has power to charge maintained schools for changed transport costs, resulting from session time changes. This does not apply to Academies, which are established under different legislation. Consequently local authorities can only ask schools to reimburse the cost of altering transport schedules, otherwise local authorities must meet the cost. We are also aware, however, of emerging good practice where the local authority working with all their schools are improving the service and some schools are taking on elements directly for themselves. I hope our Efficiency and Practice Review Report will highlight some of those emerging good examples.

6 March 2013 250

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Paul Williams

Labour Market Operations Director, Department for Work and Pensions

Please find some additional information I felt could be useful following the session on 13 February 2013.

Q126 I promised the committee further information around the National Customer Satisfaction Survey, please find enclosed a link to the published survey (2011), which was the source of the response provided to you on 13 February regarding ease of access. Section 3.4.6 discusses access to the service. http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/rrep775.pdf

Q179-184 These questions concerned the accessibility clauses in contracts for services DWP has in place.

An edited copy of the Medical Services Contract document (DEP2010 – 1704) is available in the House of Lords library and can be accessed from the link below: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/deposited- papers/?max=100&page=3&y=2010&house=2&sort=1&sortasc=False#toggle-1704

In the ‘clauses’ section of the contract it refers at various points to compliance with all laws, statutes, enactments etc. in force at the time of the agreement. Paragraphs 3.1.2, 8.9.1 – 8.9.3, 9.1.3 and 9.5.2.1 (a & b) in particular refer.

The Work Programme contract may be accessed here: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-prog-draft-terms.pdf

The clauses with respect to accessibility are contained in Appendix 9, Diversity and Equality Requirements, on pages 109-120.

At present there are no plans for a tightening of accessibility clauses in future contracts but I have passed on the committee’s view to the relevant team.

Q191 If any of you have any experience or examples of how within your Departments account has been taken of the increased costs for local authorities as a result of changes in your policies, particularly where there is deregulation, it would be very interesting to have some kind of indication—not necessarily now, but in writing—of what is fed, perhaps through the Cabinet Committee in terms of DCLG, in terms of expectations about how various needs will be met at a local level.

251

Strategy colleagues have advised that there is no evidence from any impact study or evaluation of any such cost transfers.

Q125 The committee asked about costs of telephone calls and whether or not they were a problem. I thought it would be helpful to give the committee an insight into current departmental policy.

The current Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) policy is that all calls should be free to our 0800 numbers to claim: • State Pension; • Pension Credit; • Jobseekers’ Allowance; • Employment Support Allowance; and • Emergency payments or crisis loans.

It is free to call DWP 0800 numbers from all major landline providers. DWP has secured agreements to ensure that it is free to call via seven of the UK’s largest mobile phone operators.

The Department currently uses 0845 telephone numbers where its customers call for other reasons, and these are calls that typically take less time to resolve. The charges that apply to these calls will be set by the customer’s telephone or mobile operator.

We are aware of possible financial difficulties that calling DWP could cause some customers and so we will also offer to call back a customer calling our services, if asked, or if concerns are raised over the cost of the call. The Department also provides “Customer Access Phones” in a large number of its Jobcentre Plus offices. Customers can use these phones to make benefit claims or pursue job applications and do not have to pay when using these facilities.

Q179 Peter Aldous, the MP for Waveney, asked about accessibility issues around claimants attending ATOS premises in Norwich. I have taken the opportunity to provide further information in this regard.

While all assessment centres meet accessibility standards, where access to assessment rooms is via a lift there are health and safety implications in the event of a fire if claimants cannot use stairs. There are 123 permanent assessment centres, of which 27 do not have a ground floor assessment room available.

The Norwich Assessment Centre is located on the 2nd Floor and it is recognised that this does present difficulties to customers with decreased mobility in the event of an emergency when the lift cannot be used. DWP continues to look for options on all sites where ground floor assessment rooms are not available. However, consideration will need to be given to the costs of achieving a solution balanced with the number of claimants sent home unseen. 252

As Norwich Assessment Centre is not located on the ground floor, prior to the customer being called to an assessment, efforts are made by Atos Healthcare to identify customers who may have problems in evacuating the building, via the stairs, during an emergency. The information provided to customers highlights the location of the Assessment Centre and that in an emergency the exit from the Assessment Centre will be by stairs. Customers that feel this would cause them difficulties are invited to contact Atos Healthcare to discuss their individual circumstances.

Where decreased mobility makes attendance at the Norwich Centre unsatisfactory, the customer is either offered an assessment at the nearest ground floor centre, with full reimbursement of travel expenses or alternatively a home visit.

In the nine months between April and December 2012, 59 claimants were sent home unseen from Norwich Assessment Centre for health and safety reasons. This figure includes instances where claimants have been sent home unseen due to ground floor accessibility issues. This equates to 0.8% of Norwich’s total face to face assessments completed for Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Reassessments during this period.

13 March 2013