Transport in isolated communities: Memoranda Received Key: Item No with a * is a further NEW items are listed below with the number and title in bold, and are available on the Members’ or supplementary item. shared drive (Inquiry/MAS/Written evidence)
No. Author
TIC 001 Dr Roger Sexton
TIC 002 Spectrum
TIC 003 Age Scotland
TIC 004 West Dorset District Council
TIC 005 Public Transport Action Group
TIC 006 Jean Keyworth
TIC 007 Brian Kennish
TIC 008 Ruth Rigg
TIC 009 Vicky Von-Hessler
TIC 010 Compass Disability Services
TIC 011 Appleby Town Council
TIC 012 Alex Cook
TIC 013 Grave Over Sands Town Council
TIC 014 Donna Howitt
TIC 015 H Compton
TIC 016 Hastoe group
TIC 017 Janet Erskine
TIC 018 Borrowdale Parish Council
TIC 019 Gloucestershire Rural Communities
TIC 020 Fellow Travellers Ltd
TIC 021 Association of Local Bus Companies
TIC 022 Sutton Valance Parish Council
TIC 023 Simon Norton
TIC 024 Teesdale U3A
TIC 025 Chartered Instition of Highways and Transportation
TIC 026 ACRE TIC 027 Blanchland Parish Council
TIC 028 Rural Community Council of Essex
TIC 029 Broomley and Stocksfield Parish Council
TIC 030 Community First
TIC 031 TravelWatch NorthWest
TIC 032 Ramblers’ Association
TIC 033 pteg
TIC 034 TSSA retired members group
TIC 035 Leslie Bowman
TIC 036 Hambleton and Richmondshire Rural Transport & Access Partnership (H&R RTAP)
TIC 037 Gwen Harlow
TIC 038 Fare Enough
TIC 039 Seascale Parish Council
TIC 040 Northumberland County Council
Written evidence from Dr Roger Sexton (TIC 001)
1 I am only dealing with your third question, ‘What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities?’
A Bus Deregulation
2 Buses are the main form of rural public transport. The biggest ‘challenge’(I would use the word ‘problem’) is the lack of public control over bus services. Unlike in the rest of Europe, most British bus services outside London are provided commercially; these services are not planned by public bodies such as a German/Swiss/ Austrian Verkehrsverbund or a Swedish Lanstrafiken.
3 In very rural parts of Britain there may be no commercial bus services, and the Local Authority can then plan the system. But that situation is rather rare. Usually in rural areas (eg in North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire) there are some commercial registrations which make a planned network impossible. Bus deregulation also makes integration of rail, bus and ferry services impossible. This point is even more important in rural areas than it is in cities.
4 As I have said before, we need regional PTA-type bodies covering the whole country, with control over all local rail, bus and ferry services. See e.g. your 2012 report on competition in the bus industry, my oral evidence at Ev page 14 Q93. I would add that in the Netherlands, there are PTA-like bodies controlling all local public transport, urban and rural.
5 In the context of cycling, we are constantly being exhorted to ‘go Dutch’. The same should be true of public transport. And what do Dutch cyclists do when it rains? Or they have heavy luggage, or they want to go a long distance, perhaps to rural Friesland, or the islands off the north coast? They use their excellent integrated regulated public transport network. And to pay for their journeys, they get out their nationwide ‘Oystercard’, the ‘OV Chipkaart’.
6 Yes, one smartcard for the whole country, both urban and rural and valid on all forms of public transport! Contrast the situation here in urban Nottingham where there are now three incompatible smartcard systems in one city – and that is just for buses! (Trams and trains are not covered.)
B Senior Bus Passes
7 A second major problem is the distorting effect of Senior bus passes. Seniors living in rural areas insist on bus services (timetabled to leave their village after 09 30) so they can use their free passes. They reject rail, ferry or shared taxis. That is nonsensical.
8 I would not extend the free bus pass to other forms of public transport. Rather I would replace it with a smart card ‘purse’ valid on all forms of public transport . I would suggest an annual value of £520, (£10 per week.). There would, of course, have to be legislation imposing a uniform smart card system on all operators of public transport. See my written evidence to the 2012 enquiry, page Ev 75 paragraph 15, but note paragraph 6 above.
9 There might be a case for the smart card ‘purse’ to be larger for Seniors living in rural areas a long way from the nearest large town. However, another advantage of public transport being controlled by a PTA is that the PTA sets the fares. We must put an end to the absurd situation where one sector of the rural population can make unlimited journeys ‘to town’ for nothing, while other sectors (particularly the young and the unemployed) have to pay very high fares. We can only do that by (both) ending bus deregulation and putting some upper limit on the use of Senior bus passes.
July 2013 Written evidence from Spectrum (TIC 002)
Spectrum, based in Cornwall, are a care provider dealing with people whose condition impacts on their ability to travel on public transport and even these people are having problems securing assistance with transport costs other than through the DLA / PIP route. In the wider community we have people being supported in outreach services who have no ability to migrate in and out of their village other than before 10.00am, firs bus, and 3.30pm last bus which makes for them planning their days activity and skills development a very difficult task to manage.
We have the situation in the County where some of the major town have bus and train routes available but the costs of traveling in this manner is prohibitive and where a driver fails to report for work they bus simply does not run, again detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people who need to plan meticulously for journeys.
July 2013 Written evidence from Age Scotland (TIC003)
We received the notification of the Transport Committee’s inquiry into ‘Passenger Transport in Isolated Communities’. You may be aware that the Scottish Parliament’s Infrastructure & Capital Investment Committee recently held an inquiry into community transport.
As part of our campaign, Still Waiting, Age Scotland has been lobbying for a review of the existing National Concessionary Travel scheme in order that this is made more widely available on community transport services. We submitted evidence to the Infrastructure & Capital Investment Committee and, while we are aware that transport in Scotland is a devolved matter, we hoped that the findings of our research and the key questions which it raises may be of interest in your own investigation.
A copy of Age Scotland’s submission to the Infrastructure & Capital Investment Committee’s inquiry is available here.
If you have any questions in relation to this or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
July 2013
Written evidence from West Dorset District Council (TIC004)
Referring directly to your suggested bullet points:
1• How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)? At the moment, very poorly! Local Authorities and local councillors have much information on the locality and need of people requiring extra care packages, but this information is not used (or is not made available) to transport providers. Health and Social Care providers, the Voluntary sector, School transport providers, Church and other local community organisations should be asked to pool their information.
2• To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities? Again, liaison between different agencies would be enormously helpful.
3• What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome? Affordability. More publicity as to when buses are available is vital as is co-ordinated thinking as to when people with additional needs are in need. It is recognised that it is uneconomic to provide empty buses but ‘use it or lose it’ initiatives can be helpful if they are continually repeated – though I recognise diminishing returns here!
4• How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved? Direct contact with those identified by the various care-providing agencies and voluntary groups should help identify need and enable individuals to get together so that they can all be transported together.
5• To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services? Depends how isolated – and how needy! Taxi provided by the LTA, as happens with schoolchildren, could be a way forward. 6• What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable? Ask local groups to get together to ‘save their local service’
July 2013 Written evidence from the Public Transport Action Group (TIC005)
Just a couple of comments we have discovered when looking at a better public transport system within our Borough of Telford & Wrekin which is bigger than County Town of Shrewsbury with approximately 103,000 plus 192,000 population in Rural Shropshire. Shropshire is a large County of 3,198 Sq Kilometres (1,235 Sq Miles) Telford is the largest Town of 290 Sq Kilometres ( 112 Sq Miles)
Telford & Wrekin Borough which is a New Town built in an old area and also covers 13 rural settlements has a population of 170,000.
Firstly: Elderly people who mostly decide to stop in their original dwellings in the older area of the Borough become isolated because public transport cannot access their areas and all areas cannot be covered by our public transport system which wants to cover the younger population in our newer estate areas.
Secondly: Rural areas cannot be covered because of the number of public not wanting to use public transport because of fare prices due to fuel and maintenance costs, then those areas become isolated.
All the above figures are approx but I hope they are in the right percentage.
July 2013
Written evidence from Jean Keyworth (TIC 006)
I live in a small village called Habrough in north east Lincs. We have a very limited bus and train service, some days our bus goes through to our nearest town Grimsby but there is no return service so commuters have to return on the next available train or walk 2-3 miles from Immingham.
This can be very expensive as there are no concessions or not a lot off any train fares.
Our doctors surgery is 3 miles from our village and can cost £5-00 pounds there and back, a lot of money if you’re on a basic pension or limited means.
July 2013 Written evidence from Brian Kennish (TIC 007)
I live in Ravenglass in Cumbria and wish to bring to the notice of the committee the lack of train services to this community in the early evening and none at all on a Sunday.
It takes about 2 hours to travel from Ravenglass to Lancaster to then transfer to a major City train. The last train in the evening to Ravenglass leaves Lancaster before 4.30pm.
In the last 20 years I have only been able to book one return journey when taking holidays. Almost all of the time I am forced to to use my car instead of the train because of the limitations of the service provided.
July 2013 Written evidence from Ruth Rigg, Chair of Old Hutton Village Hall and members of the Parish Council
As we are a village with no public transport those who are aware of the scheme and don' t drive use Rural Wheels as a way of getting into Kendal to do shopping and attend doctors and hospital appointments
Written evidence from Vicky Von-Hessler (TIC 0009)
I'm writing about the public transport in poor places. I live in a small village called St Newlyn East, the buses there are appalling they are either late or don't turn up. I have rung them several times to complain but nothing happens. There are a lot of people who rely on the public transport either to go to work or other needs like medical.
On the 10:10 it's a small little bus and always so busy and most people fight to get on as it's always full from Newquay and its not good enough, the bus company are also so rude. I find it hard to get a job as the buses are so poor there are no late buses and the last one from Truro is 6:10pm and sometimes that doesn't even turn up, we get no buses on Sundays nor bank holidays and we only get buses every hour. The bus company just took the half hour one off from us when people relied on that one as well it always seems to be us who gets it all the time and they will be stopping our buses march next year and everyone is worried.
August 2013 Written evidence from Compass Disability Services (PIC 0010)
Compass Disability Services is a user led organisation based in Somerset but also operating in different parts of the country providing services which promote independent living.
We carry out consultation work with disabled people and carers in Somerset through our Network project. We work with local authorities to consult on issues that disabled people may be interested in having their say on. We also carry out Disability Forums and Discussion Groups inviting speakers to engage with disabled people and carers and give them a chance to have their voice heard.
We have been asked to carry out consultation work for Somerset County Council on topics such as the ‘Long Term Transport Strategy for Somerset’ in 2010 and the ‘Bus Subsidies Reduction Consultation’ in January 2012. In addition to this, issues regarding transport have been raised by our members at our disability groups and forums.
This information is summarised below;
Public Transport 1. Being able to access suitable public transport is high on the list of priorities for disabled people as well as the need to have manned train and bus stations with trained staff.
Even in more urban areas such as Taunton, disabled people who are wheelchair users have to wait sometimes close to 2 hours for a public transport bus with a ramp which is suitable for them. There is only 1disabled space for a wheelchair on public transport and there are inconsistencies in staff attitudes in assisting people to access buses. Bus drivers can ask for other passengers to collapse buggies to assist access but cannot insist, this relies on members of the public being helpful.
There are limitations of access with smaller buses in rural areas. Hospital Transport 2. Changes in criteria for provision of hospital transport have created a greater need for other forms of transport which are low in cost to get people to appointments.
Community Transport 3. Inconsistencies exist with community transport and the slinky service across the county of Somerset in terms of the cost and the areas it covers. The slinky service is a door-to-door service provided for older and disabled people living in rural locations with no access to local bus routes or those without access to their own car. All the vehicles are accessible and provide access for wheelchair users. The SLINKY services are funded by Somerset County Council.
The cost of community transport schemes has increased and is not necessarily cheaper than taxis. There are also problems in getting transport, other services such as Slinky are not provided in all areas of the County (report extract Jan 2009). If you have a concessionary pass, depending on which service you use, you can use your bus pass. Slinky is limited to certain areas and it doesn’t cross boundaries, they serve the local communities in the areas they are based. “If one person wants it in the north and then another wants it in the south it cannot be done”. These services are also in high demand and are often difficult to obtain.
No community transport is available in the evenings to provide transport for disabled people to attend groups. This can be a vital way of preventing isolation.
Taxis 4. In the Taunton area, taxi vouchers used to be provided as an option for disabled people instead of a concessionary pass. This is no longer an option and places emphasis on the need for public transport and community transport schemes to be more available.
When disabled people have to use taxis to get to appointments because of lack of availability of public transport they need to have a known company to use as access can vary e.g. the ramps used for powered chairs are not always to the same safety standards.
August 2013
Written evidence from Appleby Town Council (TIC 010)
This submission comes from Andy Connell, who is mayor of Appleby-in- Westmorland, and Peter Smith, who is a vicechairman of the Heart of Eden Trust, an umbrella organisation for a cluster of parishes, including Appleby. Both have long-standing interest in, and knowledge of public transport issues.
• Para 1 describes the area • Para 2 discusses the rail service • Para 3 outlines current service bus provision • Para 4 discusses the value of scheduled bus services • Para 5 discusses the pre-requisites for new services. • Para 6 discusses voluntary service provision • Para 7 discusses funding • Para 8 suggests how funding could be more effective
1. Appleby is historic market town with a population of less than 3,000; but approved housing developments are expected to increase its population by c. 20% in the next few years. It is surrounded by a scattering of villages, typically two or three miles apart, with populations of a few hundred. Appleby and Bolton one of villages are the only settlements designated a service centres.
2. Appleby lies on the Settle-Carlisle railway line, and has a manned station. There are seven Monday-Saturday services in each direction and four (three in winter) on Sundays. Services are much better than in the 1980s, when the line was threatened with closure, and patronage much greater, helped by the introduction of a local railcard. As well as local work, education and shopping journeys from Appleby, the railway also brings tourists into the town.
3. The main scheduled bus service is the 563 from Kirkby Stephen to Penrith via Appleby and the A66, six times a day Monday-Saturday (no Sunday or Bank Holiday service). There is also the Tuesday only 625 from Appleby to Penrith and back via several villages, the Wednesday only 561 from Appleby to Kendal and back, and the Friday morning only 573 from surrounding villages into Appleby and back out at mid-day. Only the 563 is timed to get people in and out of work; the others are primarily shopper services.Bolton has a bus service to Penrith on a Friday which is provided by Fellrunner, a charity which uses volunteer drivers. All are subsidised by county and parish councils.
4. It is not clear what is meant by ‘isolated communities’; if this means settlements without scheduled public transport, the first concern is that service cuts do not create any more of them. Public transport is a key part of the process of managing ageing populations. Not only does it give people mobility without having to resort to wasteful and potentially hazardous journeys by car, it also provides a regular community event to which they look forward, with benefits to physical and mental health. People who do not want to be car-dependent, particularly as they get older, will sometimes move into Appleby so that they can access public transport.
5. It is not reasonable to move to, or choose to remain in, a village and demand scheduled bus services; and, indeed, this rarely happens. The Rural Bus Grant of a few years ago was largely wasted because of an insistence that it must go to new routes rather than enhancing existing ones; the result was short-lived services that were little used. New services can succeed, but only if a quite specific demand and ridership has been identified in advance. It follows therefore that government and authorities must do the research in order to identify demand for passenger transport: it is not enough to have vague assurances of support from parish councils and voluntary organisations. There must be a known core of committed users of a rural service, which may grow once it is up and running.
6. Our view of Community Transport services and is that they are a potentially valuable enhancement to scheduled public transport, but not a replacement. Demand- responsive services like Cumbria’s Rural Wheels are appropriate and important for those in isolated locations, but should not be seen as a justification for cutting a bus service. Older people like the security of a regular event in company; if they have to book something days in advance, they will stay at home, and their health will suffer.
7. Funding of rural public transport is obviously a problem. The best answer is for councils and community groups to encourage usage so that seats are generally filled. However the majority of potential passengers will have a bus pass and therefore to remain viable a meaningful payment must be provided to the company providing the service based on usage by bus pass carrying passengers. This payment has been cut to 58% of the fare payable as part of austerity measures, with hints of further reductions to come; it is vital that the payment is stable and realistic if the bus services currently operating are to remain viable.
8. Subsidised shopper services can be more viable if they are integrated with school bus services for 39 out of the 52 weeks. Too often local authority contracting departments appear to ignore one another. For example, until a few years ago, an Appleby-Kendal passenger service ran twice daily Monday-Friday without a subsidy because the operator did school runs at either end of the shift. But the school contract was awarded to a different firm, and the operator withdrew the passenger service entirely. All that was eventually salvaged was one subsidised weekly service (10% of what there had previously been) and even that was threatened with the axe, not on grounds of numbers but of new criteria for subsidy which the County Council approved but ultimately did not fully implement.
August 2013 Written evidence from Alex Cook (TIC 0012)
MINEHEAD -TAUNTON BUS (Service Number 28)
New timetable – buses cease from Taunton to Minehead at 8pm. Buses Outbound from Minehead to Taunton cease at appox. 6.45pm.
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. People are forced to turn down jobs that may require later hours of transport. People are avoiding coming to Minehead as their time spent here is severely limited. Custom will be lost, local economy will suffer, unemployment will not improve. I strongly believe that these cuts to later bus services are a case of false economy, myopic at best. In our current economy, more people are unable to afford to insure and maintain their own transport. Also, there are people unable to drive because of disabilities, what about them?
As a tax paying citizen of this country, I would strongly suggest to the people in charge to NOT ignore life outside of the cities. Do not take our rural areas for granted. The working class will not stay silent forever.
Remember, if we don't grow it, you can't eat it.
August 2013
Written evidence from Grange-over-Sands Town Council (TIC 013)
Grange over Sands is a small town in the south of Cumbria, situated on the Kent Estuary. While a thriving place to live, in the last census the inhabitants numbered four thousand plus and the figures showed that the local population was slanted towards an older demographic, though this group in no way reflects the total population of the town.
The town grew from a series of very small settlements as the railway brought tourists and those seeking a clean, healthy place to reside. Grange over Sands still boasts a gentle climate, amazing local shops and a slower pace of life and this continues to encourage both tourists and retirees to the town. These two groups mean that Grange over Sands has a particular need for reliable, regular and accessible local public transport on a year round basis.
Grange over Sands, while not isolated, is surrounded by small villages which very much rely on the limited amount of public transport available. At present, the town is quite well served by both rail and bus services during the week and on Saturdays, though a wider range of destinations might be desirable. There is an (approximate) hourly service on both bus and rail services during the day, but a less frequent service in the evening. On Sundays the service for both bus and rail travel is very limited, making it impossible, for example, to travel to and from entertainment in Kendal, Barrow or Lancaster, or indeed for any other purpose.
Despite some shortcomings, the X6 bus service (from Barrow to Kendal via Grange over Sands and Ulverston) could be described as a well-used lifeline for the people of the Furness peninsula. This service however, would never have happened without quite considerable investment from Cumbria County Council to get the route up and running and at the point it is today, where it is popular enough to continue without a subsidy. This really shows what both farsightedness and long term investment can achieve.
At present there is also a local ‘circular’ bus service on weekdays and Saturdays which services the local villages and outlying settlements. There is no evening service on this route and no Sunday or Bank Holiday service, despite this being a busy tourist destination. There is also a very well-used, but intermittent, weekday service from Cartmel via some of the villages to Grange and ultimately to Kendal. This bus links in with school services and also serves the village of Levens, between Grange over Sands and Kendal. It would be very vulnerable to loss should the schools franchise change.
The bus is often very full and frequently is standing only when it reaches the village of Levens, not ideal when many of the users are older people.
All settlements along the Furness peninsula, whether large or small, are concerned at the potential threat to through rail services to and from Manchester airport when electrification of the Preston to Manchester line begins. A series of passenger number and destination surveys have been, and are being, carried out by FLAG (Furness Line Action Group) and FLCRP (Furness Line Community Rail Partnership) to ascertain current figures for through journeys beginning before or ending beyond Lancaster.
With the recent announcement of the proposed electrification of the Windermere Line, as a busy tourist destination and home of large companies such as BAE Systems and GlaxoSmithKline, any cut in through trains to the Furness Line could have a seriously significant detrimental effect upon the financial wellbeing of many communities in the area as well as making the whole peninsula less attractive to inward investment.
It is vital that not only are through trains not lost but that the Furness Line is electrified along with other areas of the North West.
It is sometimes the case that cyclists arriving at local stations find insufficient space for bicycles on the trains and due to the current lack of extra rolling stock. This situation is unlikely to improve in the near future when there is already a lack of passenger accommodation. This seriously undermines any chance of sustainable (‘green’) tourism.
Those members of our community who have a physical infirmity already find it difficult to travel by train due to the lack of facilities such as lifts and also a lack of staff at unmanned railway stations. Travelling by bus is not much easier, although the Grange Circular (service 532) which services areas of Grange over Sands and outlying villages is a low floor vehicle with wheelchair access and space.
The X6 service, however, which gives access to the larger towns of Kendal, Ulverston and Barrow and the 530 service from Cartmel to Kendal are both run by Stagecoach and cannot be relied upon to always have easy access or space for a wheelchair.
Young families with pushchairs also find difficulty in using these services. For a tourist destination these services are also often lacking in adequate luggage space.
While there are a number of community transport schemes operating in Cumbria, should local public transport services deteriorate, these could be better developed locally and Grange over Sands should probably become a focus for such services in the Cartmel peninsula.
During the school summer holidays local visitor attractions have clubbed together to finance a free local bus linking a variety of places to visit which are difficult to access without a personal vehicle. This is still in a trial period and probably needs to bed in and be further advertised before a decision could be taken as to whether it is a success and should be repeated in future years.
While many local older residents in the hilly Cartmel peninsula already rely on taxis to take them for shopping and medical appointments, the distances between many of the smaller settlements make taxi use prohibitively expensive, especially over the long distances to Kendal, Barrow and Lancaster.
The main challenges in retaining or even improving local public transport services to scattered communities are cost and usage numbers. When travelling locally by bus on weekdays it becomes obvious that the vast majority of passengers are older citizens, many of whom use a bus pass. Should the financing of these passes ever be altered or the subsidy withdrawn altogether, then local services would be very badly hit financially.
Local students also use these services to access further education at Barrow and Kendal and there are various schemes available for young people to have reduced fares on buses at other times.
There are many factors why all communities need good, affordable, regular public transport services which are accessible to all. A worrying point in this issue is the fact that lack of local transport services limits the social options of residents without personal transport. This can lead to isolation and depression, particularly in the elderly and or those living alone. A lack of local transport can also have a very detrimental effect on the local economy, particularly when potential customers from outlying areas are unable to access local shops and businesses.
Should the potential number of new homes designated by Government for the area become reality, then keeping public transport viable becomes even more crucial if further vehicles are not to be added to the already inadequate road system.
With a dearth of convenient and affordable public transport services it is inevitable that people will be forced to use personal transport, whether it be car, motorbike or bicycle, thus exacerbating the already enormous problems on congested local roads.
This in itself will lead to increasing numbers of accidents involving both vehicles and pedestrians. It also makes even worse the pedestrian experience for those using the already intimidating busy and fume filled pavements.
August 2013
Written evidence from Donna Howitt (TIC 014)
I am very sorry to I may have to give my job up, I live in Minehead and work in Williton. My shift starts at 21.30 and the bus I used has stopped. I have work at croft house for coming up 3 years and enjoy it very much. We really need the 28 to start running again.
August 2013
Written evidence from H Compton (TIC 015)
Without a late bus to Minehead from Taunton we can no longer enjoy a visit to friends, relations and events supporting the community.
August 2013
Written evidence from Hastoe Group (TIC 016)
1.0 Introduction Hastoe is a rural specialist housing association and has developed affordable homes for local people in more than 200 villages across the south of England. Most of these schemes are on rural exception sites.
Local transport is a significant factor in determining our residents’ quality of life. Poor transport links can limit their ability to work, to access training, health care, quality food and their ability to maintain social networks.
Our experience is that rural public transport where we build homes is often irregular and inconvenient.
2.0 Resident evidence statements Through our social media channels, we asked residents how effectively Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities and how they could be improved.
2.1 We have one bus that runs on a Tuesday from the village however I'm not sure it's times, Spreyton is located four miles from the main bus route and is about as rural as you can get! Four roads into the village - all single track. Hastoe owns nine houses here with only two households unable to drive but with family members that help. Whilst Whiddon Down is our closest bus route with buses every hour, getting there is the real issue especially in the winter months when cycling or walking isn't an option.
2.2 The answer here in Upottery is very badly. One bus once a day.... it only gives you approximately one and a half hours in the local town before you have to catch it again to come back. There is also a bus which takes you in to the local city… that is once a week. Transport provision in our rural area is abominable. The nearest town is six miles away! You need to be able to drive to work and to enable you to get about.
2.3 Community transport services only partially meet my needs - they never run in the evenings, Sundays or public holidays. They also only run to certain places on certain days. They are not actually that 'flexible'. Standard bus services were good but expensive here before the cuts.
They could be improved by re-introducing bus subsidies (scrapped by Somerset County Council in 2011) so standard/community services can run to cover these times. For example, last year, on the Queen's jubilee weekend, there were no services for four days because of the public holidays.
Despite the current vogue for 'community transport' it's definitely not the cure-all for rural isolation - people need regular, reasonable services for essential trips - like getting to work - and community transport just can't meet that need.
2.4 The bus service is unreliable, well what Sunday service? When it snowed they were unable to travel through the village.
3.0 Hastoe Group action – supporting transport initiatives 3.1 Hastoe gives serious consideration to the transport implications for residents when assessing potential development sites to ensure new residents are not isolated from the community.
3.2 Some rural communities have established community-owned and based rural transport which provides such key transport services where the public and private sectors have failed. In our experience these range from share a car services to more sophisticated transport services based on timetables.
4.0 Hastoe Group action – minimising the need for transport An alternative to investing in transport services is to support the development of community based services and facilities.
4.1 Hastoe’s rural housing management model is based on taking our services to the communities we serve rather than relying on them coming to us. We have a mobile housing management team who tour our rural schemes and we operate a multi- function ‘Hastoe to you’ bus. This brings a wide range of services to our rural communities including roadshows on specific subjects such as welfare reform or money management (promotion of credit unions over moneylenders and pay day loan companies).
4.2 Supporting the burgeoning network of community owned shops through working alongside the Plunkett Foundation. Community based shops not only provide local people with food and goods that they would otherwise need to travel to purchase, but also act as a social space while keeping volunteers active within their community.
4.3 Supporting the development of Village Agents. This is an innovative response to a recognised need that many people living in our rural communities are unable to connect with the key services that help maintain well-being and support their quality of life. The Somerset Village Agents Project was launched in January 2012 and builds on a tried and tested concept originating in Gloucestershire.
Issues dealt with include: transport needs, access to benefits, consumer advice, debt advice, health and social care, housing issues, safety concerns, services such as libraries and relationship issues.
5.0 Suggested further action 5.1 Tax incentives (vehicle licence) for those providing share a lift services and, potentially, rural taxi firms.
5.2 Greater use of the internet to promote and support car pooling.
5.3 Business rates relief for rural food shops and post offices.
5.4 Greater co-ordination of regional services (particularly employment, benefit advice etc) so that they access existing mobile facilities such as the Hastoe to you bus.
August 2013
Written evidence from Janet Erskine (TIC 17)
Great Chishill in South Cambridgeshire has only one weekday bus service to Cambridge and Addenbrooke’s hospital (one outward in the morning and 2 inward in the evening).
This bus is at the moment subsidised by Cambs CC. This subsidy is soon to be withdrawn. Cambridegeshire County Council has as yet not come up with an alternative service to take 6th formers to their colleges or workers from the village into work or to the Cambridge railway station.
Because the village is on the cusp of 3 counties (Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Essex) there is an early morning bus service under contract to Hertfordshire which goes from Great Chishill to Royston railway station on school days only.
Great Chishill cannot be left without an adequate public transport service to Cambridge.
August 2013
Written evidence from Borrowdale Parish Council (TIC 018)
The Call for Evidence- Passenger Transport in Isolated Communities was considered by the Borrowdale Parish Council at their last meeting, and they have asked that I contact you with the following observation:
- Over the past season there has been an increase in the number of public bus services, which are serving the Borrowdale Valley (a series of isolated rural communities) and whilst the increase in bus services can be viewed as a good thing the Parish Council are concerned that with the increase in the services during the summer may effect the commerciality of the services during the Winter. As such the parish council are concerned that profits made during the summer are being ploughed into the extra services, leaving the area at risk of having a reduced or even no bus service during this winter, which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the residents of the parish.
The Borrowdale Parish Council requested that I send you a copy of a letter recently sent to Cumbria County Council transport department about the above matter.
August 2013
Written evidence from Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (TIC 019)
PARTNERS: Glos Rural Community Council, Forest of Dean District Council, Community Transport organisations, Glos County Council
Evidence gathered for Big Lottery project to:
-create a stronger and more sustainable community transport offer that will give access to social activities, community networks and services.
-reduce the social and physical isolation of older, vulnerable and young people living in small rural settlements in the Forest of Dean through better information
-enable knowledge sharing
-develop relationships which enable more people in the community to work together on community transport solutions
Evidence
• 58% of FOD population reside in small rurally isolated settlements with little or no public transport provision. 20% of residents in over half of the districts wards are over the age of 65 (Glos multi-agency MAiDEN data). • Accessibility data measuring travel time to 16 service destinations by driving, walking and public transport shows: - 70% of the district ranks in the 10% poorest access in the county
- a quarter in the next 25% poorest access.
- 80% of the Forest of Dean (FOD) is in the worst access quartile for public transport. (MAiDEN).
• 64% of respondents didn’t understand the Community Transport offer, coverage or how to use it. (Bus Services Review December 2010) • Out of 41 parishes: five have 50% of the population over 50 years; fifteen parishes have 45% over 50 ( MAiDEN). Consultation
• Ageing Well Gloucestershire 2011: (22% of the feedback came from Forest of Dean). Top 5 issues: -lack of Public/ community transport leading to loneliness, isolation and depression. -older people become housebound/isolated when they physically/ financially cannot run a car
-better information/alternative options would help people plan for the future.
• FOD Parish Plans: in 2009 78% of actions related to transport issues but parishes felt they had no way of influencing the private sector. • FOD Parish Plan Forums (2011) highlighted that transport was increasingly a major issue & that people were confused about who provided what & where • FOD Parish Plan Forum Transport Meetings (July 2012). Identified Current issues and changes since the 2010 Parish Plan Forum consultations. • GRCC Parish Plan Database (www.grcc.org.uk) highlights 78% of all Parish Plan actions in the district relate to Transport issues • Carers Roadshow (2009/10). Thirteen venues over six weeks. 100 interviews with older people living alone across the district: 31% participants identified lack of transport preventing them getting involved in social activities; 19% preventing them from getting to hospital appointments or pick up prescriptions. • Summer 2012 key consultation events and activities: Forest Showcase Event attended by 3,500 people. Consulted 200 people. Detailed feedback from 66 people highlighting:
- access issues for young people outside school/training times(12); - transport in their village had been cut or was non-existent (16); - suggestions for enabling marginalised people – ie Dementia (2). - don’t understand Community Transport, how it works, the cost, routes (36) • Feedback from organisations who advocate for and enable young and vulnerable people: - Gloucestershire Voices (user led self-advocacy organisation for adults with learning disabilities; their Forest Forum; - Forest Pulse (independent charity which supports families with children with Special Needs – birth to nineteen) - Forest Youth Forum (6 people average) - Forest Youth Workers Network (37 local community organisations), - Forest Seniors Network (229 members) , - Forest Health Forum (350 members evenly split between voluntary and statutory organisations/individuals) - Carers Partnership (Carers Glos, Alzheimer’s Society) • Social media (Facebook, Twitter) and Survey Monkey Questionnaires: 342 responses: 88% of people do not understand community transport; 62% how they can access it & cost; 42%.routes
• Community Transport providers identified need for: strong identity branding, single booking system, use of concessionary bus passes, linkages with welsh scheme (medical trips where FOD residents are referred to Welsh outpatient clinics). (2011/12) • Commissioners, such as NHS and 2gether Trust highlighted barriers using the four voluntary sector transport organisations. They identified a need for a single call that is quick, simple, consistent and reliable. (2011/12)
Local / regional plans / strategies:
All of the following highlight transport as one of the key issues which people feel needs improving.
• Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 3: supports the need to find local community led solutions which connect to public transport. • Forest of Dean Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2020, • Children & Young Peoples Strategy, • Ageing Well Strategy • Community led Parish Plans.
August 2013
Written evidence from Fellowtravellers Ltd (TIC 020)
Fellowtravellers is a prototype brokerage system aimed at delivering an alternative model of demand responsive passenger transport. The aim is to deliver comprehensive taxi-bus services by utilising a variety of approaches.
1) Approach 1: Provide a dedicated forum where prospective travellers can ask for taxi-bus routes they require in the long term (for work commute, school run or similar regular journey). Such route requests should be clustered together and be subject to precise query by potential providers (i.e. show all route requests between point A & point B within the time window of ???)
2) Approach 2: Provide a database where taxi operators can list taxi-bus routes they are considering trialling, as a means of gathering expressions of interest from potential travellers.
3) Approach 3: Provide a database where taxi operators can list taxi-bus routes they are actively operating, and provide a means to log seat availability and to organise bookings.
4) Approach 4: Offer guaranteed taxi-bus services to fixed settings with high demand within variable radius & sub-contract transport to suitable taxi-operators.
Approaches 1-3 are available on the prototype system: www.fellowtravellers.co.uk
Approach 4 has been successfully trialled in rural North Yorkshire over a three week period in 2010; offering guaranteed taxi-bus services to and from a theatre production at Ripley Castle within a radius of 25 miles for .30p per person per mile. The trial provided door-to-door transport for 80 people over the three week period, with some travelling just a couple of miles, and others travelling from as far as York. It was delivered at break-even cost. It is anticipated that this model could be extended to offer similar guarantees to transport to towns at commuter times.
August 2013 Written evidence from the Association of Local Bus Company Managers (ALBUM) (TIC 021)
Summary of Key Points in ALBUM's Evidence
1 There is little appreciation of the different needs of different types of rural community or of the requirements of isolated urban and suburban communities; and are no common criteria for meeting transport needs 2 Most buses are now 'accessible', but sub-standard roads and obstructive parking impede operations 3 Elderly etc and school travel recognised in statutory concessions; non-school travel by young people now increasingly benefiting from operators' commercial discounts 4 Frequent, direct bus routes with good access and connections are sometimes preferable to trying to serve each individual settlement separately 5 Successful bus - rail integration depends on reliable operation of both modes 6 For the longer term, settlement location and planning decisions must require good public transport access 7 Community transport: a 'mode of last resort' • Provision fragmented and geared to the needs of particular client groups • Fails to meet needs of visitors and tourists • Uneconomically expensive call centres and demand-responsive planning • Mainly in rural areas; minimal community transport in isolated urban areas 8 Taxis: a worthwhile supplement to buses • Seek opportunities for more bus - taxi co-ordination 9 Main challenges • Low level of demand inevitable in isolated rural areas • Co-ordinating provision will involve compromises • Bus information and marketing much improved but needs to go further • Create Community Bus Partnerships? • Equalise conditions between small bus and community transport and simplify regulations for PCVs running community-style services
1 The Association of Local Bus Company Managers (ALBUM)
ALBUM represents the 'non‐aligned' sector of the bus industry. The Association has 150 members, representing over 50 companies in the independent, state‐owned and municipal sectors, who between them operate almost 5,000 buses, which is about one bus in twelve nationally. This makes ALBUM members collectively Britain's fourth largest bus operator ‐ in the same league as the big five multi‐national groups. Stagecoach runs 8,000 buses in the UK, First Group 6,500, Arriva 5,800, ALBUM members 4,800, Go Ahead 4,600 and National Express 1,600.
We now submit our response to the Transport Committee's questions.
2 How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)?
2.1 Rural and island communities are widely recognised by Government and local authorities as being isolated and in need of special treatment. However, there is less appreciation of the differences in need according to the degree of rurality, size and location of the communities. These range from remote, deep rural settlements (often difficult to serve cost-effectively beyond statutory
minima) to villages of varying sizes and market towns. A settlement's location may be as important as its size; distance from the nearest large town; type of terrain and quality of road access; and whether or not it is on a main interurban road (which may enable a small settlement to be served by passing trunk bus routes).
2.2 There is much less recognition of problems of isolation in urban communities, where peripheral housing is often built with scant regard for public transport access; at densities too low to warrant frequent buses (or any service at all in the evenings and on Sundays); and inconveniently sited in relation to jobs and services - except for travel by car. Current and proposed relaxations in planning controls may worsen the situation in both urban and rural areas.
2.3 Demand is specifically identified for some groups in the population, such as through the statutory provision of travel concessions for school transport and elderly etc. people. However, although there is a right to a concession, such as free bus travel, there is no statutory guarantee beyond educational provision of a service on which to use it. Service levels where they cannot be provided commercially are subject to local authority discretion, which is subject to budgetary constraints and influenced by the level of central government funding. There are no standard, national service level criteria, each local authority determining its own, which may relate to settlement size, access to facilities, or mainly be determined by the availability of finance.
2.4 People living in isolated areas may not be well represented and have difficulty in making their needs known. In many rural areas the traditional, often elderly, bus-using population has been replaced by younger 'commuters' who primarily use cars. The cost per person of providing bus services then increases, but the service retains its importance to those who use it. Indeed as the availability of shops and other services in rural areas declines the need for transport links increases for those who do not have alternatives. The withdrawal by Royal Mail of the Post Bus network a few years ago removed a valuable low cost alternative way of providing scheduled bus services, particularly in deep rural areas.
3 To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
3.1 The majority of buses now have step-free access, aiding their use by disabled and infirm people, as well as those with shopping, luggage or infants in pushchairs. But some roads, especially in deep rural or hilly areas, are inaccessible to such buses, due to their width, curvature or sudden changes in gradients. The problem of parked cars, which hamper, or may even preclude, bus operation, is very marked in urban housing estates and rural villages. So too is the growing problem of larger private vehicles (4x4s) on rural roads coupled with lower floor buses, which makes passing increasingly difficult or impossible. Even if accessible buses can reach rural/isolated communities, those with mobility problems need to be able to get on and off the buses. There is often insufficient highway width for a kerb and hard standing to be provided to permit level entry onto a bus.
3.2 The use of public transport for elderly people is encouraged by the availability of statutory free concessions on buses and services are most likely to run during the daytime, when such people most commonly travel; but the tightening of rates of re-imbursement to bus operators for revenue foregone is causing reductions in services. This is expected to be a growing problem.
3.3 Young people have traditionally not been considered as a 'deserving' category. Apart from educational journeys, their travel patterns are poorly understood - but are thought to be diverse in time and spatial spread and largely leisure-related. With the rise in school leaving age there is an increasing demand for transport to school for older students. Many bus companies charge full adult fare for what is peak travel and increased numbers travelling can mean that a larger vehicle has to be operated at a higher cost. Where local authorities do offer schemes of reduced price travel these tend to be for younger scholars up to the age of 16, the rates for which are under pressure to be reduced. There is, though, a growing tendency for bus operators to offer price concessions on a commercial basis to young people, even if they are not in education, although the non-availability of evening buses often constrains their travel opportunities.
4 What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome?
4.1 The populations of isolated rural communities are generally much too low to justify a bus service without subsidy, the availability of which is declining due to constrained government and local authority spending. Diverting bus routes off direct town-to-town or radial roads is not always feasible; and the resultant longer travel times between larger settlements may cause a net reduction in patronage.
4.2 Where isolated rural communities or housing developments are on, or close to, roads linking larger urban settlements, they tend to enjoy a more frequent / consistent bus service than demand from the settlements would naturally warrant. Inter-urban route frequencies have grown over the past decade or so, and where this occurs access to public transport has improved (if not in the evening). Some success has been achieved by concentrating principal, high quality bus services on direct routes, with feeder services between isolated communities and designated interchanges. The key is to link isolated communities that are away from main roads to those roads, although demand for local feeders has sometimes been disappointing, due to the small populations catered for and to the extended travel times of interchange journeys compared to direct routes.
4.3 For isolated urban and suburban communities, improving access to bus routes may be achievable by creating more and better / safer footways, more pedestrian crossings, improved signage to and from bus stops and new 'short cuts' to enable people to reach bus routes. If walking distances are short, providing access to frequent bus services along roads skirting housing estates may be preferable to attempting to run infrequent and tortuous services through each estate. In some locations, it may be possible to link two or more housing areas by creating short sections of bus-only road, so a single route can serve an extended population.
4.4 Bus - rail links are often said to be a viable option. For these to be effective, both bus and train services must be fully reliable, to avoid the dis-benefits of either missed connections, unacceptably long timetabled interchange times, or disrupting operations network-wide if trains or buses are obliged to wait for late-running connections. In Norfolk, the success of the Coasthopper bus linking hourly with an hourly train service has been encouraged by bus publicity appearing as standard on the train timetable leaflets and by through ticketing. This works well with incoming tourist visitors but there is much greater difficulty generating demand the other way around as it is not possible to issue a through ticket on the bus.
4.5 For the longer term, planning regulations must ensure that public transport access requirements are anticipated when locating and designing new communities. Houses must be built where they can be served efficiently and effectively by public transport, with consent linked to Town & Country Planning Act 1990 'Section 106' developer contributions towards the cost of bus or rail
access wherever necessary / possible. Unfortunately many planning authorities often do not include public transport in their requirements for S.106 agreements, which can often be subject to the whims of local politicians who have other priorities.
5 How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
5.1 Community transport is provided by a mix of professional and voluntary organisations. Its principal disadvantage is that it is usually run for or most suited to use by a particular client group: educational, health, social service, sport, youth, elderly, disabled, etc. Services are generally only known to members of the specific local community or group. They are seldom if ever marketed to or suit the needs of visitors, whether friends and relatives visiting local residents, or tourists - a category of user of particular importance in some rural areas. Demand may be too low to justify regular or frequent services, timetables thus commonly being either very sparse, or planned on a demand-responsive basis. Where demand responsive services are run, much of the sought-after economy of running small, community-based buses is lost in the expense of running the call centre and booking places on services.
5.2 Community transport as described above may be best considered as a mode of last resort; but it may also be possible to improve links between scheduled local buses and the communities they serve. Options for applying the successful concept of Community Rail Partnerships (see Association of Community Rail Partnerships website www.Acorp.uk.com) to local bus services should be considered.
5.3 Isolated suburban and urban communities are generally less well served by community transport, partly as in suburban housing estates there may be less cohesive community spirit than in rural villages. Community transport here is thus generally limited to essential provision such as that for health and social services.
5.4 A crucial point is that there is no statutory concessionary fare scheme on community transport. Thus where peripheral parts of local bus services have been withdrawn and replaced by community transport acting as quasi bus services, this proves a stumbling block to their successful integration into the wider network.
5.5 One of the problems with community transport is that it relies on volunteers. There is an increasing call for help throughout the 'voluntary sector', whilst the pool of available people seems to be reducing, as a result of which it is difficult to offer a regular, reliable and enduring service. Instances in Kent, which may not be unique, are of two small communities that wanted a community bus service to replace a post bus service, but had no one willing or able to volunteer as a driver; and a proposed scheme that had an available vehicle, but no one prepared to drive a service in the rural area wanting the service.
6 To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
6.1 Taxi buses were legalised under the Transport Act 1985, but take-up has been minimal, the taxi continuing to be seen by both the taxi trade and by users an essentially an 'individual' mode, or for groups of people travelling together; but not for sharing with 'strangers'.
6.2 Taxis and private hire vehicles (phv) can fulfil a need for isolated communities, and fares for groups of several fare-paying passengers travelling together are often competitive with bus fares. Taxis sometimes meet a one-way demand, especially where buses are infrequent or inconvenient, e.g. to bring people back from a shopping trip to which they have taken the bus.
6.3 Rural bus service supply is often influenced by the provision of statutory home-to-school transport, with services between school peaks provided by the same vehicles. The level of demand at peak times is often greater than could be met by a taxi, which makes their use for non- educational journeys a less viable proposition. In any case, at school times there is often a shortage of accessible taxis because they are almost all already undertaking school contract work. Conversely, in the off peak there are taxis waiting for passengers.
6.4 In some, typically urban, 'isolated' communities taxis and phv s fulfil a social / cultural role, for example for ethnic minority women who prefer to travel in vehicles driven by members of their own communities.
6.5 In areas with very small populations it will not be economically possible to offer more than a limited bus service. Opportunities for co-ordination between bus services and taxis should be explored, such as perhaps taxis providing evening services or additional departures on infrequent routes at 'bus' fares. Lack of finance may preclude this from becoming a common option though.
7 What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable?
7.1 The main obstacle is that low levels of population, diverse travel times and dispersed destinations mean that cost recovery from any public transport service will be very low and a high per-passenger subsidy will be required. Providing any but the most minimal of services, sometimes limited to statutory minima such as school transport, will often fail to meet government or local authority funding criteria. There is therefore an important role for the planning system, to ensure that new development takes place where and in a manner in which it can best be served by public transport.
7.2 Every opportunity must be taken to co-ordinate the supply of transport for different client groups (see 5.1). This will involve organisations being prepared to work together in ways they are not used to and a willingness to compromise, for example on school and college attendance times, health appointment times, etc. Some 'exclusivity' of provision may have to be foregone, for example in transporting elderly and younger people or those with differing medical needs together. This may not be simple, but wider opportunities could be sought and might combine achieving offering better services with making worthwhile economies.
7.3 Enhanced information about bus services generally, and to isolated communities in particular, generates demand. Many bus companies, authorities and the Government (e.g. through Transport Direct) have made great improvements in the marketing of bus services and making timetable and fares information available. More needs to be done, not only by professionals, but perhaps also by communities themselves, as discussed above in paragraph 5.2.
7.4 For a bus service to be provided to a local isolated community it has to meet the same regulatory conditions as busiest city bus routes. If the service is run by community transport, practically none of those regulations apply, yet the local bus in isolated rural communities is trying to do what CT does but do it better and more inclusively, in that it is open and available to all. Examination of opportunities shows that to run a 30 seat low floor vehicle for a day's work costs about £110k a year. To run a 16 seater bus as a PCV costs about £75k and to run a 14 seat bus as a CT operation about £50k. The difference between the last two is the cost of regulation. There is an urgent need for a lower level of regulation for small feeder PCV vehicles, their role in that form being certified by the local transport authority so that their minimal use is not abused, and maybe a maximum annual mileage to be specified, to enable some of the excessive regulatory control to be released. ALBUM members have raised this issue with the Minister and officials among whom there is some understanding and nascent sympathy for the idea.
August 2013
Written evidence from Sutton Valence Parish Council (TIC 022)
Sutton Valence is a rural parish but has an A road running through the middle of it. Despite this the bus service is poor. It starts too late for commuters to use, even though the local train station is on its route. The buses are infrequent and the fare is too expensive for most.
August 2013 Written evidence from Simon Norton (TIC 023)
1. Summary of the most important recommendations.
I start with three general strategies aimed at improving the service to isolated communities.
1.1: Use all available transport. When a vehicle that can carry passengers makes a regular journey in an area not otherwise well served, open it up to the public at large. This includes school buses, postbuses, and out of service positioning workings.
1.2: Tap all available markets. The same runs are often suitable for trips from villages to schools, workplaces and shops, for leisure visits from town to country, and for other purposes too. All these can help keep services running.
1.3: Use all available routes. If a regular service has two route options, each serving a different community, then don't concentrate on one community and leave the other isolated.
And here are my main recommendations aimed at implementing these strategies. (Further recommendations will be added later.)
1.4: Local transport authorities (LTAs) should be required to include in their local transport plans statements of what level of service each community can expect.
1.5: LTAs should be required to offer (means tested) compensation to residents of isolated communities, graduated according to the depth of isolation. This would give them the incentive to ensure that as many communities as possible were adequately served, and could rely on this through the Local Transport Plan.
1.6: One of the main arguments against raising fuel tax is the effect on people in isolated communities. Higher fuel taxes offset by the isolation allowance could raise revenue to fund both the isolation allowance and service improvements to reduce isolation.
1.7: LTAs should have powers to impose a franchise system on corridors where commercial operators were providing services in such a way as to make it uneconomic to rescue communities from isolation by adding tendered services.
1.8: Passenger Focus should draw up a good practice guide for LTAs.
This would give LTAs incentives (1.5), money (1.6), powers (1.7) and knowledge (1.8) to minimise isolation, and communities could rely on an assured level of service (1.4).
2. Introduction -- why is the issue significant?
This inquiry is long overdue. For far too long our society has isolated communities on the pretext that each individual community is not large enough to support a service that most people would consider adequate, and without considering the possibility that a more holistic approach might solve the problem.
In most sectors of the economy, trends in recent decades have been to reduce the effort people need to gain access to goods and services. People are no longer expected to grow their own food (and even cooking can be dispensed with nowadays), make their own clothes, build and repair their own houses, teach their own children or diagnose their own diseases. In more modern times, access to the Internet has become important, but by and large local authorities have provided the prerequisites in public libraries so people do not need to own computers. The spread of mobile phones has hit users of callboxes badly, but email has made telephones less and less necessary, and I personally often go for weeks without making any calls. Yet in increasing areas of the country they are expected to provide and operate their own vehicles. Why?
3. Isolation and human rights.
Let's have a look at isolation in the context of human rights legislation (all references are taken from Wikipedia).
3.1: In the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 2 of Protocol 4 asserts a right to freedom of travel (within national borders). The UK hasn't ratified this protocol, but as this appears to be due to its fear that the provision might be misused by illegal immigrants, it should have no objection in principle to asserting a right to travel for UK citizens and others legally resident in or visiting the UK.
3.2: Article 14 of the ECHR asserts a right to freedom from discrimination. Among the grounds listed is "property", implying that freedom of travel should not be confined to people owning or having access to a car. As noted above, transport is unique in modern society as a sector access to which is to some extent dependent on property qualifications.
3.3: Unfortunately, people without access to cars cannot assert a right to travel under Article 14 because the freedom from discriminaton principle only applies to rights under the ECHR. The UK has rejected Protocol 12, which would extend protection against discrimination to all legal rights, though it agrees that the bar on discrimination should extend beyond people's rights under the ECHR. In any case, Article 14 may be used to assert a right to travel where this is needed for people to exercise other ECHR rights.
3.4: In our domestic legislation, the Equalities Act does provide a bar against a wide range of discrimination. Unfortunately, it can only be invoked by members of certain "protected groups", thus making them, as it were, more equal than people outside these groups. It might be argued that isolation discriminates against people who belong to one of these protected groups for a reason that prevents them from driving a car (e.g. certain categories of disability). But surely the way forward in combating isolation is to extend the scope of the Equalities Act so that people without access to cars form an additional protected group. As with disabled people, the Act should not require local authorities or anyone else to take more than "reasonable" steps to satisfy the travel needs of people without cars, but by asserting a principle it could help to change the perceptions of society.
4. The special status of transport.
As a service which can only be accessed by people owning and able to operate the relevant product, one would be hard put to it to come up with a worse example than transport, for the following reasons:
4.1: Transport is a necessity in modern society. Few people can get to work, education, medical treatment, shopping, leisure and social activities solely by walking. Even for journeys that are short enough and people who are at least moderately fit, cycling is often unattractive and even unsafe option on today's roads, thus entailing a need for motor transport.
4.2: Many people are either unable to drive a motor vehicle or, perhaps because of their temperament, a danger to society at large when they are on the road.
4.3: Cars are unaffordable for many people and cut a large hole in other people's discretionary spending.
4.4: Cars are space-hungry and many people live or work in areas with no room for them.
4.5: Cars are intrusive, imposing massive noise, pollution and safety problems on society (in addition to the safety problems caused by individual drivers, as referred to in 4.2).
4.6: Cars are responsible for a large share of the UK's and the world's climate change emissions. Climate change is almost certainly the greatest threat to the future of human civilisation.
For all these reasons, as a matter of urgency our society needs to develop, and encourage the use of, alternative modes of transport -- and to stop penalising people without access to cars.
5. What is isolation?
How should isolation be defined? Clearly, it's a matter of degree, but let's define it as the inability to make journeys important in modern society -- those described in 4.1. We'd regard the following level of provision as sufficient to deal with most complaints of isolation:
5.1: Peak time services for access to work or education. In congested areas, people should be able to get in before the morning peak when journey times are often unreliable.
5.2: Regular services, say at least every 2 hours, between the peaks, for access to shops, medical treatment, to undertake personal business and to connect with the longer distance network.
5.3: Evening services for access to entertainment, to visit family or friends and to get to society meetings, and to return from longer journeys (in particular people should be able to return from their local metropolis, if any, late enough to avoid any restrictions on off peak tickets).
5.4: Sunday services for access to shops, day trips, and to return from weekends away. The last two will require services to continue after shops have closed.
5.5: We should also mention visits by city-dwellers to the countryside. Country walking should be encouraged for the sake of people's health, access to our rural heritage is an important part of people's quality of life, and tourism is an important employer, so in the interests of sustainable tourism we need to ensure that people can get to major places of interest, both on Sundays, when services are often few or non-existent, and on Mon-Fri, when an important problem is highlighted in 7.2.2 below.
This is a very broad definition of isolation -- even in Cambridge many areas have no buses on Sunday evenings. Of course it is not on a par with the isolation faced by communities that don't even have services for travel to work (which is probably the "tipping point" in making communities almost completely car dependent).
6. How has isolation developed?
6.1: One major landmark was the publication of the Buchanan Report in 1963. This noted that car ownership was spreading as fast as people's ability to afford a car. This could have been seen as a signal about the inadequacy of public transport, as surely would a similar flight to private education or medical treatment. But instead it was seen as an inevitable trend, and the question was asked whether saturation car ownership and use was compatible with a decent environment. The report said that it could be done with major re-engineering of our urban environment.
6.2: The report mentioned the plight of people who would never have access to cars, but as a small residual problem, and with no convincing solution. And this problem was largely ignored by policymakers.
6.3: The re-engineering of our urban environment proved beyond our means, so cars still dominate most of our urban environments, probably contributing to the decline of traditional town centres.
6.4: The same year, the Beeching Report was published, calling for a major contraction of the rail network. While not all the closures implemented around this time were because of the report, it can hardly be disputed that at the time railways were seen as dispensable.
6.5: The loss of rail links became important when, as a sweetener to railway privatisation, the Government mandated minimum service standards for those places that still had trains; except on the most rural routes these places have managed to avoid isolation, with even village stations often having hourly services into late evening 7 days a week. By comparison, Sturminster Newton, a town on the Somerset & Dorset route (widely acknowledged as one of the worst Beeching closures) with 4292 people in the 2011 census, now has no evening or Sunday buses at all, and even its Saturday service is threatened; the daytime service is only 2 hourly. And too much of the old trackbed has been lost to make restoration a viable proposition.
6.6: Since 1993, usage of our railways has rocketed, partly due to people's recognition that travel time aboard trains can be used productively. While this also applies to buses, their usage has by contrast been in a trend of decline, only stemmed by initiatives such as free travel for older people.
6.7: This surely shows that, just as our railways were mismanaged in the Beeching era, so were and are our buses. In many areas they are still expected to pay their way; places dependent on supported services often have such poor service as to drive away anyone without access to a car with any choice. The concept of "localism", which has considerable attraction as a principle, is completely inappropriate to bus provision of for the following reasons:
6.7.1: The local councillors who decide on the level of supported services rarely depend on buses themselves -- in contrast with, say, schools -- though this hasn't stopped the Government from seeking to develop schools independent of local authority control.
6.7.2: Many people use buses in LTA areas other than that in which they live, so don't have even a vestige of a democratic voice in their provision.
6.7.3: There is no effective method of sharing best practice among local authorities, many of whom stick with the ways they have found of not solving the problems of isolation.
6.7.4: Provision of effective bus networks is hindered by lack of cross boundary cooperation. For example, the Aylesbury-Luton route runs commercially on Mon-Sat, but the services provided on the corridor on Sundays by Bucks and Central Beds don't link up. Comprehensive provision is particularly important for public transport, because a prospective journey can be sabotaged by the loss of a single link in the chain, as seen above. Also, if people need cars for some journeys, they're likely to use them even for trips where public transport is still adequate, thereby undermining the whole network (the "domino effect").
6.7.5: The idea behind localism is that central government can't micromanage local bus networks. But it can set the incentives to encourage local authorities to work towards a coordinated network. At present the incentives are actually perverse -- the Government's war on local authority spending encourages cuts to all non-statutory spending however great the social need; the system of concessionary pass reimbursement makes LTAs pay the fares of visitors with passes, which they're naturally disinclined to do; insufficient rates of reimbursement put part of the burden of support for commercial services on fare paying passengers, if any; and there's the domino effect described above.
6.8: In addition, isolation has been exacerbated by the following factors:
6.8.1: Deregulation enables private operators to cherry-pick profitable parts of the network, missing out villages that can only support reasonable levels of service as part of a coordinated network. Take for example Marsworth in Bucks, which lost its hourly service when the Aylesbury-Luton route was diverted to serve a new housing estate in a nearby village.
6.8.2: Bad design of housing estates, where buses have to use long winded routes to serve them properly, or where the streets are too narrow to encourage commercial operators to send buses through them (sometimes because part of the available width is taken up by parked cars). Both problems are exemplified at the new Fairfield Park estate in Central Beds, where efficient provision would require a through road to Arlesey village. Such bad design is encouraged by the planning system, whereby a local authority that turns down a planning application risks heavy costs if it loses on appeal.
6.8.3: Problems with right turns to/from major roads, which may be barred by the road layout, considered unsafe, or entail long delays awaiting a gap in the traffic. An example is Upper Caldecote in Central Beds, where the route giving best coverage of the village would entail a right turn into the A1 for eastbound journeys.
6.8.4: Problems with lack of stops. For example a section of the A35 with 3 bus routes passes under a bridge less than half a mile from Hardy's Cottage in Dorset (National Trust) and linked to it by a public right of way, but because there's no stop there intending visitors have a much longer and less pleasant walk. Hindhead, a well known attraction in the Surrey Hills AONB, lost its National Express service a few days after the opening of a bypass with a road layout that imposed a large time penalty on buses stopping in the vicinity. It has local buses, but not on Sundays. And, in Cambs, Cambridge-Oxford buses bypass Cambourne, and Cambridge-Peterborough buses pass close to Silton but at a place cut off from it by a motorway. Both villages have other bus services but not at certain times and not in both directions.
6.8.5: The fragmentation of the bus network between different operators and LTAs has made it much harder to market the network as a whole. Such marketing could develop patronage, for example if teenagers were taught to plan their own leisure trips around the countryside maybe they'd remain regular bus users in adulthood. Particularly important is to encourage city dwellers to use buses in their surrounding rural areas -- something which in London ceased when London's "green" buses were hived off from London Transport in 1970. There is no agency responsible for developing rural services used mainly for leisure by people visiting from a different local authority area -- a task performed by the Countryside Commission until that was abolished some time ago.
6.8.6: The trend towards off centre supermarkets has made it difficult to provide common facilities for people wanting to buy food and those needing access to other facilities still concentrated in town centres.
7. Strategies for change.
We now expand on the 3 basic strategies mentioned in 1.1-3, dealing with each in turn.
7.1: Use all available transport. This can cover the following:
7.1.1. School and college buses. As local authorities have an obligation to provide transport to school, these can provide a basic service for even remote communities, at times allowing a variety of day out opportunities (see also 7.1.2 below). Many services to secondary schools use routes long enough to be useful. Sometimes these are opposed on the grounds of danger to children, but lots of children use unarguably public services without any problems. Actually, a more likely problem is that many people don't like to travel on buses used mainly by schoolchildren -- but this is no reason not to give them the option.
7.1.2: Positioning workings -- from bus depots to the start of service, from the end of a service to the start of the next, and from their last run back to the depot. These have to run anyway, so when other transport is lacking why not make them available to the general public? It should, for example, be possible for people to travel from a village on a school bus and transfer to the associated positioning working of another bus serving the same or a nearby school, returning the same way in the afternoon, thus providing a great variety of day trip opportunities.
7.1.3: Postbuses carrying both passengers and mail. There used to be over 250 of these, mainly in Scotland, but all but a handful have now disappeared. But they can still provide useful facilities for both local residents and visitors, sometimes in conjunction with other initiatives (e.g. people might travel one way on a school bus and the other on a postbus). Most attractive are likely to be "collection" runs during which mail is collected from postboxes, and one might also be able to develop "mainline" delivery runs from sorting offices to local post offices from which delivery would be made by bike or on foot.
7.1.4: Rail replacement buses -- these can open up special opportunities on days when lines are closed for engineering work. An example is Clouds Hill (Lawrence of Arabia's cottage in Dorset, owned by the National Trust), on the road used by buses linking Wool and Moreton when the line is closed. The same route also passes Monkeyworld and goes near Pallington Lakes Sculpture Park, so it could provide a full day out which might attract people from a considerable area. They can also be used to serve towns whose nearest stations are badly located. For example, Cirencester (Glos) is about 4 miles from the nearest station at Kemble. A replacement bus between Swindon and Kemble has to pass through Cirencester, so why can't it stop there to serve the town, whose only evening or Sunday buses are National Express coaches, few of which serve Swindon?
7.1.5: There may be other opportunities to create public bus services, e.g. by allowing the public onto works services. Or take the "newspaper bus" which used to carry passengets to/from Inversnaid in Stirling district as well. All that's needed to develop a bus service is a vehicle with seating that runs at more or less regular times.
7.2: Develop all available patronage. This is the opposite of the concept of "retreating to one's core market" -- usually a signal that an organisation is on its way down. Some examples:
7.2.1: School buses are often well timed for journeys to work, but can't fulfil this role unless there are journeys during the school holidays and afternoon return journeys. These could be run on a demand responsive basis, only running where passengers needed to go; and then they could also be used to take visitors to/from farmhouse accommodation, thus helping to support the rural economy.
7.2.2: Many rural buses used mainly by local shoppers could also carry leisure visitors from the cities but for restrictions on off peak fares that prevent them from getting to the starting point in time. We need to reduce restrictions on off peak fares for journeys against the direction of peak flow.
7.2.3: Rural buses and trains could be timed to meet at interchanges, providing a Swiss style integrated network that provides seamless journeys within a large catchment area.
7.2.4: In some cases longer distance coaches on main roads could usefully serve intermediate points otherwise difficult to get to, perhaps requiring the provision of stopping facilities, bridges to enable people to get across the road, and improved footpaths to link stops with nearby villages. There may also be routes where such local connections could help to justify a new inter-urban link, e.g. on the A14 corridor between Cambridge and Rugby, which would both speed up many journeys across the South Midlands and rescue a large number of communities from isolation.
7.2.5: Finally, a couple of specific examples illustrating points that might also occur elsewhere. The White Bus links Ascot with Windsor through Windsor Great Park. A modified route could take visitors to the Savill Garden and Valley Gardens. And at Cliveden in Bucks, the National Trust house is open to visitors on Thursdays and Sundays, but the bus service runs on Tuesdays and Fridays.
7.3: Use all available routes for mainstream services. This would aim to reverse the tendency mentioned in 6.8.1 for operators to "cherry-pick" the more profitable areas. Here are a couple of examples in Cambs, on the A1 corridor each side of Huntingdon.
Not long ago the hourly bus service between Huntingdon and Peterborough was recast to omit Alconbury, Alconbury Weston, Glatton and Stilton. (This is the one mentioned in 6.8.4 which is cut off from Stilton by a motorway.) A separate service, finishing earlier, runs between Peterborough and Stilton. However the Alconburys and Glatton now have to rely on a community bus, with 6-7 journeys serving the Alconburys (from Huntingdon only, not Peterborough) but a mere 3 to Glatton (including a schooltime commercial service). A better designed route network would give all villages on the corridor at least a 2 hourly service (thus satisfying one of the minimum service requirements suggested in 5.2) while still providing the speeding up the operator wanted.
And until recently the hourly bus between Huntingdon and St Neots went alternately via Little and Great Paxton. The former also served Southoe, but northbound only thanks to the crossing problems mentioned in 6.8.3, with a separate supported service taking villagers south to St Neots. The Great Paxton route also served Offord Cluny and Offord Darcy. Now, all buses use the A1 corridor with no stop near Southoe, and the Offords and Great Paxton have just 1-2 buses a day. All that was really needed was the provision of a footbridge linking Southoe with a southbound stop thus enabling the withdrawal of the supported service mentioned above.
8. Demand responsive transport.
This is sometimes touted as a universal panacea for isolated areas, and does indeed have many advantages, but it is important to recognise what it can and cannot do.
Some local authorities (e.g. Beds and Worcs) introduced demand responsive schemes but later abandoned them when they found that passengers weren't making good use of them. Others have adopted the idea as their norm. It is difficult for the uninitiated to tell whether this is because the schemes are working well for passengers or because the local authority doesn't really care whether it suits people's needs. The moral is that for demand responsive transport, even more than for fixed route transport, we need proper guidelines and monitoring.
The simplest kind of demand responsive transport, which needs no specific arrangements, is the bus that serves a community only when there are passengers to drop off. But, on the Saturday route in Bucks which passes close to the National Trust's Stowe Landscape Gardens, people need to be able to travel out on the midday journey and ask the driver to pick them up in the afternoon. In cases where there is a call centre available, passengers making single journeys could also arrange for drivers to pick them up.
Any scheme involving call centres has to recognise the limits of the telephone system -- there are many reasons why people shouldn't be made to rely on mobile phones. Other hazards are being asked to give a number to be rung back on at a time when one isn't available, or a misunderstanding as to the exact pickup point (both of these have happened to me).
8.1: Here are guidelines for a "good" demand responsive service.
8.1.1: The service should be clearly advertised as being open to all without restriction. Registration, if available, should be voluntary so people don't have to provide personal information just for a one-off journey. Also, it should be stated clearly whether people who intend to pick a service up at a "compulsory" stop but leave at a demand responsive stop have to book.
8.1.2: Freephone numbers should be used for the benefit of people ringing from callboxes.
8.1.3: Same day bookings should be possible, at least for journeys starting after the morning peak. Having to book on a Friday to travel the next Monday is particularly unacceptable.
8.1.4: Timings at main stops should be fixed (even if only approximately) and publicised (including on Traveline). This would enable people to plan complete itineraries at home before confirming them at the time of booking; it would also enable people to pick up one of the relevant services without prebooking if they were willing to risk the driver being unable to take them to their intended destination. In general, to minimise the need for passengers to book, on any particular journey a stop used more than 2/3 of the time should be compulsory.
8.1.5: The main performance measure which should be monitored is the proportion of passengers wishing to book on a specific journey (as per the publicity offered, see above) but unable to be accommodated.
8.2: Here are some useful modes of demand responsive operation.
8.2.1: Connectional services -- these leave a given point after or arrive before the arrival or departure of specified connecting buses or trains. These could also offer flexible services at slack times (e.g. in the evenings or on Sundays) on corridors which at busier times have a fixed route service.
8.2.2: Corridor services -- these would typically provide several journeys a day linking two market towns which don't have a regular conventional bus link. Specific journeys would serve designated groups of intermediate villages -- not necessarily the same for each journey -- calling at whichever villages had passengers to pick up or set down.
8.2.3: "Journey to work" services -- see 7.2.1 for the role these could fill.
9. Detailed recommendations. Our main recommendations have already been outlined in 1.4-8 above.
If a local authority opposes a new development because of inadequate public transport accessibility, but the developer wins on appeal, it should have to pay isolation allowances to residents (or support enough buses to avoid isolation), thus ensuring that the planning system doesn't entrench isolation and car dependence.
People living in villages within reasonable walking distance of more frequent services, by a safe route, would have their isolation allowances assessed on the basis that they could walk to such villages where necessary. Exceptions would, however, be made for those unable to walk longer distances, or who might have problems doing so on some journeys (e.g. because of carrying heavy shopping). Similar provision might be made for cycling, provided that cycle routes were safe and reasonably secure cycle parking was available. Access to demand responsive services would be taken into account in assessing isolation allowances, but these would have to meet standards such as those suggested in 8.1.1-5 above.
To improve access to bus stops, the powers of local authorities to buy land compulsorily for new bus stops, crossings and footpath links (both along roads and across fields) to nearby villages and places of interest would be extended, and funding would be provided (also financed from higher fuel tax) to help them pay for this. And the Highways Agency should be required to make its schemes bus-friendly.
While LTAs would be given powers to franchise services on certain corridors if this was the only reasonable way of serving all communities adequately, such franchises need not be exclusive (i.e. other operators could be allowed to provide supplementary services on the corridor, or even paid to do so as part of a separate supported service), but there should be reserve powers to guard against "wrecking operations" by competitive operators.
Regarding local transport plans, it is surely anomalous that these can be compiled without reference to the issue of most concern to bus users -- how frequent a service they can expect. This would also put bus users on a par with rail users, who have minimum standards for their services laid down in the franchise agreements of their train operators.
Regarding the suggestion of a good practice guide for LTAs, here are some suggested standards (limited to what is needed to avoid isolation).
(a) Neighbourhoods in cities and main regional centres, and the centres of larger free standing towns: half hourly daytime, hourly evenings and Sundays.
(b) Smaller free standing towns and large villages: hourly daytime, some evening and Sunday service, with access to entertainment at least on Fridays and Saturdays, but services running at least till mid evening 7 days a week.
(c) All but the remotest villages: peak services as per 5.1 and 2 hourly services between the peaks.
(d) All villages: services to school, work, and, on at least 2 days per week, shopping (with the possibility of using the school or work bus in at least one direction).
(e) Important rural places of interest should have public transport access at times suitable for visitors and compatible with their own opening times.
I also propose the following:
9.1: In England, concessionary passholders travelling outside their area on buses equipped with smartcard readers would be paid for by the local authority where they live, not the one where they board the bus. Also, reimbursement rates should increase; even if this means that operators are over-reimbursed, the money is likely to end up helping to support the system as a whole.
9.2: Train operators would be required to allow the use of off peak tickets by passengers travelling out of cities in the morning, when the direction of peak flow is into the cities.
9.3: One of more existing or new agencies concerned with rural affairs would be tasked with developing services for visitors to the countryside. This could be financed from within the countryside budget and/or fuel tax proceeds. Details of useful leisure services (including those run commercially or wholly sponsored by the local authority) would be disseminated on a regional and national basis. This would help daytrippers and holidaymakers select a destination, and also encourage local authorities to participate wholeheartedly in such schemes in order to help develop their tourist industries.
9.4: People without access to cars should become a "protected group" under the Equalities Act.
9.5: Familiarisation with the use of public transport, including in rural areas, should form part of the National Curriculum. Furthermore, people should be tested on this as part of the driving test (and also on cycling), to curb the tendency for people to jump into their cars without considering alternative options for the journey they are currently making.
9.6: While the above recommendations would result in eventual easing of isolation problems, the problem is surely urgent enough to call for interim measures; however I do not intend to identify here what measures would be cost-effective and could be implemented quickly.
10. Answers to the Committee's questions.
10.1: How should demand for transport in isolated communities be identified? 5.1-5 show the main types of journeys people are likely to want to make.
10.2: To what extent are the needs of different groups of people taken into account? Of the groups mentioned, provision for disabled people is patchy, but, as non-DDA compliant buses are phased out and disability awareness is phased in, their main problem is likely to be the lack of any suitable services at all. For older people, provision is discouraged by the concessionary fares reimbursement system -- see 6.7.5. Young people, for whom driving is likely to be unaffordable because of insurance rates, and many of whom have high transport requirements (e.g. for journeys to work, to nightlife, and to see their families at weekends), are particularly hard done by.
10.3: What are the main challenges in providing better and more consistent services and how can they be overcome? For the first part of this question, the main challenges are probably deregulation (see 6.8.1), fragmentation (see 6.8.5), lack of national guidance (see 6.7.3), and funding (see 6.7.5). Funding would be less of a problem if real efforts were made to develop patronage (particularly among fare paying passengers) as recommended in 7.2. All our recommendations would help to solve the problems involved.
10.4: How effective is community transport and how can it be improved? At present it largely fulfils the following roles: (a) To provide limited services on routes that "fall between the cracks". (b) To enable tendered services to be provided more cheaply than by commercial operators. (c) On a private hire basis, to help support special events otherwise inaccessible without a car. (d) To provide what might be called special needs transport for essential journeys that can't be undertaken by public transport.
The main obstacle to the development of community transport is that there is a limited supply of volunteer drivers. With regard to (a), if the mainstream network were more comprehensive, then resources would be released to plug gaps that aren't filled at present. Event organisers need to be made aware of the potential as regards (c).
10.5: To what extent should people in isolated areas be expected to rely on taxis and other demand responsive transport? As regards conventional taxis, people shouldn't have to use them for routine journeys such as local shopping; and we reject the idea that local authorities have a responsibility to keep them in business by not providing good public transport (including demand responsive services). Whether public transport are provided on a fixed route or demand responsive basis (the latter including taxibuses and taxi sharing schemes with fares similar to those for conventional buses) should depend on the geography of the area, with fixed routes used where these can easily cover all communities on the relevant corridor.
10.6: What are the main challenges with funding services in isolated communities and how can they be made more affordable? (From the context I assume that this means "more affordable by local authorities" rather than "more affordable by users".) Improving patronage by the means suggested in 7.2 should be part of the solution. One should bear in mind the principle of contributory revenue, whereby the cost of providing heavily subsidised services can be offset by revenue generated on other sections of longer distance journeys made as a result. And if the idea of an isolation allowance successfully undercut the opposition to higher fuel taxes it would open up a very large funding stream to help combat isolation.
August 2013
Written evidence from Teesdale U3A (TIC 024)
1. Many of our members live in isolated communities or farmhouses many miles from any public transport. We have concerns about access to shopping centres and hospitals.
2. I have been asked to register our concern about current levels of public transport in Teesdale, County Durham, and the withdrawal of services from our area.
August 2013
Written evidence from the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (TIC 025)
The mobility of older people in isolated communities. Introduction
This note is provided by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, a professional engineering institution with 12,000 members who work in the highways and transportation sector. CIHT members plan, design, build, operate and maintain transport systems and infrastructure, whilst respecting the imperatives of improving safety, ensuring economic competitiveness and minimising environmental impact.
This note is concerned with issues affecting the mobility of older people in isolated communities.
Mobility in isolated communities
The National Travel Survey, an annual household survey of some 15,000 to 18,000 people, provides data on the number of journeys per year made using different types of transport by residents of different types of area. Figure 1 shows the numbers of journeys for people of all ages.
. JOURNEYS PER YEAR - all persons all ages - 2003-05 1,200 Car driver 1,000 Car 800 passenger
600 Other
400 Bus
Journeys per person per year per person per year Journeys 200 Walk
- Urban London Metro Rural areas Rural Small urban Small urban Large conurbations Type of area Figure 1 Journeys per year by different means of transport and different types of area (National Travel Survey, 2003-05) The total number of journeys increases slightly as the size of an urban area reduces, but is similar for large urban areas (population over 250,000) to rural areas (settlements with populations of less than 3,000). The number of car driver journeys increases with reducing urban size and is particularly large in rural areas. Walk journeys are similar in number across all urban areas, but fewer in rural areas. Bus journeys are most frequent in London and the metropolitan conurbations, and very few in rural areas.
Although the data in Figures 1 and 2 are for 2003-05, the situation has not changed greatly since that date. Data corresponding to Figure 1 for 2011-12 is similar, with a small reduction in total trip numbers, a significant reduction in car use and increase in bus use in London, and a reduction in walking in the larger urban areas, but not in the smaller urban and rural areas. In 2011-12, the total number of journeys in rural areas was fewer than in urban areas.
Figure 2 shows similar data for people in different age groups. Figure 2a shows data for those aged 25 to 49, Figure 2b for those aged 65 to 69 and Figure 2c for those aged 80 and over. These show, for those aged 25 to 49, the importance of driving a car outside of London, and particularly in rural areas, and the relatively little use of buses outside London and the metropolitan conurbations. For those aged 65 to 69, driving a car is still important, but fewer journeys are as a car driver; bus use in urban (population 25,000 to 250,000) and small urban areas increases relative to that by middle-aged people. For those aged 80 and over, the total number of journeys has reduced considerably, and car driving in particular. Journeys as a car driver are still more in rural than urban areas, as are journeys as a car passenger. Bus use has increased, relative to that by those aged 65 to 69. JOURNEYS PER YEAR - all persons aged 25 to 49
800 . Walk 700 Bus 600 500 Car passenger 400 Car driver 300 Other 200 100 Journeys per person per year per year person per Journeys
- Urban London Metro Rural areas Rural Small urban Small Large urban Large conurbations Type of area Figure 2a Journeys per year by persons aged 25 to 49 (National Travel Survey, 2003-05) JOURNEYS PER YEAR - all persons aged 65 to 69
800 . 700 Walk
600 Bus 500 Car 400 passenger Car driver 300 200 Other 100 Journeys per person per year per person per year Journeys
- Urban London Metro Rural areas Rural Small urban Small Large urban Large conurbations Type of area
Figure 2b Journeys per year by persons aged 65 to 69 (National Travel Survey, 2003-05)
JOURNEYS PER YEAR - all persons aged 80 and over
. 800 Walk 700 600 Bus
500 Car 400 passenger Car driver 300 200 Other
Journeys per person per year per person per year Journeys 100
- Urban s London Metro Rural areas Rural conurbation urban Small Large urban Large Type of area
Figure 2c Journeys per year by persons aged 80 and older (National Travel Survey, 2003-05)
The proportion of older people in isolated communities
The ONS publication ‘Regional Trends’ publishes data on the proportion of people of retirement age in individual local authority areas. This makes it possible to determine the relationship between population density and the percentage of the population of retirement age.
Figure 3 shows this relationship for all local authorities in Great Britain in 2008. The percentage ranges from almost 35% in some low density areas to under 10% in the highest density areas of Inner London. The curve is similar, but less extreme, for Wales on its own, and the range is even smaller for Scotland on its own.
These data show that older people are disproportionately located in low density areas, where it is difficult and expensive to provide public transport and other services, and where people depend on cars to reach the services and facilities that they require.
PERCENTAGE POPULATION RETIRED GREAT BRITAIN 2008 40
.
35 30 25 20 15
Percentage retired 10 5 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Population density people per sq.km.
Figure 3 Population density and percentage of people of retirement age, for local authorities, Great Britain (Regional Trends)
Driving licence holding by older people
The percentage of adults holding car driving licences has been increasing, particularly for older people and most rapidly for older women (Figure 4a and 4b). These data are from the National Travel Survey.
FULL CAR DRIVING LICENCES - MEN 100 Age range 90
80 Men 17 - 20
. 70 Men 21 - 29 60 50 Men 40 - 49 licences 40 Men 60 - 69
30 Men 70+ 20 Percent holding full car driving holdingfull driving car Percent Men 85+ 10 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 4a Percentage of men from different age groups who hold full car driving licences (National Travel Survey)
FULL CAR DRIVING LICENCES - WOMEN 100 90 Age range 80 Women 17 - 20
. 70
Women 21 - 29 60 50 Women 40 - 49
licences 40 Women 60 - 69 30
20 Women 70+ Percent holding full car driving holdingfull driving car Percent 10 0 Women 85+ 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 4b Percentage of women from different age groups who hold full car driving licences (National Travel Survey)
For men aged 40 to 70, licence holding has saturated at about 90% of the population. For older age groups it is rising, for younger it has fallen and is now rather steady. For women aged 30 to 60, licence holding has saturated at around 80%. For those aged 60 to 69 it appears to be saturating at around 70% For older women it is still increasing rapidly, though from relatively low levels, while for younger women it has fallen but is now rather steady.
The National Travel Survey can provide data on the proportion of driving licence holders who cease to hold a licence at different ages, by following cohorts from the start of reliable NTS data in 1972. Both men and women start to reduce licence holding after age 70, probably by failing to renew licences rather than by actively surrendering them.
Figure 5 shows the percentages of men and women of various ages who held a car driving licence ten years earlier but have now relinquished it. Both men and women start to relinquish licences at around age 70. By age 80, about 15% of women and 10% of men who held a licence at age 70, no longer do so. By age 90, over 40% of women and 20% of men who held licences at age 80, no longer do so. Thus by age 90, about 60% of women and 35% of men who had held car driving licences at age 70 no longer do so.
Even before relinquishing a driving licence, most older drivers reduce the amount they drive as they age, and progressively avoid stressful driving (night-time, motorways, peak times and busy town centres). This limits the activities that they are able to reach by car.
A significant proportion of older people who live in car-dependent areas will stop driving before they are 90 years old. Those who do will then be dependent on other means of getting about, which may be family and friends, taxis, community transport or possibly local bus services. DRIVERS RELINQUISHING CAR DRIVING LICENCE IN PREVIOUS DECADE 40 35 Men
30 Women 25 20 15
Percent . 10 5 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Age
Figure 5 The percentages of men and women of various ages who held a car driving licence ten years earlier but have now relinquished it (derived from National Travel Survey)
Implications
Buses are little used in rural areas and small urban areas (populations 25,000 to 3,000). Most journeys are made by car, either as driver or passenger, or on foot. In 2011-12, 87% of all journeys in rural areas were made by car or on foot.
The increasing number of older drivers living in low density areas where they have to depend on their car to reach the services and facilities they need for daily life poses a large potential problem. Many will have to stop driving in their 70s or 80s and will then be dependent on others for the mobility they need.
One action that would cost little is a campaign to persuade older people to move from isolated communities to places where they would not be car dependent, before increasing age forces them to restrict or stop driving.
A second action would be to support the many excellent local authority programmes to advise older drivers on their ability to continue to drive safely, many of which provide some training in ways to extend safe driving further into old age.
August 2013
Written evidence from Action With Communities in Rural England (ACRE) (TIC 26)
ACRE is the national charity supporting rural community action through its founder members, the Rural Community Councils (RCCs) across England. The 38 RCCs are independent local development agencies, based at county level, addressing social, economic and environmental challenges in rural areas. They provide help, support and advice for community-led action in rural areas throughout England.
Summary
• Community transport has always had a critical role to play in enabling access to services and reducing isolation. The sector’s growth needs to be encouraged and supported so that it can help fill the gaps in delivery and provide sustainable and targeted services. ACRE’s member organisations are actively involved with rural transport issues at local regional and national level and in some cases operate community transport services. Four of our member organisations have submitted responses independently and we endorse their submissions. They are: o Tees Valley Rural Community Council o Rural Community Council of Essex o Oxfordshire Rural Community Council o Community First Wiltshire
• Passenger transport is a fundamental challenge especially for isolated rural communities particularly for people without access to private transport. Public transport withdrawal during this period of austerity has left many rural residents, who lack access to private transport, in very difficult circumstances.
• There are many questions this inquiry raises including what constitutes an isolated community. We would argue that isolation is not merely a function of geographical remoteness but includes a range of other factors including social and economic exclusion and the availability of local public transport. We would also state that it is not only the most remote rural communities that are becoming increasingly isolated because of cuts to public (mainly bus) transport.
• The challenge for many people living in rural areas especially for those who are more isolated or deprived, is to obtain the services they need within the constraints of their personal transport options be they private, public or community.
• Transport in isolated rural areas is inextricably linked with most other issues affecting communities living there. The availability of services and jobs in towns and cities is worthless without access to appropriate forms of transport to the right place at the right time. It cannot be assumed that rural residents have access to their own private transport.
1. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)? 1.1 Many of our members have carried out local transport surveys showing current demand and gaps in provision. These have included local authority commissioned work and surveys via Parish Councils and as part of Community Led Planning activity. 1.2 Surveys are usually undertaken where there is a need to identify gaps due to cuts in bus services and, the need for a local authority to undertake smarter transport planning in times of austerity. The surveys are effective as they identify possible solutions as well as ways to save money. They often point towards the provision of bespoke and community led and localised services. 1.3 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, North Yorkshire County Council bring together community and in house transport providers to look at how they are working together. 1.4 Traditional bus services are not appropriate to serve isolated communities both from a geographical point of view (e.g., narrow lanes), because they are ecologically unsound and economically they just don’t work. 1.5 We would advocate for a range of solutions to suit a community’s specific needs – community transport, taxi buses, small buses and post buses. To conclude there should be a more systematic surveying of communities which would raise the issue of community transport as many communities seem confused about what community transport is and where they can access it. 2. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities? It appears that very little account is taken of the needs of people with disabilities, older people and younger people. Though provision in some areas aims to cater for older people. The main challenges are: • Provision of fully accessible vehicles. • Isolated communities are often accessible only by narrow unlit lanes and the distance to bus stops and pick up points creates problems for the elderly and young people.
• After school transport is rarely available restricting the ability to take part in extracurricular activities. Evening and weekend transport in isolated areas further restricts access to activities for young people.
In an effort to shape service decisions Essex County Council use ‘Accession’ accessibility mapping software to identify the ability of people with different needs to access key services. 3. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome? 3.1 Costs and charging structures in low demand/high mileage areas – isolated areas by their nature means longer distances and higher costs (particularly fuel costs), which the provider would seek to pass on partially or fully to the passenger. Fares need to be affordable while at the same time prices charged, sustainable for the provider. East Cleveland Minibus Brokerage provides an example of what can be achieved to help cut costs and achieve a more sustainable service. Tees Valley RCC’s response provides details. 3.2 An acceptance that certain essential services will never provide an economic return and have to be subsidised in some form. The Government and the community transport sector must work together with all parties to get a best possible alternative. 3.3 Providing transport services at times people need them e.g. the scenario of catching a bus on Tuesday that does not return until Friday does not work for the average passenger. Better connectivity between all parties including supermarkets and retailers offering bus services, between bus and rail services and between operators could link up their service provision to help address this issue. 3.4 Provision of services in times of winter/bad weather – especially in high altitude areas needs consideration. 3.5 Better communication of the services that are available and an understanding that older people may not have access to the internet and efficient broadband is not readily available in some rural areas. If people don’t know about services they cannot use them; unused transport is not viable. 3.6 Incentives for families and car users to change their mode of transport may increase use of services that are available making them more viable. 4. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
4.1 Our Network 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. This includes work with isolated communities. Essex County Council supports 12 community transport schemes across Essex run as charitable organisations. The quality of service is a success due to it being personalised, flexible and reliable. 4.2 The most recent CTA State of the Sector Report showed the community transport sector is increasing but that some organisations were struggling
financially. We believe that it will always need a degree of subsidy and/or grant funding to make a significant difference on rural routes. 4.3 In terms of improvement there is positive trend towards the development of CT infrastructure/umbrella bodies at a more local level e.g. Buckinghamshire Community Transport Hub and Suffolk Community Transport. Their roles include help with publicity, co-ordinate demand (one stop shop approach) provide business support services for their members. 4.4 Suggested improvements:
• Better communication and partnerships between organizations providing transport services.
• Easing of current driver (D1) legislations to benefit recruitment and retention of volunteer drivers. • A willingness by local authorities to support and utilize community transport. • Wider communication and promotion about availability of community transport alongside public transport taking into account appropriate methods of communication for different users. Background from Community Action Surrey who have supported voluntary car schemes for over 20 years “In Surrey voluntary car schemes/good neighbour schemes have existed for almost 50 years and Surrey CA has supported these for over 20 years.
We have about 100 such schemes offering transport to anyone in their communities but it is almost all elderly people who use the service. The schemes vary in size from 10 volunteers to 150 volunteers, doing as few as 120 passenger journeys to 15,000 passenger journeys a year. Last year we did a short survey of the schemes and we had a 79% return rate. The 79% reported that they did 82,500 passenger journeys for 7,300 clients. Our estimate is that approximately 75% would have been health related journeys. Of all the requests only 0.7% were turned down and that was usually because too short notice was given.
These voluntary schemes work very well in the communities that have them. The Voluntary Car Schemes Adviser is continually trying to develop new schemes. In the past 21 years Surrey Community Action has assisted 43 schemes to develop. There are another three in the pipeline and another two possible new schemes. On the evidence to date, it would seem that until every community/village/town has such a scheme, this development work will continue as there does appear to be a need for the schemes across the county, both in urban and rural areas.
Clients find these schemes to be a lifeline for them. The schemes provide transport to hospital appointments before hospital transport even begins work. They will go across borders and the drivers wait for their clients, often staying with them in the hospital”
5. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
5.1 Taxis are cost prohibitive for many people in isolated areas, concessionary passes cannot be used in taxis and there can be a limited supply. However they could be used as part of the transport mix in isolated communities. They could provide a failsafe option as part of a car sharing scheme? Community First Wiltshire suggest a web based portal for taxi operators to use to advertise ‘dead’ journeys may be useful in advertising journey opportunities and in bringing down costs for passengers. 5.2 For young people relying on parents for financial support taxi costs can be prohibitive and put financial pressure on struggling families. 6. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable? In addition to information already supplied:
• There is no incentive for people to use public transport. Invest money in better transport solutions and incentives for people to leave their cars at home.
• Costs for families could be grouped, for example transport to post 16 education for parents with more than one teenager going onto school/college outside of their village could be offered a group ticket.
• Improve operator viability by making meaningful frequency and regularity of provision. Reliable and trustworthy services are needed.
• Maximize technology for current needs and co-ordinate services to get provision to the right place and right time.
• Allow public transport to run on cheaper fuels such as red diesel or invest in more energy efficient technologies.
• Set up a driver/vehicle bank so people know what is being used and what is available to use.
• Develop multi-use vehicles which deliver milk, post, parcels and people!
August 2013
Written evidence from Blanchland Parish Council (TIC 27)
How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)?
Blanchland is a small rural parish with 124 adults on the electoral roll. Public transport is allocated according to demand and cost per person per trip.
To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
An ADAPT bus comes to the village once per week to take elderly people with wheelchairs or walking aids to our market town for a short stay.
We have a bus which services the village twice per day Monday to Friday but not at convenient times for younger people to travel to work or attend regular leisure opportunities.
What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome?
Public transport cannot operate without passengers and in rural communities young adults learn to drive as quickly as possible, gain their own transport or move away.
Elderly people who no longer can drive or afford to run a car wish to move to where transport is more readily available. Rural transport tends not to fit in with Doctors, Dental and Hospital appointments! The majority of eldery people with Bus passes would be quite happy to pay towards the journey if this meant having a convenient bus service.
How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
As above, Elderly people who no longer can drive or afford to run a car wish to move to where transport is more readily available. Rural transport tends not to fit in with Doctors, Dental and Hospital appointments! These people should not have to rely on Taxis.
As regard to demand services if a resident books this in our village, a resident two miles away on the same route at the same time is refused even though seats are available as this would extend the journey time and it may not be able to keep to its next scheduled pick up time.
What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable? The cost of running buses for the low number of passengers. Having transport at convenient times to fit the needs of the community.
The majority of elderly people with Bus passes would be quite happy to pay towards the journey if this meant having a convenient bus service.
August 2013 Written evidence from Rural Community Council of Essex (TIC 028)
RCCE (Rural Community Council of Essex) is an independent charity helping people and communities throughout rural Essex create a sustainable future. We have been working with local community groups, Parish Councils, Village Halls and Community Buildings across Essex to address some of the issues they face, since being established in 1929.
RCCE is an influential voice for rural communities at local and national level. We enjoy strong working relationships with Essex County Council, local District and Borough Councils, and DEFRA. As one of England's 38 county Rural Community Councils, we are a member of ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England). Together we aim to meet the needs of 11,000 rural communities nationwide.
1. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)?
1.1 Essex County Council (ECC) uses Accession mapping software, which uses the latest census data to map access by public transport to key services for both rural and urban areas. ECC holds meetings with commercial operators, key stakeholders and the voluntary sector to identify demand and improve services. Area reviews have been carried out to give a more detailed assessment of needs. The needs identified for each rural area vary and the resulting outcomes reflect this. For example, weekly Braintree shopper bus services improved access to local market towns. In the Dengie Peninsula* a Demand Responsive Transport Scheme** (DRT), initially DaRT 99, followed by DaRT 5, was introduced.
[*The Dengie Peninsula is a particularly remote and isolated area of rural Essex, bounded by the sea to the east and the Blackwater and Crouch rivers to the north and south. The low population density and isolated nature of the area make provision of conventional bus services difficult, having lost most of its commercial operations since 1985 and the county council increasingly having had to contract services. **A DRT scheme is a taxi-bus service which operates a core route but can be booked in advance to pick up from a passenger’s house from outlying areas. Services can be timetabled or fully flexible within an operating period.]
1.2 ECC have contracted RCCE in the past to conduct independent area reviews which included extensive bus passenger surveys. RCCE collated, analysed the results and presented them to ECC, however these contracts have stopped since the council cutbacks.
2. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
2.1 Essex County Council say when looking at requests for additional services and making decisions over replacing withdrawn commercial services, each case is considered on its merit and the particular situation of specific service users/groups are considered in reaching decisions on service provision along with costs. In a more general way ECC uses ‘Accession’ accessibility mapping software to identify the ability of people in different groups (employed, elderly registered disabled
etc.) to access key services ( shopping, employment health and education). They use this formation to help shape service decisions. Again, the independent area surveys conducted by RCCE under contract fed into this process until 2011.
3. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome?
3.1 With regards to buses, by their nature isolated rural areas have small populations whose travel needs are not easily aggregated into a financially sustainable commercial bus network. Contracted bus services can easily become unsustainable due to demographic shifts or rising costs. In addition, it is more difficult to manoeuvre large buses around narrow lanes where potential additional passengers may be (who are unable to get to the main route). Even DRT is made less sustainable due to the high levels of dead mileage and escalating fares impacting on demand. Therefore public transport in these areas will always require public funding support in one sense or another. Within this, kick-starting DRT services ( and thus removing some or all of the entry cost barrier to service provision) is possibly a better approach than long term service purchasing, if sufficient attention is paid to the marketing and organisational structure of the services. Either CT or taxi services can in theory make use of this approach, but in either case an excellent understanding of the potential market and its needs is necessary. Flexibility is a key factor, and the ability to call in additional vehicles (as the Essex DRT scheme is run by a taxi company) has proved invaluable.
3.2 For rail it is arguable that many of the same arguments apply. There are not enough passengers to make improved rail services economically viable and if they are considered socially necessary, then public funding will be required to keep them going. As there is no real equivalent to the DRT approach, long term financial subsidy (either directly by service or cross subsidy through franchising) is unavoidable. In its absence, Beeching style cuts are unavoidable.
3.3 Connectivity is an important factor, ensuring services are useful in their timings and connecting to other bus/rail services will attract more users, making services more viable. The DRT 5 provides a rail header service, connects with a main route bus service and the other DRT service DaRT 99.
3.4 Reliability is a key area of concern. Some operators run an unreliable service, either not investing in their vehicles so that buses regularly breakdown, or not enough staff to cover for absences, leaving passengers stranded, and leading to potential bus passengers using other means of transport (such as a car if they have access to one, which can be more costly when taking petrol and parking into consideration), lifts, taxis, walking or not making journeys at all. Other knock on effects are missed appointments eg. medical, costing the NHS. There is little recourse for complaint with commercially run services. Individual complaints to bus companies hold little sway, the county council has no jurisdiction over a commercial service, and people are often unaware of where else to go to complain.
3.5 Low-level passenger flows in sparsely populated areas prevent large bus operation from being commercially viable. Subsidy is needed to get services like DRT off the ground until they are capable of being self-funding. Another key issue is competition, while good in the sense of driving forward savings, no sensible operator will risk starting a rural route, where once he/she has developed the trade, any competitor can just start up alongside, thus diluting the route back to a non-profitable operation. Rural PTEs can help in this regard, where some control of route licensing is practised.
This will reduce the need for subsidy in many cases, as operators would then be able to risk running new services to rural communities, knowing they could one day reap the rewards of the initial investment made.
3.6 Examples of how these challenges can be overcome.
3.6.1 In Essex on the Dengie peninsula a group called Dengie Hundred Bus User Group (DHBUG), is an excellent example of good practice of members of the community coming together to influence service provision. They formed in 2010 as a result of the withdrawal of a bus service from most of the village of Althorne but at their inaugural meeting, it became clear that there were plenty of other issues in the Dengie, including the punctuality and reliability of the bus service and inadequate services to many of the villages. Their achievements include having set up a partnership with First Group to monitor and improve the performance of the bus service and they meet with them regularly, they influenced the introduction of a new service which filled a long-standing gap in the timetable; have the facility for the public to file reports on their website; took part in the consultation process for the Essex County Council local service contract; worked with the Community Rail Partnership to improve access to rail stations; influenced the provision of the DRT scheme to additional areas; liaised with the County Council and the bus operators at times of road closures and displayed posters relating to alternative arrangements, e.g. during Carnival, to provide information to encourage people to continue to use the bus. They hold public meetings twice a year which are very well attended, and invite some influential people to speak and take questions, including Giles Fearnley, Managing Director of First's UK Bus Division and Stephen Morris, Deputy Chief Executive of Bus Users UK.
3.6.2 The DRT scheme in Essex has overcome some of the challenges discussed above. Initially the service (DaRT 99) was established in May 2011 to improve access to two hospitals from the Dengie area. The service offers a fixed link between Maldon, neighbouring Heybridge and Chelmsford hospital, with a demand responsive service to outlying villages in the Dengie Peninsula. It runs between 0600 and 2100 Monday to Friday. Fares are set above the comparable bus journey, reflecting the additional convenience and comfort of the service and to avoid undermining the commercial indirect links (involving one or more changes). Concessionary bus passes are accepted. The service received one-off £65,000 ‘kick start’ funding from the LAA Partnership via RCCE, following a competitive tender exercise carried out by RCCE. It has seen increasing passenger use and viability over the period and from May 2013, the service went fully commercial.
3.6.3 The success of the D99 and the expiry of service contracts led to the development of another DRT service in the area, the D5, which serves the most isolated parishes in the Dengie. It replaced a conventional bus service which gave 4 off-peak return journeys on Monday - Friday and two return journeys on a Saturday to the local town. DaRT 5 is a fully flexible service, available from 0600 to 2000 Monday - Saturday. All journeys must be pre-booked at least one hour before travelling and passengers must be prepared to change, as the service feeds into other bus and rail services. The service was introduced following extensive consultation, which highlighted a desire for greater choice of times and destinations. The service was expanded in October 2012 to meet demand from a neighbouring community.
3.6.4 Passenger numbers have grown significantly. The previous D5 service carried an average of 5 passengers per weekday and 1.5 on a Saturday. In July the average number of passengers per day
was 59, and the cost per passenger is now down to around £3.13p. 91% of passengers are concessionary travel pass holders. Users are deciding to make more use of the service and are introducing new customers. For example, a single journey from a Residential Park to the Conservative Club started off as one person travelling once per week; now there are 4 or 5 travelling daily. A few of the new users previously used taxis. Some commuters use the service from the villages to the local station. Feedback has been very positive, with specific praise for the regular driver.
3.6.5 The service allows individuals who were previously isolated to go out and be part of the community. There are a number of older people who were unable to walk up the hill to the nearest bus stop and were therefore unable to access public transport. The wide net of the DRT service has removed this problem and they are now regular travellers, using the service to access shops, medical facilities, clubs and social events. One lady is currently in the situation where she is unable to drive or walk any distance. The door to door nature of the service has been invaluable to her. Another elderly lady said that previously her family and friends had to do all her shopping for her; now she can do her own shopping. She said it has “opened up my life again” and has enabled her to choose her own food, improving her diet and consequently her health.
3.6.6 Conventional buses are often seen as a meeting place by older users. One concern of introducing DRT was that there wouldn’t be the same opportunity to socialise. A pattern of group booking is emerging from elderly people and people are using it to go out socially.
3.6.7 A recent Age UK report highlights the importance of bus travel to not only accessing services but to contributing to the quality of life for older people (http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16946/). The service may extend the time individuals can live independently, reducing health and social care costs. This saving is difficult to monetise, but the cost of delaying progression to more costly care has been valued at £181 per week (£9,412 per year). The cost of an individual moving to a care home is valued at £27,000 per year. Therefore, If only three people are prevented from moving into a care home, then this service will reduce the overall cost to the public purse.
3.7 The DArT works in the Dengie Peninsula because:
• Demand can be met – the population size is small and therefore demand is limited. 27% of the population is over the age of 60, and 8% over the age of 74. 3% of households do not have a car and rely on public transport (population stats from 2001 census). • Operator buy-in – the operator believes, and is determined to prove, that DRT is the solution to public transport in rural areas. It has invested both time and money into the schemes over and above the contractual requirements. A dedicated operator and driver are used, a new vehicle purchased, and the operator has engaged with communities to promote the service. Additionally, a free service was offered to customers in the area on Christmas Day. The high quality of service provided has ensured the service is self-promoting. • Customer buy-in – the previous service only partially met needs and was poorly used. Consultation on the new service started over a year before the change was introduced; there were some enthusiastic and hardworking advocates of the new service within the area (DHBUG).
• Lessons learned from the D99 and D5 DRT service are noted. The service is not appropriate for running with larger buses, as they are unsuitable for driving around estates or turning in car parks. D99 has a different customer base; people attending hospital for treatment tends to be short term, therefore there is a high turnover of passengers and a constant need for marketing to attract new passengers. The service is not available to cover all shift patterns and is therefore limited in being an attractive travel option for hospital staff.
3.8 The DaRT has been nominated and shortlisted for two National Transport Awards.
4. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
4.1 Currently Essex County Council supports 12 community transport schemes across Essex; most are run as independent charitable organisations, although one is run by a district council and one is currently run in house by Essex County Council.
4.2 Community Transport schemes provide transport for individuals who cannot access conventional services, whether due to restricted mobility or living in isolated areas not serviced by public transport. The quality of service provided is high, being personalised, flexible and reliable. As a result, CT has a very high user satisfaction rating. The annual cost to the council is £1.3 million.
4.3 Essex County Council current strategy sees Community Transport as providing a safety net for those unable to access local bus services and thus filling in areas where conventional local bus service provision is not practicable.
4.4 Most CT schemes provide a range of services. These include: ∼ Dial-a-ride services – demand responsive individual journeys usually carried out by accessible minibuses and often by professional drivers. ∼ Social Car services – volunteers using their own cars to provide journeys, only receiving expenses in return. ∼ Vehicle Brokerage – working with a range of different organisations to make their vehicles available for group hire during ‘down’ periods ∼ Community Buses - Registered local bus services, using larger vehicles and in the main paid drivers run under a Section 22 permit, often with a semi DRT element. 4.5 The model employed is heavily dependent on the use of volunteers, both to driver and to perform ‘back office’ functions. As schemes grow, an increasing degree of professionalisation is required to manage the additional complexities of operation and ensure reliability. However, there are limits to how far such a business model can grow due to their reliance on voluntary support. All the schemes struggle to recruit new volunteers; often due to exacting behavioural standards required to allow a person to transport vulnerable people.
4.6 Currently Community Transport schemes receive a grant made under Service Level Agreement with ECC and in some cases with district councils, which set targets for passenger numbers, performance and value for money.
4.7 The number of passengers travelling using Community Transport in some districts/boroughs has declined; this is thought to be in part due to the impact of the provision of free transport on local
bus services. Older passengers, who make up the majority of community transport users, can travel on local buses for free. Though the cost of using community transport is subsidised, charges are made and passengers would like to be able to use their concessionary pass and travel for free. Section 22 licences and registered bus services have allowed some of the schemes to introduce travel which is free to the users, being reimbursed by the concessionary fare scheme.
4.8 Coverage by CT schemes is patchy – not all areas in need have a service. As schemes are independent there is no consistency in how they run and operate, although some flexibility is useful to account for local needs, a more consistent approach would help users to better understand and access the services on offer. The fact that some schemes have Section 22 licences and allow passengers to use bus passes while others don’t make it confusing. Consistent regulation would be extremely beneficial.
5. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
5.1 Given the low number of individuals living in isolated communities providing services commercially is not an option and therefore will always be reliant on the local authority providing financial support for services. This is not a statutory requirement and given the current economic pressures is becoming more challenging.
5.2 Taxis are cost prohibitive for many people in isolated areas, plus there may be limited supply in some areas. Nor can concessionary passes be used in taxis. DRT can work very effectively in some areas where it is appropriate.
6. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable?
I’ve covered this question in previous answers.
August 2013
Written evidence from Broomley & Stocksfield Parish Council (TIC 029)
Introduction Broomley & Stocksfield Parish is a community of around 1300 households with a population consisting of a broad mix of ages, incomes, and abilities.
The parish is situated to the south of the A695 which runs between Prudhoe and Hexham in Northumberland.
The parish consists of the larger settlement of Stocksfield with additional satellite settlements of New Ridley, Hindley and Broomley.
Buses Currently the parish is served by a half hour bus service seven days a week (no 10) operated by Go North East. This is a good service but runs along the A695 and does not serve the other parts of the parish.
The only other regular commercial service is the 613 between Whittonstall and Hexham which travels around Stocksfield and some of its satellite communities. This bus only operates on Tuesdays and is a much valued weekly service to an unsustainable community.
In the recent past the route from Whittonstall to Branch End (Stocksfield) was served by a service on a weekday basis (2 buses a day each way) to Newcastle.
In the distant past New Ridley was served by a regular service to Newcastle which operated 7 days a week and 3-6 times a day from early morning to late at night.
For many of the residents in the parish of Broomley & Stocksfield the current bus route is up to 20 minutes walk from their homes. In the satellite settlements this route is only accessible by car or bike.
Many of the residents of New Ridley and New Ridley Road in particular form part of our aging population and once they are unable to drive will be isolated in their homes as the bus service does not meet their needs. New Ridley is 1.5 miles from the A695 (a good 40 minute walk for a fit person) and the southern parts of New Ridley Road are also up to a 30 minute walk from the A695.
Trains The current train service is good and offers a regular service to Newcastle and beyond in the east and Hexham and Carlisle to the west. However, the rolling stock is very old and passengers would appreciate newer if not new carriages and trains. Passengers travelling from the further points of the parish must use cars or bikes to travel to Stocksfield station.
Comments from Broomley & Stocksfield Parish Council
• How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities? In order to identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities, Government and local authorities need to consult widely with the residents of all communities in order to establish where potential passengers need to travel, at what times of day, and how frequently the services might need to operate. Local authorities need to consult in as many ways as possible, e.g. through household surveys, local press, local parish and town councils, etc. It is not enough to consult only on-line as many people do not have direct access to on-line services and do not necessarily connect to local authority and government websites.
• To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities. The current bus services offered to the more remote and isolated parts of the parish are inadequate and do not meet the needs of people with disabilities, older or younger people. The service most recently offered to residents in New Ridley did not meet the needs of potential travellers, in that it did not go to the destinations to which they wished to travel. This meant that it was not used by many passengers. This service no longer operates.
We appreciate that not all of the wishes of potential travellers can be met, but it seems to us that the bus services are often run for the convenience of the operators and not the travelling public.
• What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? The main challenge associated with funding transport services in isolated communities is the fact that by the nature of their isolation, the number of passengers is unlikely to be sufficient to make the services sustainable. In addition, the cost of providing the service is likely to be high and this will naturally affect the fares.
• To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive services. In an ideal world, residents of isolated communities should not be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive services. In the “real” world however, these services must be seen as a means of linking these communities with their larger neighbours. However, schemes must be introduced which are competitive for passengers but also enable the operators to make a sustainable living.
• What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? The main challenge with providing better services is to ensure that the services offered are fit for purpose and cover routes that suit the needs of passengers. There is also a need to consider cost-effective ways of providing short, additional bus routes in isolated communities which link with the regular services operating in nearby more densely populated areas.
August 2013 Written evidence from Community First (TIC 030)
1. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)
Wiltshire Council is currently consulting with local Area Boards, Community Area Partnerships Parish Councils, users and local transport providers about changes to local bus services in a an effort to meet local needs in a cost-effective way. Wiltshire Council is also undertaking surveys of existing bus service use in order that changes to the bus service network can be made according to demand. To mitigate against the effects of changes to local bus services, Wiltshire Council has also consulted with Community First (who in turn canvassed opinions form Community Transport groups) regarding the establishment of a Community Transport business growth social enterprise (established in 2012 called Accelerate) and a Community Transport development fund. Lastly the Council is responding to consultation on rail matters undertaken in 2011/12 having submitted a successful bid to the DfT’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) to improve Wiltshire’s rail offer.
2. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
As part of the early development of Wiltshire Councils’ Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) Wiltshire Council invited various stakeholders and other interested parties to attend one of four consultation workshops to discuss the development of the LTP3.
Wiltshire Council also has current links with the Wiltshire and Swindon User’s Network (a user-led organisation representing people who use health and social services locally) and young people’s transport issues via the Wiltshire Assembly of Youth. Wiltshire Council also undertakes regular consultations with local residents and service users, with many of these surveys carried out in partnership with other local public service bodies (see for more details: http://www.intelligencenetwork.org.uk/consultation/)
3. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome?
In relation to bus services the challenges are often related to funding. As the market is de-regulated the scope for private bus operators to look beyond the sustainability of their own operations is limited despite some useful initiatives such as Quality Bus Partnerships and Better Bus Areas. There is however a broader issue of the marketing of bus services to encourage bus use more generally. Locally bus users tend to be mainly older people and those on low incomes. If there was a sustained national marketing campaign to promote bus
1
use - for instance as a wise financial as well as environmental choice - this would make the economics of bus use far easier. In some other European countries such campaigns seem prevalent and unnecessary car use seems to becoming culturally less acceptable as a result. In relation to rail services, it is vitally important that smaller stations are not disregarded by train companies in order to improve performance to larger rail hubs and that rail line electrification is considered carefully in this respect. Please see http://www.pewseytrainwatch.co.uk/ ; http://www.bedwyntrains.org.uk/ and http://www.westburytrainwatch.org.uk/ for more details. Lastly in relation to rail, whilst Wiltshire Councils’ successful bid to the DfT’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) to improve Wiltshire’s rail offer will help to provide better and more consistent rail services locally, it is important that rail services resulting from this connect with bus services to provide passengers with integrated journey options.
4. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
Based on the most recent data available, there were 10.4 million passenger trips undertaken by bus in Wiltshire compared to 260,000 passenger trips undertaken by Community Transport (CT) schemes in Wiltshire. There are however over 60 CT schemes across Wiltshire but these groups are mainly fairly small in scale and scope. To make a real impression in addressing the needs of passengers in isolated communities (e.g. to support local CT schemes to respond to changes in local bus services) sustained support funding is needed for infrastructure organisations such as Community First. Whilst the DfT Supporting Community Transport (CT) funding is welcome, it is relatively modest and also appears to be ‘one-off.’ Sustained investment (e.g. over 5 years or so) from the Government is needed in the CT sector in order for it to grow to the level required to make a significant difference in addressing the needs of passengers in isolated communities. Local CT support funding differences also need to be addressed – for instance whilst Community First receives funding from Wiltshire Council to provide support to CT schemes in Wiltshire, there is no funding for this support provided by Swindon Borough Council. In addition investment in simple car sharing initiatives / support for facilitating car sharing at the local level could have a significant impact in addressing the needs of passengers in isolated communities. There is already evidence locally of car sharing happening ‘under the radar’ but having proper investment in local car sharing could realize both accessibility (and environmental) objectives relatively straightforwardly.
5. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
2
Taxis could be used as an important part of the transport mix in addressing the needs of passengers in isolated communities. For instance if taxis are used to provide a failsafe option as part of a car sharing scheme (e.g. through taxi vouchers or similar) then they could have a useful role to play. Similarly a web-based live portal for taxi operators to use to advertise ‘dead’ journeys may also be useful in advertising journey opportunities / bring down journey costs for passengers. Demand responsive transport (DRT) services will only become cost effective (to both commissioners and users) if they are widely used. This will only come about if they are marketed extremely well and the law around pre-booking these services is relaxed. Otherwise the cost of providing these services as things currently stand is likely to lead to their demise.
6. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable?
The main challenges are related to the fact that there are fewer passengers available to be carried and often they are spread over a larger geographical area than in urban areas. Solutions, however, do not have to be expensive. Community Transport schemes and initiatives such as car sharing are cost effective to run and are therefore affordable for passengers. More investment in these services and the marketing of them is therefore needed. August 2013
3
Written evidence from TravelWatch NorthWest (TIC 031)
1. Introduction
TravelWatch NorthWest is an independent Community Interest Company representing all public transport users in NW England. We are pleased to give our views as follows to this inquiry.
2. Summary
A summary of the challenges facing passenger transport in isolated communities drawing on points made in this submission is given below-
• The need for more sustained appropriate Revenue funding. • The difficulty of integrating services in a de-regulated environment and the need to capture cross sector benefits which could significantly help to justify funding. • Competition law constraints, despite the 2008 Local Transport Act easements. These include lack of ticket interavailability and a deficiency of integrated, evenly-spaced timetables. • The complexity of legislation surrounding small passenger carrying vehicles and the definition of “public transport”. The need to make Demand Responsive Transport and Community Transport more widely available. • Local Government re-organisation and funding cut,s the creation of Local Transport Bodies and consequent bureaucracy. • Fares issues – bus fares information, cost compared with rail and concessionary travel availability on other modes.
3. Context / Background
3.1 The Chair of the Committee, Louise Ellman MP, has said :- “People from different communities across the UK should have access to adequate transport services. We will be looking at how best to meet the needs of passengers in isolated communities, including rural areas, island communities, and suburban or urban areas with poor transport connections”.
3.2 In August 2006 TWNW published its study of Rural Transport Funding. We believe the Committee may find it helpful to visit 1 this as it complements much of our submission.
3.3 Rising relative prosperity and consequential increased car ownership post World War II created a Rural Transport Problem which by the time of the Beeching 2 rail closures was beginning to stir the Nation’s conscience.
1 www.travelwatch-northwest.org.uk/RuralFunding.pdf. 2006 see also “Rural Transport – A guide”, Fawcett,P. Iceni Press (Carlisle) 2009 ISBN 9781902543031
3.4 he then Government responded by creating a committee chaired by Professor Jack 3 which found that public transport in rural areas was essentially unremunerative and thus, in today’s terms, non-commercial and proposed providing a subsidy in the form of a rebate of the tax paid by the operators in providing rural services 4. It also discovered that the suggestion most frequently made to them of Minibuses providing rural services was “by no means a universal panacea”.
3.5 By the time PTEs and Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) were created by the Transport Act 1968 all “stage carriage” 5 services qualified for Fuel Duty Rebate (FDR) which became the default support mechanism for rural transport services, and also increasingly, as this consultation exercise obviously recognises, for services in similarly isolated communities. Off Peak Sunday and evening services in many suburbs and small towns are now only marginally commercial by virtue of the FDR for which they still qualify.
3.6 It was recognised that deregulation of the bus industry (under the Transport Act 1985) could deprive rural services of any cross subsidy from licensed commercial services and thus financial support over and above FDR might be called for. The 1985 Act created a Rural Transport Development Fund (RTDF), administered by the Rural Development Commission (RDG) and later by the Countryside Agency (CoAg) 6.
3.7 One of the beneficiaries of RTDF was Royal Mail, who in the late 1980’s significantly grew their network of Post Buses. This was at the peak of an ill- fated parallel and mainly urban commercial “minibus revolution”. Few commercial minibuses or Post Buses survive today!
3.8 When the Coalition Government disposed of CoAg in 2011 7 the professional skills of their officers and partners 8 were lost (see question 1). A (formula based) Rural Bus Grant and a Rural Transport Challenge (for which operators or procurers had to bid) were carried forward but only for the short term, and are now defunct, “replaced” by non-rural-specific Better Bus Areas (BBAs) and Local Sustainable Transport Funds (LSTF). Bus operators currently appear far more concerned about the future of BSOG which is fast being decoupled from Fuel Duty.
2 “The Reshaping of British Railways, HMSO (London) 1963. Loss of rural rail services and generally inadequate “bustitution” contributed to the problem 3 Jack Committee on Rural Transport, Department of Transport 1963 4 Fuel Duty Rebate (FDR), introduced in 1965 and is now Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG) 5 Regulated Stage Carriage services were replaced (Transport Act 1985), by deregulated Registered Local Services. 6 CoAg was formed by the merger of RDC and the Countryside Commission 7 by transfer to a slimmed down Commission for Rural Communities 8 especially in the newly created Rural Transport Partnerships and in the Analysis of rural transport NEEDs (as opposed to demand)
3.9 TWNW concluded in its 2006 report 9 that where rural transport funding is limited to capital expenditure it is generally sub optimal, since operators require long term revenue funding if non-commercial services are to be protected. The report noted the revenue implications of capital spending and proposed the mainstreaming of revenue funding.
3.10 TWNW notes that the Committee is particularly interested in the provision of bus and rail services, as well as the role of Community Transport services”.
3.11 By definition 10 Community Transport (CT) is not public transport, although Community Buses can be. Rural Communities have a long tradition both of offering lifts to neighbours and of car sharing. It was the legalisation 11 of car sharing for a (non-commercial) “fare” (sufficient only to recover operating costs) which encouraged the development of CT 12. The sector has expanded greatly in the last two years, with some large social enterprises prepared to tender for marginal services in areas of low demand 13. It was pleasing to note the easements made by the Local Transport Act 2008 to assist operators of small passenger carrying vehicles (including taxis) wishing to provide (or reinstate) marginal registered local services 14.
3.12 The Association of Community Rail Partnerships (ACORP) has succeeded in facilitating bus/rail co-ordination at a few rural stations, some of which have also participated in parallel ACORP station adoption schemes. However in most instances a lack of co-ordination between bus and rail transport is still the rule rather than the exception with many bus services not serving the village/town stations, and, where they do, not connecting well with each other’s services. Better co-ordination would enable a station to serve many surrounding villages. In some cases the rail service provided does not tie in with local needs - e.g. the Lancaster - Leeds service does not allow commuting from the Lancs/Craven villages to either destination thus minimising rural job opportunities. We should also not forget the need for rural station car parks which allow rural access to public transport into towns and cities - historic land sales have removed practical parking facilities from many rural stations. One of the problems of buses serving rail stations is that additional travel time can be caused to passengers not using the station.
9 Op cit, 10 The Transport Act 1985 s 63(10) excludes section 19 Community Transport but not section 22 Community buses from its definition of public transport 11 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 1 12 Transport Act 1985 section 19 13 The number of applications to the Traffic Commissioners for section 22 Community Bus Permits rose from 10 in 2008 to 148 in 2011 (Local Transport Today No 608 26/10/12). 14 These easements include allowing private hire vehicles to run taxi bus services, and Section 19 Community Transport Permits to cover the use of MPVs with eight or less passenger seats. In addition section 20 Community Bus Permits will allow use of buses with 17 or more passenger seats. To further encourage service registrations by section 22 Community Buses, their volunteer drivers will not now be prohibited from being paid. In addition a range of qualifying Community transport services are now to become eligible to receive BSOG
4. Specific Questions asked by the Committee
1. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)?
4.1 In the 1980’s and 1990’s now defunct “quangos” such as the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Agency had a small but significant role in encouraging and funding rural transport. They developed robust Transport Needs Analysis tools 15. Valuable human capital in these organisations and the “partnerships” 16 they formed has now been largely lost. There is concern that the newly to be created and nebulous Local Transport Bodies will lack the necessary size and competencies.
2. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport in isolated communities?
4.2 Because support for rural services has often in the past been through capital funding, a considerable number of relatively new Disability Discrimination Act compliance vehicles are now in service. Meeting DDA will mean than within a short timescale vehicles will need to be compliant. However meeting accessibility criteria, though commendable, is only half a solution where the problem is the lack of any public transport at all. This marginalises whole groups of potential passengers like concessionary pass holders (with no registered local bus service on which to use their pass) and young persons. Many CT schemes are limited to registered passengers (e.g. users of a day care centre) rather than the public at large. Where there is a passenger need which can only be met by CT then there should be a method of short term membership for visitors to the area - someone staying with a relative might be an example.
4.3 Perversely, many funds on which LTAs have in the past relied have been constrained by a requirement that services they seek to rescue should be in some way “innovative”. This has led to bids for services benefiting a new or additional clientele or incorporating an unneeded extension or diversion to make them innovative. In extreme cases some LTAs have been known to ignore a need to replace a service because of the difficulty of meeting government or funders’ innovation criteria 17. Often in such cases all the LTA wants to do is to secure funding for the continuation of a service that already satisfies established needs.
3. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities?
15 based largely on the stated preferences of potential passengers and distinguishing social, educational, health etc NEEDS from purely commercial demand 16 e.g. Rural Transport Partnerships and Parish Transport Grants 17 “Innovation Fatigue” is a well-known public service hazard!
4.4 The overriding challenge is poor patronage, giving rise to high levels of revenue support, particularly challenged by current public spending constraints. These constraints also give rise to cost/staff reductions in LTA departments which hinders proper planning.
4.5 Despite the easements in the Local Transport Act 2008, deregulation and competition laws 18 can, and often do, discourage the integration of services within and between modes.
4.6 LTA cross boundary services can be problematical. Such services often have unco-ordinated connections and Northern Rail for example still splits its management East/West with the needs of rural areas in the middle ill- considered. New steps towards regional inter LTA co-ordination on rail planning may help this and the ability for Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs) to become a body containing representatives from local government and rail may also help but an involvement of bus operators in the CRP system would be helpful.
4. How can these challenges be overcome?
4.7 There is a need, in addition to capital funding, for ongoing revenue support. This should be mainstream and not just short term (which in the long run has been shown to be unsustainable 19), also protected in some way. An appropriate fund could be established to replace the RTDF providing, in addition to capital, guaranteed revenue streams - i.e ring fencing.
4.8 Eligibility to use Community Transport is often misunderstood and an enigma to many people. This is important when we realise that visitors from the city - to attractions; walking etc - are an important rural economic benefit. More use of these buses by visitors to the area to return to their cars/stations etc would add to revenue and open access to the countryside. Dales Bus seem to have done a lot to provide such services but knowledge of their existence remains thin.
4.9 Legislation is required to simplify the regulation of small passenger carrying vehicles with eight or less passenger seats which currently may be operated as part of a voluntary car sharing agreement, under Restricted PSV O-licences issued by the Traffic Commissioners or under taxi/private hire vehicle licenses (issued by local authorities).
4.10 The example of the Royal Mail in allowing passengers to share some of the spare capacity on suitably converted mail vans is unfortunately unlikely to be repeated soon, but the principle of hybrid vehicles carrying goods and passengers has the potential to be developed 20
18 Transport Act 1985 and Competition Act 1998 19 “Sustainability of rural transport projects", Fawcett, Countryside Agency, 2004 20 The Scottish “Border Courier” carries passengers and local authority files between town halls and public offices in the Tweed Valley. Many health centres in rural areas employ vans to take patients’ samples to the relevant hospitals, and could be converted to carry passengers making the same journey – as the Cumbrian “Northern Fells” Bus does. On the
4.11 The uncertainty surrounding the future of BSOG should be addressed. A grant based on fuel used (a proxy for mileage) would assist rural transport operators more than one based on patronage, which will by definition be low in isolated communities.
5. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
4.12 There has been a significant increase in this decade in the number of Community Bus services operating under section 22 Permits. Whilst welcome, this still represents a small proportion of (mainly) rural services. Potential passengers remain confused as to their eligibility to travel on section 19 services which are generally Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and not available to the public at large 21 (as referred to above – Questions 2 and 4).
4.13 Public Transport services in all areas, but especially in isolated and rural areas, generate significant cross sector benefits. For example, old persons’ domiciliary care may be reduced by the provision of a service which allows them to shop independently rather than rely on their home help, with subsequent cost savings for the taxpayer. The cost of the help and the benefits to the elderly of their consequential improved mental health and independence are rarely, if ever, passed to the procurer of that service. TWNW has always argued that the LTAs should be able to capture these cross sector benefits.
4.14 LTAs can do much to encourage the establishment of brokerages between the social enterprises they support, so that better utilisation can be made of the many small buses operated by their social services, the NHS’s Patient Transport Services, schools within their control and voluntary and other bodies. Indeed there is a duty under Section 88 of the 1985 Act to co- operate which could include arranging brokerages as a way of extracting value for money from all forms of public supported transport services. Not all CT Social Enterprises are entirely Community Bus based, some of the larger ones have branched out beyond the provision of Community Buses with success in operating tendered bus services and even preserved railways 22.
6. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
4.15 A reliable bus or rail service is generally preferred to demand responsive transport which can either be not available to the public at large or require potential users to pre-register and pre-book. However DRT can be designed
Isle of Arran a body with seats used to be placed on a Large Goods Vehicle to collect and return pupils! 21 It has been argued that a non car owner in an isolated community is “mobility disabled”! and thus de facto belongs to one of the section 19(5)(8) bodies eligible to travel. 22 Hackney CT has London Bus contracts and previously operated Weardale Railway!
to operate more efficiently and at less cost than Registered Local Services and should be supported where no obvious alternatives exist. Given that the usually low volume of passengers is such that a regular service by time or day is unlikely to be best value for money flexible journeys tailored to passenger need can often be more appropriate.
4.16 In such cases the LTA might be encouraged (or required) to fund 23 the operator to accept concessionary passes and/or to subsidise a lower fare but this does raise issues about passenger commitment for a specially purchased service which LTA's need the power to deal with where there is abuse of the service.
4.17 TWNW has already recently given evidence 24 to the committee on the potential for using taxis at separate fares to replace some marginal services.
7. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable?
4.18 Bus and rail fares are a critical consideration when discussing public transport in isolated areas where demand is low. Whilst rail fares are regulated, bus fares generally are not 25, so it can often be cheaper to make the same trip by train than by bus in rural areas. Station to station rail fares are readily available but bus fares are hard to ascertain in advance of travel 26.
4.19 The advent of concessionary travel has undoubtedly grown ridership (a goal of the last Government) but obviously cannot do so in places where there are no bus services. Operators and LTAs each cite market distortions and arbitrary disbursement regimes. It is not unusual for LTAs to use discretionary powers to extend concessionary travel to DRT, CT and local rail services. However whilst some LTA's may allow use on rail this is a rarity in rural areas. This leaves pass holders in the country doubly disadvantaged with less services and many they cannot use. In some area the only bus is the school bus and the late start of concession allowance sometimes means these cannot be used either. LTA’s should be more understanding in allowing special case use by local people of rail services, though we recognise that there are cost implications.
4.20 Travel is highly price sensitive and on the supply side fares will reflect, inter alia, amounts of subsidy received. There could be a case, therefore, for some degree of re-regulation of fares, especially in rural areas where often there is a monopoly of one operator offering no choice.
23 LTAs have powers to extend the national concessionary fare scheme in their areas. Transport Act 1985 24 “Taxi Buses and Community Transport” TWNW October 2011 25 Bus fares were lightly regulated by the Traffic Commissioner before de-regulation by the Transport Act 1985. They had to ensure that fares were “not unreasonable” 26 “Information about fares” TWNW 2009. Some bus operating companies even consider that their fare tables re “commercially confidential”!
4.21 However there is some degree of control 27 over competition and this can have unintended consequences, such as preventing subsidised rural services from picking up or setting down along parts of their route where competition with either tendered or commercial service(s) might arise. The introduction of multi operator ticketing would be helpful in reducing these consequences.
4.22 We hope our submission will be of help to the Committee and we are, if asked, prepared to enlarge on our observations either verbally or in writing.
August 2013
27 by the Office of Fair Trading (Competition Act 1998) Written evidence from the Ramblers’ Association (TIC 032)
Summary of this Response THE RAMBLERS IN THIS RESPONSE seek to show—
• that public transport in rural areas is in the main grossly inadequate, and often unreliable where there is any; that information about public transport in rural areas is difficult to obtain and can be out of date and wrong; • that for those reasons most people avoid using it, which adds to the volume of cars; • that good rural public transport—that is, frequent, reliable, efficient, cheap, and imaginative—would benefit town-dwellers as well as people who live in the country; and • that good rural public transport would encourage more people to reap the health-benefits of country walking, benefitting themselves, reducing the nation’s health-bill, getting cars off the roads, and boosting the rural economy.
1. THIS EVIDENCE is on behalf of the 114,000-strong Ramblers’ Association† (‘the Ramblers’). We are grateful for this opportunity to comment on the subject of passenger transport in isolated communities.
The Ramblers
2. The Ramblers is a charity which seeks (among other things) to promote walking, both as a recreation and as the most sustainable form of transport. We also seek to promote the health, recreation and environmental benefits of walking, especially by protecting and extending the network of public paths and access in town and countryside, through lobbying, campaigning and voluntary practical work, and, since April 2012, through our partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support, in which we run the Walking for Health project, delivering strategic guidance for the England-wide health walks programme and providing schemes with such support and free resources as training, insurance, and national promotion. (The local schemes are run by a variety of organisations including councils, the NHS, charities and voluntary groups.) 3. In addition to supporting Walking for Health walks, we organise 45,000 led walks per year. 12,000 volunteers lead the walks; about 300,000 people take part in them. We have been organising these led walks since our formation in 1935.
Our perspective on rural transport
4. The led walks are principally (if not exclusively) in the countryside, giving us a perspective on rural transport issues going back very many years. Our earliest walks-programmes from the 1930s and 1940s were largely based on railway and bus timetables. As far as possible today we endeavour to make public transport an option for participants in our walks to access them, though this seems to be increasingly less viable as time advances.
5. On 26 April 1958 the Secretary of the National Association of Parish Councils wrote in The Times thus: ‘Whenever anyone has wanted to reduce “unremunerative transport services” it has always been the country-dweller who has been hit. Rural public transport is already in a very serious condition, yet recent pronouncements on the future of the railways suggest that the country- dweller will be hit again.’
6. A trawl of The Times archive shows letters and articles (some reproduced in the endnotes below) ever since Beeching which demonstrate further decline in rural public transport.i And one letter, dated 1999, speaks of how an excellent rural scheme successfully trialled by North Yorkshire County Council, backed by the Department of Transport and helped by private entrepreneurs, became a great success as a result of its frequent and reliable service and carefully-planned routes. Passenger numbers rose to 1 per cent per week compared with 3 per cent per annum for bus travel nationally. But the trial was stopped, and another company substituted with reduced service and fewer routes. Those buses then ran virtually empty. This showed, said that correspondent, that good public transport helps rural life. It also showed that ‘a transport grant is a sensitive tool; a few per cent wrongly trimmed can reduce its effect to nil.’
7. In 1963, with Beeching cuts well under way, the Ramblers published a pamphlet, Motor vehicles in national parks—about limiting the use of motor vehicles in national parks. It pointed up an inevitable consequence of the Beeching cuts: ‘if the contraction of the railway system continues, it will be increasingly difficult to reach them,’ except by car. (We were right. Curtailment of rail services to national parks under Beeching turned out to be especially severe; three of our national parks—Exmoor, Dartmoor and Northumberland—have no stations at all.)
8. Ten years later, in 1973, we published a brief for the countryside, Rural transport in crisis. Like your Committee now, it looked at a long-neglected aspect of the transport and traffic problem, namely the decline of public transport in the countryside, and it challenged the official view of the time that buses and trains in the countryside did not pay, and that rural transport was unimportant since the number of people dependent on them was small, and that anyhow, ‘everyone has a car now’. It challenged those assumptions by questioning the financial arguments which had been peddled to justify the disintegration of rural bus and railway services; it spotlighted the high price paid by those to whom public transport was denied, whether they were country-dwellers deprived of mobility or townspeople discovering that the countryside was no longer accessible; and it showed how transport solutions based on the primacy of the car tend to destroy the countryside and the enjoyment by people of it. At this time there occurred the United Nations conference on the Human Environment—June 1972—for which a paper prepared at the behest of the Secretary of State for the Environment, titled Sinews for Survival, said this: ‘We may well be moving to a climate of opinion in which provision of good public as opposed to personal transport facilities is regarded as a social welfare responsibility like health or education.’ So it should be.
9. The trouble is that forty years on, things have worsened, not improved. Rural bus- services are fewer; and cars, ever-faster through better road-holding capabilities, make walking on any road without a footway a serious risk. The car, often driven by people with no understanding that non-motorised users of the highway have rights on it as well, dominates and domineers.
10. And in 1978, we published a further brief for the countryside, Roads fit to walk on. It called for a heightening of consciousness among road users of the status of pedestrians and of the importance of walking as a means of transport in its own right. But virtually all the experience over the intervening 35 years is that pedestrians are still seen, at best, as people to be tolerated on sufferance rather than as people with rights. Many motorists are unaware that pedestrians have any rights at all.
11. The Ramblers cannot claim to have performed any empirical analysis, but enquiries of a number of our local representatives in connection with the present exercise show that public transport remains unreliable, sporadic, rare and generally inadequate in many locations. Here are some of their responses:
As chair of the ‘Get Your Boots On’ Ramblers group and a keen proponent of public transport, I am dismayed to find that we are being faced with seriously damaging cuts to bus services in our area next year. We run a series of linear walks, and always try to fit these around public transport options. This year, we have been walking the Abbey Trail, from Kirkstall (Leeds) to Whitby over a series of 10 stages, and for 7 of those we have been able to get from one end of the walk to the other by public transport—this simplifies the logistics significantly and means that even if people are driving to the walk, they can car-share efficiently But North Yorkshire County Council have stated that next year, funding for the Moorsbus network will be stopped completely. This Moorsbus has provided leisure services across the North York Moors for over 30 years. In recent years, the network has been salami-sliced, bit by bit. In 2004, all routes ran on Sundays and bank holidays from Easter to October and some weekdays during the school summer holidays; the ‘core’ routes ran daily May–November. That has gradually whittled away; it now only runs on Sundays, no weekday or Saturday service at all. And for most of these areas, the Moorsbus is the only bus service. For the local communities, these buses are essential. Throughout the summer, they bring hundreds of visitors to the region, many of whom are walkers. The loss of these buses will be hugely damaging to tourism in this wonderful part of the country, and will reduce the potential for walkers to enjoy environmentally friendly transport to and from their walks. The Moorsbus, and the Dalesbus—its counterpart in the Yorkshire Dales—are great examples of how to make leisure transport in rural areas work very well. The networks are designed around key hubs where different routes connect with each other. Because connections are guaranteed, and timings are well worked out, a much more comprehensive network can be designed efficiently and passengers are happy to change buses, so direct services between each point are not needed. Multi- operator all-day tickets make them affordable and easy to use. It is disappointing that the networks often only run on summer Sundays, limiting the potential for walking and tourism at other times of the year. Where there are services through the week, they typically don’t run as a coordinated network—there aren’t well planned connections between routes, there aren’t multi-operator tickets, and information about the buses is typically hit-and- miss. Buses during the week are generally timed around getting residents from villages into the nearest towns, rather than getting people out to the villages, and this often makes them unsuitable for walkers. But perhaps the biggest problem, as I mentioned further up, is that free travel is making these networks unaffordable. Even where, as Dalesbus has managed, outside subsidy has been secured to cover the operational costs, the cost to councils of English National Concessionary Travel Schemes usage is crippling local authority budgets. This is the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed if rural leisure buses are to have a sustainable future. [Ramblers member, East Yorkshire.]
[In July 2013] I returned from a week’s holiday in Northumberland. To do so, I had to catch the only bus of the day from Knowesgate at 09.55 via Ponteland to Newcastle (service 131 from Jedburgh along the A68). The bus was 20 minutes late at Knowesgate, and not in the best of condition (the contract had been given to a new operator recently). One elderly passenger getting off at Ponteland to do her shopping was very concerned she might not be able to get home again if the return service later in the day did not run. I don’t know if she did get home, but the incident brought home to me that these infrequent rural services need to be operated by reliable vehicles and on time. [Ramblers member, Surrey.]
I live in Kirk Ireton [Derbyshire], a hill village at the southern end of the Pennines. The population is 500. There is a village shop (restricted hours), a primary school, two churches, a village hall and one pub. Few are employed in the village; workers commute to Derby (13 miles), Matlock (8 miles), Belper (8 miles), or Ashbourne (7 miles). The 1:5 gradient of the village’s approach road makes it unsuitable for commuting by bicycle. But of buses suitable to allow employment outside village there is only one a day to both Ashbourne and Matlock. The return times make commuting difficult. There are no direct links to other towns. There are no weekend buses, though this is prime walking country. Elderly, those unable to drive (medical, sight, age reasons) and teenagers (for social or employment reasons) are severely restricted by lack of bus transport and its scheduling. [Ramblers member, Derbyshire.]
Public transport managers are focused on education trips, trips to work and perhaps trips into a local centre where facilities exist—all else falls way down the agenda. Yet, the shopping and leisure market is the only growth market there is; buses feeding into town centres from rural areas help with the local economy. There is little joined up thinking re using tourism in rural areas as a mechanism to support buses for local residents.... The main deterrent we find for young people is the level of fares on many routes—they are just perceived as being too expensive. [Ramblers member, Shropshire.]
Blackborough [Devon] is a small village with about 100 adults and lots of children. The 2 oldest adults are over 90 years old and the children are from toddlers upwards. All of us adults drive, with the one exception of one of the 90-year-olds. We have to. We lost our last bus about three years ago, and were offered a car service which we had to ring for and would cost us £3.50 per journey, each, and the same again for the return journey. We could not say the time we wanted to travel. The bus used to travel in a figure of eight way picking up people from several villages on a Wednesday, market-day. Now Cullompton is nearly empty. The nearest bus can be picked up in Kentisbeare, about two miles away, down a small, twisty lane, which is downhill. I certainly would not like to walk back up it with my weekend’s shopping! It would take me 2–3 hours to get to Ramblers meetings if I had to rely on public transport. I go to Cullompton (5 miles) twice a week for shopping and socialising and picking up medicines. I also have to go to Honiton (7 miles) for things we haven’t got in Cullompton. Older people in villages really do need public transport to get them to shops and medical practitioners. Also it’s good to get out for social and other reasons, including walking. Local buses to link in with the longer routes are important. [Ramblers member, Devon.]
Benefits brought to the nation by encouraging rural walking
12. Here we digress to allude to the health benefits which derive from walking, and to the benefits to the rural economy which derive from country walking. Better rural transport would complement both sets of benefits.
13. By ‘health benefits’, we refer to, for example, the fact that brisk walking improves circulation and the performance of the heart and lungs. Walking can lower blood- pressure;ii it can reduce risk of stroke,iii and of heart disease,iv the UK’s biggest killer. It can improve control of blood sugar in type-two diabetes;v it has an important role in cardiac rehabilitation.vi And walking promotes mental health and well-being, and improves self-perception and self-esteem and mood; it has the potential to be as effective as anti-depressants or psychotherapy in treating depression.vii Widespread take-up could massively lighten the economic burden caused by physical inactivity (in 2009 each Primary Care Trust spent an average of £5m on dealing with its consequencesviii). 14. By ‘economic benefits’, we mean, for example, the 6.14 billion pounds which walkers spend annually in the English countryside, the income in excess of 2 billion pounds which they generate, and the 245,000 full-time jobs which they support.ix Walking tourism in rural and coastal Wales is estimated to contribute over £550million to the economy.x
15. So an increase in walking in the country can reduce the nation’s health-bill and boost the rural economy.
The need for improved and increased rural transport on which users can confidently rely
16. A quarter of all households in the UK do not possess a car,xi and the vast majority of these carless households are urban-based. All over the country since the 1960s it has become more difficult for those without cars to reach the countryside. If members of these carless households are to be encouraged to reap the health benefits of walking, and if the rural economy is to benefit from their potential contributions to it, public transport to rural areas must be adequate and reassuringly reliable.
17. Trite though it is to say it, not all those who can afford cars can drive them: some people cannot drive for medical reasons or being too old.
18. Even for people with their own cars, it is both desirable to have good rural public transport to encourage them to use them less, and advantageous for car-owners to be able to leave the car at home and walk from points of public transport. The motor car, for all its speed and flexibility, is not able to provide a walk with a real ‘point’, that is from one place to another. Drive to a car-park and you have to take a circular walk back to your car, and there is something artificial about your destination being the place at which you started. Far preferable is the walk from one station or bus-stop to another station or bus stop. In that respect the car is no substitute for adequate public transport. And a wait for the bus at the end of the walk is an incentive to visit a local shop or café or pub and spend money in it.
19. And better rural transport may have the effect of removing at least some cars from rural roads. There is, on all roads (except motorways), the right to walk; but pavementless country roads both broad and narrow are becoming increasingly dangerous through the high volumes of cars now driven on them at speeds in excess of 60 m.p.h. Even if the view (somewhat implausibly propounded by some in the motorist lobby) that ‘speed is not a factor’ in many collisions is by any chance seriously correct, it remains an off-puttingly frightening experience for a pedestrian to be routinely passed on a country road by a car inches away going at 60 mph, and this needs to be curtailed if people are to be encouraged to walk. Cheap and frequent rural public transport will not alone solve this type of problem, but it would do much to make life more tolerable to the country-dweller and country-visitor.
Better promotion and information necessary
20. It is the Ramblers’ view that even good and reliable services are under-used not least because they are under-publicized and because information about them is hard to obtain and sometimes plain wrong.
My partner and I, both environmentally-aware users of public transport, intending to walk in the Peak District, arrived by train in Derby having looked up the local buses on the internet. A bus was billed to leave Derby (where the station is, 15 miles from the Peak) from a certain road, to connect in Ashbourne with a privately operated bus to Hartington YHA, our first night destination; but the most up-to-date timetable gave the wrong departure point in Derby. Though we had got there extra-early to be sure of this crucial bus, we missed it because it went from the wrong place. Reaching the ‘right’ stop we were told that it left empty. We find buses in Snowdonia better than many places, though once (the hotelier at Pen-y-Gwryd having observed that ‘you need a Ph D to understand the timetable’) a bus came to where we were intuitively waiting for it, drove round the turning circle, drove back the way it came despite our hailing it, pulled in to the unsigned ‘real’ stop 25 yards away, and drove off before we got to it. It is scandalous if operators are being subsidised to drive buses around that are empty through wrong or unclear information being fed to those intending to use them. What chance of converting the car-drivers, when committed bus users cannot be told right where to catch them? [Ramblers member, London.]
At Ruthin, Corwen and Llangollen there is parking, cafés and pubs. In summer there is the steam railway from Llangollen to Carrog, which is promoted, but the bus route along the Dee Valley is not. I suggested promoting these bus routes for tourists, but received no reply. [Ramblers member, North Wales.]
When ‘social communities’ are formed as part of a walking programme demand for buses and trains can be solid and sustained-Rail Rambles is a classic example, another is Dales Bus and another MADS in Manchester. [Ramblers member, Shropshire.]
Closing
21. In our 1973 publication Rural transport in crisis, we said this: ‘It is time for Government to recognise that the rural user of public transport is not a nuisance to be discouraged but an ally in the fight against pollution, waste of land [i.e for road-building], congestion and erosion of landscape.’ To that we now add our— more positive, we ask the Committee to find—points about health, and the environment, and the rural economy.
As we said above, this has been no empirical study. But all the experience is that provision for public transport is in most places grossly inadequate; that it would benefit country-dwellers and town-dwellers alike if there were reliable public transport; and that frequency, imaginativeness, reliability and readily-accessible up-to-date and accurate information about services are the key to persuading people to use public transport in favour of cars. It would also complement the experience of rural walking by getting cars off the roads and by providing recreational walkers with a ‘real’ destination as opposed to the place they began, i.e, where they left their car. And it would encourage more people to walk and reap its health-benefits, including some members of the 25% of carless households, thus reducing the nation’s health-bill and boosting the rural economy. The case for frequent, reliable, imaginative and accessible and affordable rural passenger transport is clear.
—ENDNOTES—
i Letters, The Times
2 October 1970— ‘Sir, I wonder how many people are aware of the isolation threatening an increasing number of rural communities, due to the ending of public transport services because they are said to be uneconomic. I take, as an example, the village of Pilton, near Shepton Mallet, in Somerset, where I live.... This area has been deprived of an excellent rail service. On November 28 1970, this village and many others will be deprived of their daily bus service by the decision of the Western National Omnibus Company to end it. No alternative is offered. It may be true that the service is not a profit-making one, but is there not a social obligation to provide some public transport for people who are not car owners or drivers and to whom such a service is essential?’ Miss MARJORIE SALMON, Pilton, Somerset [Emphasis added]
and, 18 December 1973— ‘Sir, ... We used to have a railway, and a modest bus service feeding it from the villages around, But Beeching pointed out the undeniable fact our railway was uneconomical, so it was closed. Three years later the bus company announced that, without a railway to feed, their services had also become uneconomic, so they stopped running them.... The fact is that since the Beeching closures the whole economy of rural transport has changed and the car has perforce become an integral part of rural life.... Our nearest railway station is [now] 24 miles away; to visit a relative in the nearest large hospital entails a round trip of 84 miles (or 48 miles plus the rail trip if one can spare a whole day away from work for it).’ NORMAN HICKS, Boscastle, Cornwall
and, 24 March 1987— ‘Sir, ...Today we can observe two nations in one village. Affluent incomers are juxtaposed with deprived locals who have suffered severely from the ever-rising cost of houses, lost job opportunities and cuts in rural transport and other services.’ PROFESSOR HOWARD NEWBY, Essex University.
and, 7 August 1987— ‘Sir, ... In Somerset, we still regret the first round of Beeching cuts. It is almost impossible now to travel across Somerset and back in one day by public transport. Between the main towns of Yeovil and Taunton there are only two buses a day and it is not possible to make the journey by train except by staying overnight. Those too young, too elderly or too infirm to drive a car are becoming more and more isolated.’ Mrs MARY ROSE MANGLES, Chairman, Public Transport Subcommittee, Somerset County Council. [Emphasis added]
and, 15 July 1999— Sir, ... A local authority, backed by the Department of Transport and helped by private entrepreneurs, could quickly set up a bus service tailored to supporting village life. Such a scheme was tried last winter by the Wensleydale Railway Company, funded by Mr John Prescott’s rural bus grant via North Yorkshire County Council. High quality buses were used, which offered comfort and easy access for the elderly and disabled. The buses ran seven days a week from early morning to late at night, the timetable was integrated with nearby rail services and the routes were carefully designed by local people. A voluntary supporters’ group ensured that bus stops displayed current timetables. The four-month trial was a success. After a slow start, passenger numbers rose and, by the end, were rising at 1 per cent per week compared with three per cent per annum for bus travel nationally. The service was particularly popular with young people who,
for the first time, could independently visit their friends and sample urban night life. Unfortunately the county council stopped the trial and started a cheaper contract with a bus company offering a reduced service and fewer routes. The buses now run virtually empty. The trial showed that public transport can help rural life. It also showed that a transport grant is a sensitive tool; a few per cent wrongly trimmed can reduce its effect to nil.’ MR STEPHEN DEANE, Wiltshire.
ii Department of Health, At least five a week: evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health—a report from the Chief Medical Officer, 2004.
iii Wen and Wu, ‘Stressing harms of physical inactivity to promote exercise’, The Lancet 2012 380 192–3.
iv Department of Health, Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers, 2011.
v Foresight, Tackling obesities: future choices, Government Office for Science.
vi Department of Health, Coronary heart disease, NHS framework—modern standards and service models, 2000.
vii E McAuley et alitur, ‘Physical activity, self-efficacy and self-esteem: longitudinal relationships in older adults’, Journals of Gerontology Series B 60(5) 268–75.
viii HM Government, Be active, be healthy—a plan for getting the nation moving, 2009.
ix M Christie and J Matthews, The economic and social value of walking in rural England, report for the Ramblers’ Association, 2003.
x Wales Tourist Board, 2005.
xi See the Department for Transport’s statistics, published 30 July 2013, in which household car availability is analysed by household economic quintile, at— https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts07-car-ownership-and-access
August 2013
Written evidence from pteg (TIC 033) 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 Partnership, 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. 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. 2. Summary We welcome the Committee's recognition that isolated communities are an issue for urban, as well as rural areas. Accessibility Planning is a key tool used by transport authorities to identify demand for passenger transport but should be used more widely to implement both transport and non-transport solutions to accessibility problems. Ideally, public transport should provide a general service that is available, affordable, accessible and acceptable to all. Where this is not the case, certain groups are particularly vulnerable to experiencing isolation. PTEs are involved in a range of initiatives to ensure their needs are taken into account. Key challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities include funding; the deregulated nature of the bus market outside London; land-use planning decisions; and a lack of recognition among other sectors of the importance of transport to the successful delivery of their policy objectives. The extent to which transport authorities can address these challenges is constrained by cuts to local government and transport funding, however, interventions include: the provision of tendered 'socially necessary' bus services; use of alternative transport solutions; use of Local Transport Act 2008 powers; more efficient use of existing transport resources; and marketing and behaviour change initiatives. Connecting isolated communities to services and opportunities is the responsibility of all those involved in the planning and delivery of public services - not just the transport sector. Community Transport is effective at understanding the needs of local people but, as services come under increasing pressure, operators face challenges in ‘scaling up’ to meet demand or make the most of opportunities for sustainability. Capacity building as well as closer working with transport authorities could be helpful.
Services in isolated communities should be tailored to demand. If demand levels suggest that a taxi or demand-responsive transport would meet the needs of communities, then provision of these services should be sufficient. However, it is important to ensure that these services are well publicised as well as affordable, accessible and acceptable to users. 3. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)? 3.1. We welcome the Committee’s recognition that isolated communities are an issue for urban, as well as rural areas. In both area types, communities can become isolated if public transport is not available, affordable, accessible or acceptable. 3.2. Rural residents can experience isolation due to their geographical distance from key centres. In urban areas, distances to key services are often shorter, but communities can still find themselves isolated when transport services do not connect them to the places they want to go, at the times they need to travel or if those services are not affordable or accessible. 3.3. Urban communities may, for example, find themselves cut off from key employment sites because transport is unavailable at times which correspond to late night or early morning shifts. Furthermore, transport services may not connect employment sites with the communities who have the skills to fill available jobs1. 3.4. One of the key tools used to identify demand for passenger transport is Accessibility Planning, a cornerstone of the 2003 Social Exclusion Unit report ‘Making the Connections’. Accessibility Planning was designed to provide an opportunity for local partners, from across sectors, to develop a systematic approach to identifying gaps in the network and improving people’s access to key services and employment sites. 3.5. Accessibility Planning was intended to deliver 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. However, perhaps because the production of an Accessibility Strategy became a Local Transport Plan requirement, accessibility is, in many areas, primarily seen as the responsibility of transport authorities, undermining the partnership approach originally envisaged. A recent evaluation of Accessibility Planning for the Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed this to be the case2. 3.6. Accessibility Planning is in widespread use among transport authorities, but we would welcome a re-emphasis – across departments – of its value and the need for a
1 See for example Clayton, N., Smith, R. and Tochtermann, L. (2011) ‘Access all areas: Linking people to jobs’ and Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2012) ‘The challenges for disadvantaged young people seeking work.’ 2 Kilby, K. and Smith, N. ‘Accessibility Planning Policy: Evaluation and Future Directions’ available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3190/accessibility- planning-evaluation-report.pdf p.34.
partnership approach to explore both transport and non-transport solutions. To underline this, all relevant government departments should issue or update their own Accessibility Planning guidance. The recent Environmental Audit Commission (EAC) inquiry into transport and the accessibility to public services supports this recommendation, stating: ‘The Government should publish up to date guidance which makes a compelling case for accessibility to be addressed, not just by local authorities but by all central government departments.’ 3 Indeed, we would suggest that a number of the EAC’s recommendations are of relevance to this inquiry and are something that the Committee may wish to make reference to. 3.7. Alongside Accessibility Planning, demand for passenger transport is identified through: Reference to the Local Transport Plan for the area. Analysis of passenger data including patronage, revenue and location of boardings (where available). Analysis of statistics such as household income and car ownership levels. Identification of changes in land use, such as planned new housing/industrial estates or relocation of public and other services. Identification of where significant numbers of jobs are located, for example, through analysis of the Office for National Statistics Inter-Departmental Business Register. Partnership working and integration of delivery programmes with Local Enterprise Partnerships and other public and private sector agencies. Monitoring of changes to commercial transport networks. Surveys of transport users and non-users. School travel planning processes. Regular Customer Forums and engagement with community groups and other forums. Requests from residents, businesses, Councillors and other organisations, including via neighbourhood petitions (often triggered by withdrawals of commercial bus services). 3.8. Having identified a demand, transport authorities then face the challenge of prioritising the limited funding available to achieve the most socially and economically advantageous outcome (see section eight).
3 Environmental Audit Committee (2013) ‘Transport and the accessibility to public services – Third Report of Session 2013-14).
4. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities? 4.1. Local Transport Plans (LTPs) are the core strategic documents used by transport authorities to set the context for developing public transport networks and services. Equality impact assessments form part of the LTP process and test the likely impacts of proposals on different communities and groups. 4.2. Ideally, public transport should provide a general service that is available, affordable, accessible and acceptable to all, regardless of where they live, their income, age, ability or level of confidence. 4.3. Transport for Greater Manchester’s (TfGM) ‘Local Link’ services for example, provide transport for many of the area’s isolated communities. Anyone living in the community can use the service – there are no age or disability restrictions and vehicles used are accessible. The services are often tailored to link to Greater Manchester’s hospitals, colleges and rail stations, with markets determined through Accessibility Planning principles. 4.4. Public transport that is not available, affordable, accessible and acceptable risks leaving people isolated. Certain groups, including people with disabilities, people on low incomes, older people and young people are particularly vulnerable as they are more likely to rely on public transport as their main means of getting around. 4.5. PTEs are involved in a range of initiatives to ensure the needs of different groups of passengers are taken into account. 4.6. PTEs fund concessionary fares schemes including the statutory national concessionary fares scheme for older and disabled people, discretionary enhancements to that scheme and concessions for other groups such as children and young people and jobseekers. 4.7. PTEs work to ensure that tendered bus services are compliant with accessibility regulations. Where individuals are unable to use conventional public transport, they provide specialist services to ensure people are not left without an independent means of getting around. In more isolated communities these could, for example, take the form of demand responsive door-to-door services or support for the use of accessible taxis. 4.8. PTEs also consult with different groups of passengers directly. Taking the time to understand the needs of different user groups is vital to ensure that the services provided are the right ones and ones that people will use and value. TfGM, for example, has a Disability Design Reference Group which is recognised as a model of best practice by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Meanwhile, all PTEs work to involve young people in transport decision making, for example, through attending local youth council meetings and holding youth forums.
5. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome? 5.1. A key challenge concerns the funding of bus and rail services to isolated communities, covered in section eight of this response. Aside from funding issues, another challenge for transport authorities is that bus services outside London are privately operated under a deregulated framework. In practice, this means that transport authorities have no direct control over which communities receive commercial bus services (which comprise almost 80% of total bus mileage). Transport authorities also have no direct control over the fares, quality or frequency of commercial services or the extent to which they form part of an integrated transport network. 5.2. In this environment, bus operators – as private companies – need to ensure that, overall, their operations are profitable. They are unlikely to run services that lose money, even if there is a need for them in the community. Often, this means bus operators pull out of running services to isolated housing estates or rural areas, focusing instead on profitable major corridors and commuter routes. 5.3. This may result in gaps in transport connectivity for some communities, impacting on access to employment, education, key services and social activities. In these cases (and where budgets allow – see section eight), transport authorities may step in to fund extra ‘socially necessary’ bus services (also known as tendered services). They may also assess whether alternative solutions such as demand responsive transport; taxis; Wheels to Work schemes; community transport; car sharing; or walking and cycling provision might represent a more efficient use of resources. 5.4. The challenges of a deregulated market for bus can also be tackled through the use of powers granted under the Local Transport Act 2008 which: Made it easier to negotiate Voluntary Partnership Agreements with bus operators to improve services. All PTEs are investing heavily in voluntary partnerships to benefit passengers. Made it easier for transport authorities to facilitate voluntary Qualifying Agreements (QA) between competing operators to coordinate their timetables. Expanded the scope of Statutory Quality Partnerships (SQPs) whereby binding agreements can be voluntarily entered into between transport authorities and bus operators, including on fares, frequencies and timings. PTEs were the first to introduce an SQP (in Sheffield) and a number of other agreements have been reached since, with Bath and North East Somerset Council being the first to make a scheme embracing the full range of measures available. Made Quality Contracts (QCs) a more realistic option. A QC involves replacing the existing deregulated bus markets with a franchising system (similar to that in London) where the local transport authority specifies what the bus network will provide and the private sector competes for the right to provide it. Services to
isolated communities can be specified as an integral part of the package that operators bid for, allowing cross-subsidisation of such services by more profitable routes. Several PTEs are developing proposals for QCs, with Nexus the first to launch a formal public consultation. 5.5. A further challenge is that land-use planning decisions are frequently made with little consideration for people who do not have use of a car, leading to communities being cut off from accessing key services and the creation/expansion of isolated housing estates. 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 services, running the risk that real choice across services is more constrained for communities that are dependent on public transport. 5.6. The increasing liberalisation of the planning system4 runs the risk of creating further isolated communities if development is permitted in inaccessible areas on the grounds of short-term economic growth benefits. 5.7. Land-use planning decisions at their earliest stages should look at locating developments so that they connect to existing public transport networks. In South Yorkshire, close partnership working between the PTE (SYPTE) and the South Yorkshire districts through the South Yorkshire Land Use and Transport Integration (SY LUTI) project has helped to ensure that new developments are prioritised around existing public transport corridors and that any sites which are poorly connected have been outlined as requiring developer contributions towards public transport services. This work has been welcomed on a city region basis, with partners outside of South Yorkshire now requesting LUTI modelling. 5.8. Mixed use developments should also be encouraged to allow people to walk or cycle to key services. Together with taking transport into account at the earliest stages of planning, this could avoid communities becoming isolated and save money on costly transport interventions to fill gaps. 5.9. It is important to note that connecting isolated communities to services and opportunities is not just a problem for the transport sector to solve, it is the responsibility of all those involved in the planning and delivery of public services. There needs to be greater recognition among other sectors of the importance of transport to the successful delivery of their policy objectives, and a willingness to invest in it accordingly. Furthermore, there needs to be a readiness to consider, and fund, non-transport solutions to the accessibility problems of isolated communities. Closer city region working models should help in this respect, although further devolution of the controls and funds that shape public service restructuring would also assist.
4 For example, through the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Growth and Infrastructure Act (2013) and the Heseltine Review (2013).
6. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved? 6.1. Community Transport (CT) operations are embedded in the communities they serve, meaning that they can be very effective at understanding what types of services residents want and what gaps exist. CT can offer a flexible means of filling these gaps in commercial and tendered bus services. 6.2. Cuts to tendered bus services, together with policy developments such as personalised social care budgets and cuts to local authority in-house transport services, are leading to more pressure on CT services which are not always ready to meet demand. 6.3. Forms of grant funding that the sector has traditionally relied upon are fast disappearing, impacting on staffing, fare levels and ability to maintain and replace vehicles. 6.4. Some CT operators may lack the skills and resources needed to bid for local transport contracts which could potentially offer more financial sustainability. The sector could be supported through capacity building to assist in understanding the opportunities available, the surrounding legislation and in how to meet the basic tendering criteria. 6.5. Closer working with transport authorities can be helpful in building understanding and relationships on both sides. TfGM, for example, is delivering four new or improved services in partnership with CT operators to connect isolated communities with key employment sites. 6.6. The DfT may wish to look at how government and local authorities could promote a healthy CT sector, for example, through a ‘Better Community Transport’ initiative linked to funding to improve fleets. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills could look at how the sector could be up-skilled and how innovation could be encouraged. 7. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services? 7.1. Providing transport services to isolated communities will always be costly and, at a time when budgets are under pressure, must be tailored to demand. Demand is rarely static, meaning that flexibility is required. If demand levels suggest that a taxi or demand-responsive transport (DRT) service would adequately serve that community’s needs, then provision of these services should be sufficient, as long as they are well publicised. 7.2. Services must also be affordable for passengers. Taxis in particular can be prohibitively expensive. pteg commissioned research in two urban communities experiencing isolation as a result of cuts to tendered bus services. Residents
(particularly older and younger people) were having to rely more on costly taxi services to get around and were having to cut back on their journeys as a result. 7.3. There is potential to make it easier for taxis to fill gaps in the network through smartcard technology, so that journeys can be paid for without the need to carry cash, or even allow for a certain number of journeys to be pre-paid or discounted for certain groups, as with the Nexus TaxiCard5. Smartcards also have the potential to enable taxis to be better integrated into local public transport networks, forming part of a package for mobility where one card unlocks a range of transport options. 7.4. In respect of taxis, it should also be noted that there are issues around standards and safety, given that drivers and operators are not bound by safety standards that apply to public service vehicle (PSV) operators (e.g. mandatory breaks, limits on working hours). There should be greater synergy between taxi licensing and passenger transport/PSV licensing regimes. 8. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable? 8.1. A key issue is that transport priorities at national level are centred on creating economic growth - a vital goal - but one that has resulted in the side-lining of social inclusion issues. Economic growth priorities are reflected in funding criteria which can make it difficult to secure resources for initiatives serving isolated communities, where economic returns may be lower or more difficult to quantify. At local level, this can result in such initiatives being scaled back and focus shifting towards projects aimed at creating growth, in recognition of Government priorities. 8.2. The EAC inquiry into transport and accessibility to public services6 recommended that the Government should review its transport funding for local authorities to ensure that pro-accessibility services that are particularly dependent on revenue, rather than capital, expenditure are not disproportionately curtailed. 8.3. Funding transport in isolated communities will, however, always be challenging as often passenger numbers are low and demand is limited, making services costly to provide. 8.4. With regard to rail, for example, new stations or increased services at existing stations are often unaffordable. For isolated communities there would need to be careful consideration given to whether levels of demand would justify the costs, including those associated with the slowing down of other services to accommodate an additional stop. 8.5. On bus, as described above, the bus market outside of London is deregulated and commercial operators are unlikely to choose to run a service that is unprofitable. Where gaps in services emerge, transport authorities must decide whether to fund a
5 For more information see http://www.nexus.org.uk/bus/guide-buses/taxicard. 6 Environmental Audit Committee (2013) ‘Transport and the accessibility to public services – Third Report of the Session 2013-14.’
tendered bus service to cover unmet transport needs. Whether they do this will depend on factors such as cost and available budget; the number of people who would use it; whether there are other ways people could get around if there was no bus; and likelihood of self-sufficiency in the future. 8.6. Cuts to public spending have left transport authorities less able to fill gaps in this way. Tendered bus services are a non-statutory area of spend making them vulnerable as transport authorities seek to ensure they can continue to meet their core legal responsibilities (such as funding free off-peak bus travel for older and disabled people). 8.7. Urban areas have been particularly hard hit by public spending cuts overall. In the 2011-12 Local Government Funding Settlement, funding for Metropolitan Districts fell by around 10% in real terms, compared to a 5% cut in Shire areas, relative to the previous year7. This impacts on transport spending in the cities as PTEs derive nearly the entirety of their revenue budget income from a levy on District Councils. 8.8. PTEs are doing all they can to mitigate the effects of these funding challenges, including using the powers and options granted in the Local Transport Act 2008 to protect and improve bus services (see section five) as well as investigating alternative solutions such as walking, cycling, DRT, community transport, car sharing/community car initiatives and taxi services. 8.9. ‘Total Transport’8 approaches could also help to ensure that the funding and resources that are available for transport are used as efficiently as possible. The public sector provides and funds collective transport in a variety of forms, including conventional bus services, healthcare services, social services and education transport. In addition, there is community transport and other voluntary sector collective provision. These services are often provided through different budgets and by different administrative arrangements and can see vehicles underutilised for large parts of the day whilst elsewhere transport needs go unmet. There is scope for greater pooling of budgets and vehicle fleets to provide a single service more cost effectively. Investigation of such an approach was also recommended in the EAC’s transport and the accessibility to public services inquiry9. 8.10. This Total Transport approach is already being applied in some areas of the UK but so far to a very limited effect. Some countries in mainland Europe have gone much further and pooled public transport, education, healthcare and social services budgets into one pot to provide a single transport service – capable of providing a mainstream service which can also flexibly respond to the needs of particular users.
7 pteg (2013) ‘Funding shift – How the regional cities lose out on transport’ available from http://pteg.net/resources/types/briefings/funding-shift-how-regional-cities-lose-out-transport 8 For more see pteg (2011) ‘Total Transport: Working across sectors to achieve better outcomes’ available from http://pteg.net/resources/types/reports/total-transport-working-across-sectors-achieve- better-outcomes 9 Environmental Audit Committee (2013) ‘Transport and the accessibility to public services – Third Report of the Session 2013-14.’
8.11. Total Transport on a large scale is probably most easily achieved in isolated communities where most public transport is publicly supported, and where the scale of the administration for currently separate budgets and vehicle fleets is more manageable. This is not to say that such an approach is straightforward to deliver or that it will be a suitable in all circumstances. However, there are a range of experiences, both from the UK and abroad that can be drawn upon. Following the publication of our report into Total Transport10, we hosted a practitioner event in 2012 aimed at kick-starting the sharing of lessons learnt. 8.12. Marketing and behaviour change techniques also have a role to play in making transport for isolated communities more affordable by boosting patronage and thereby making services more financially sustainable. Customer engagement and research can help identify passenger needs and motivations and ensure that services provided are the ones people want and will use. August 2013
10 For more on the report and the event see: http://pteg.net/resources/governance/total-transport Written evidence from TSSA Retired Members’ Group (TIC 034)
1 Introduction:
1.1 Passenger transport is a service to people, to facilitate fulfilled lives when no other means of mobility is available. 1.2 Passengers do not live and work within neat administrative boundaries. 1.3 Services in major transport modes have to be compatible with life needs - to and from work, reaching shops, markets, civic duties, leisure activities etc. 1.4 Not everyone has online facilities, or if they do may not use them effectively. Not everyone has credit / debit facilities to make online purchases. 1.5 Integration of different service modes is vital to enable complex journeys.
2 TSSA 2.1 The Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association is a recognised independent trade union, with 21,000 members in the UK and the Republic of Ireland; our history goes back continuously to the formation of the Railway Clerks’ Association in Sheffield in 1897. 2.2 We have bus industry members (mostly in London, but also in the Irish Republic, mostly clerical, administrative, Control and management roles), railways (national and in both Irelands, in clerical, admin’, Control and management roles), maritime offices, travel trade (agencies and some holiday suppliers), railway infrastructure (Network Rail and contractors, component suppliers), transport-related call centres, and transport-related software developers / suppliers. 2.3 TSSA also has members in Road Haulage and other transport sectors. 3 TSSA’s specialised knowledge focuses on: 3.1 The bigger picture – TSSA is a national organisation of transport workers and those people, their families and friends, their neighbours and workplace colleagues all use public transport 3.2 Having ‘inside information’ on administering, organising and delivering transport 3.2.1 Knowing bus and train scheduling and operating constraints, and the elements needed for service resilience 3.3 Knowing the deceits used to hoodwink the public and decision-makers 3.4 Understanding the need to have professional workers delivering and sustaining public passenger and freight transport 3.4.1 Knowing the dangers of using volunteers and community activists to work on a transport system on which people have a dependency. 4 Joel Kosminsky 4.1 I was born in London in 1951 and I still live in London; my background is in passenger transport. I began work in 1969 in civil aviation, with BOAC as a management trainee and stayed in aviation through to 1982 when I left British Airways, BOAC’s successor under government instruction in 1974. At BOAC/British Airways, I worked in Check-In, Reservations and Marketing. My next four years were spent as a full-time mature student at Middlesex Polytechnic, North London reading for a BSc Upper Second Honours Degree in ‘Society and Technology’; my thesis was on the constraints, construction and costs of Light Rail. I then joined London Buses Schedules Section, rising through route and traffic planning in its Central Traffic Division until 1989 when I transferred to London Underground. 4.2 I became part of the Station Capacity team, progressing through several roles including project management for the rebuild of Angel and Hillingdon Stations, a year on the Graffiti Task
Force, headed the Safety Critical Licencing process and ended at LU as Statutory Liaison Manager. In 2000, I joined the control room of South West Trains to become a Train Defect Controller, retiring in 2011, as the Control Room Administrator. 4.3 I have contributed to professional journals on Graffiti issues, the history of (BOAC, later British Airways) Victoria Terminal, and of post-London life of vehicles used in passenger service here. 4.4 I have personal interests in the industrial, social, geographic, economic histories and infrastructures of the London region, and have travelled widely across Britain and internationally. Statements 5 ‘Bigger picture’: 5.1 Transport cannot be viewed in isolation; it is an enabling mechanism, or in neo-classical economics, derived demand, ie determined by other than the consumption of that utility. Transport links goods, events and services between supplier and consumer. While any country is divided into administrative regions and territories, its populations do not conform to those boundaries. 5.2 The inhabitants of Kings Lynn in Norfolk may have employment and leisure needs in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire rather than their own county, while the hinterland of Chester goes over the border into Wales. Major employment centres such as Swindon have a catchment area across four other regional authorities – Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Gloucestershire; Stoke- on-Trent’s workforces come from Staffordshire and Cheshire; Darlington’s regional importance serves the neighbouring areas of North Yorks, Durham and the City of Stockton. These patterns of work and other travel crossing administrative boundaries are replicated throughout the UK. 5.3 Car ownership is highest outside of urban centres, due to a lack of suitable passenger transport; ‘suitable’ being to reach work at times compatible with workplaces, travelling via routes which link home and workplace, travelling in reasonably direct routes, and fares being affordable. 5.4 Public transport provision keeps the rural carbon footprint down, reducing noise pollution and cutting the likelihood of accidents. A secondary benefit is the lessened need for road maintenance with fewer vehicles using them, freeing up scarce funding authority resource for other commitments. 5.5 Planning and supply of transport has to account for demand across administrative boundaries, as well as differing population densities, and timings of public transport need.
5.6 This creates an absolute need to unify ticketing and travel passes conditions of use across boundaries. 5.7 The biggest anomaly is with the NBP - National Bus Pass – issued to all who age-qualify but often (‘rurally’) no, few or unsuitable services to use. This is not an argument against the NBP. 5.8 Some bus operators are dependent upon the revenue from National Bus Passes to stay viable. Bus operator Trent Barton in Nottinghamshire claims that NBP generates 25% of their revenue (statement to National Pensioners’ Convention Transport Working Party, August 2013), and without that income, the company would not be viable. NBP users spend money in their destinations, bringing a wider benefit to the economy. Some of that money would be spent anyway, but supplementary spend, on refreshment and other leisure, puts extra money into circulation. While in the major centres, mobility is effectively taken for granted, and the circulation of money on the broader regional economy is a given, this is less so in thinner-densities of population.
5.9 This is an argument for suitable and sufficient public passenger transport, with unified terms and conditions between neighbouring issuing authorities. 6 ‘Inside information’: 6.1 TSSA’s unique combination of roles and grades throughout the transport industries gives us access to planning principles, operating criteria, service management and assessment of efficacy. 6.2 The principle of passenger transport planning, when I joined most of my industries, was to consider the passenger first, to build services and route structures around their needs. This ended as
transport became private, where service was determined by financial reward and appropriate local, regional or national authorities had to finance any shortfall arising from this mutation. 6.3 Transport is rarely purely urban, nor purely ‘rural’ – the best means of utilising transport vehicles (road or rail) is to integrate schedules, making best use of buses and trains. Types of service and ways to link locations may vary for time of day and day of week – the difference between compelled travel and discretionary travel. That definition gap often blurs – is someone travelling to pay a Council Tax bill once a month at the Town Hall, a discretionary or compelled journey? 6.4 Passengers having to cross administrative boundaries often found their bus services in particular reducing in frequency (from, for example, daily to market days at the regional centre determined by the bus operator, not necessarily the centre used by the community), capacity (double-deck buses replaced by single-deck vehicles), and service (going from hourly or better on days operated to just one or two buses per day). 6.5 Lack of a commercial traffic from a Hertfordshire village, Sarratt, just outside Watford, resulted in the hourly daily except Sunday double-deck route 318 bus service provided by London Transport (which handed over ‘country area’ operations to the National Bus Company in 1970) steadily reducing in all aspects – trips per day, days of operation, replacement by smaller and single- deck buses until toward the end of the 20th century, the village had lost all of its scheduled services and became reliant on a community facility staffed by volunteers. That service had imperfect operational certainty as driver volunteers could not be guaranteed for all the scheduled trips. 6.6 Computer scheduling has allowed ‘integrated schedules’ to a far greater degree than manual compilation which preceded it. More sophisticated systems allowed efficient linking up of different routes’ journeys. Simpler ‘hub and spoke’ route patterns have been transformed, especially outside of major cities, into integrated operating patterns 6.6.1 Eg - a bus travelling route ‘A’ from a centre to an outlying point, then to form the next trip on route ‘B’ to a different location, then to a route ‘C’ which might serve yet more places. Other vehicles on those routes could be drawn from different routes, which would be invisible to users except when a double- or single-deck bus appeared for no visible reason instead of the usual type. 6.7 When a capacity increase occurred, no-one was inconvenienced, but where a scheduling efficiency reduced carrying capacity (linking two other operations, bringing a single-deck vehicle vice a previously-operated double-decker), people could be left behind, possibly with no later bus to catch. This leaves funding authorities with a dilemma – ensuring by subsidy that a route is of sufficient capacity might mean paying excessively, as either scheduling efficiencies would be lost (raising operating costs) or paying for a double-decker to cover irrelevant workings on an integrated operating roster, giving a bus operator money for nothing. 6.8 The same applies for rail beyond major centres – TOC (Train Operating Company) franchises determine service (timings, frequencies and capacity) but do not impose requirements to serve the community beyond the rail station. Trains will run from very early to very late, often seven days a week, but buses may not. Invariably a bus operator is called upon to fill in the gap, which may create a subsidy burden for the authorities, reflected in ‘opportunity cost’ of the diverted resource. 6.9 Outside major centres, less-dense populations and the spread of routes from transport interchange points creates inefficient bus use and poor interchange between modes. ‘Rural’ populations always take a bigger hit on service quality than urban dwellers who have strength in numbers to determine bus service standards.
6.10 A national service obligation pattern and code of conduct is essential to link transport modes and sustain the skeins of a caring Society. 6.11 A classic apocryphal example of bus industry obfuscation was reputedly (former) route 265 between Sheffield and Chesterfield, serving South Yorkshire and Derbyshire, for which evidence cannot be obtained as the information is ‘commercially confidential’. It was widely ‘known’, again without evidence that the operator had subsidy from both authorities to provide a frequent daily
operation along a seemingly viable route without subsidy. These rumours persisted until the route was re-numbered. It was impossible to confirm/refute, and public money vanished unaccountably. 6.12 In the west country, buses always ran late along one urban corridor, highlighted in a BBC Radio Four programme, File on Four, on Tuesday 09 August 2005; BBC researchers and presenter(s) lacked inside knowledge to see what was really going on, nor to see how the local authority had been duped into premature and un-necessary spend on road improvements. No matter what the Local Authority was persuaded to do, and did, buses continually ran late, even with bus priority measures. I have the programme’s transcript. File on Four is a recorded programme and did not have an imminent editorial deadline to meet. 6.12.1 The truth was simpler: the bus operator was running the service with one vehicle LESS than the service frequency and RTRT - round trip running time - demanded. The maximum number of buses a route requires is called the PVR – Peak Vehicle Requirement – determined from the time taken at the busiest period for a single vehicle to start from its origin point, ready to pick up its first passengers, reach its destination and alight all its passengers, take a ‘turnround time’ break and make the return service journey and be ready for its next journey. Dividing the RTRT by the headway (frequency of service to be provided) gives the number of vehicles required. Thus a 40 minute RTRT and a 10 minute headway requires FOUR buses; a sixty seven minute RTRT on a five minute headway requires 13.4 buses… ‘Point four’ of a bus is impossible, therefore fourteen vehicles are needed to run the route, by extending the standing time at one or both ends of the route. 6.12.2 However, if a bus operator cannot or will not provide the missing ‘point six’, the route might still run with thirteen buses, despite submitting a full schedule to the Traffic Commissioners and/or Local Authority. The service runs increasingly late as the day progresses; the operator has to cancel at least one round trip later to avoid paying drivers overtime rates for late running. 6.12.3 ‘Inside information’ would have told the BBC this – it opted not to question, not to ask for an external verification of the operator’s claims and to broadcast material as it was given. The lack of inside information, the skills and knowledge of transport workers, will continue to allow distortion of facts, and keep false impressions vibrant. Transport operators deliberately suppress knowledge. 6.13 This accepted level of deceit has to change; we have to re-impose principles of planning for passengers first. We have to recognise and act on the ‘bigger picture’, to integrate people and Society. This also means that the technical skills used to plan, deliver and administer transport must become more transparent and more accountable.
6.14 Laws covering Companies, taxation, finance, and the guidelines on accountancy practice must change to show where and how public money is being used, not just in transport. 7 ‘Scheduling and operating constraints’: 7.1 An operator only has so many buses and trains. On the railways, train operations are determined by the franchise; on the roads, vehicles are numbered by the likelihood of a profit from fares along the route network or subsidy from a relevant authority. In both cases, scheduling efficiency determines advantageous uses of equipment. In both modern cases, the transport supplier’s operating desires come ahead of passengers’ needs. 7.2 In major centres, bus route patterns and service levels may be determined (London in particular, Newcastle is set to follow) by a route contracts regime. Beyond these centres, bus operators since national ‘deregulation’ (except London) in 1986 may operate where and when they wish. Before 1986, regional Traffic Commissioners control bus service levels. The emphasis switched from serving a passenger need to operating only where positive net revenues might be found. 7.3 An operation can be scheduled so that for any subsidised segment, the paying authority is under-writing an extra vehicle on that route by a sole operator. Service planners work for an employer, not passengers, apart from remaining municipal bus operators. This gives the bus company an opportunity for a new bus for nothing or very little, as the funding authority will end up paying for crewing the extra vehicle – a bus on the road for most of a ‘traffic day’ (early morning to evening Monday-Frida,y possibly plus earlier/later services for commuting workers) requires two
drivers. Limitation of work hours (on the road) prohibit a single driver from working throughout. An operator may ‘discover’ a new (or nearly-new) bus available at little or no extra cost, to also be used elsewhere, outside of the ‘PVR’ (above) and at weekends, on other revenue-earning operations. 7.4 The paying authority’s other choice is open the missing journeys to tender. It will then be paying a third party to inefficiently use a bus to fill those gaps. ‘Missing journeys’ tend not to occur in urban settings, placing extra financial burdens on outlying funding authorities. This is an excess cost in either scenario, and lacking skills to decode this will always mean those paying authorities may line the pockets of unscrupulous operators.
7.5 Local Authorities subsidising bus routes and under-writing rail services must have ring- fenced transport ‘professionals’ to analyse their passenger operation subsidy to suppliers. 7.6 One urban example of an over-generous schedule was an East London trunk route, which on the successful TfL tender required ‘X’ vehicles. Investigations later revealed that the route was run with ‘X-minus-1’ buses. The route at one end terminated inside its home garage; as a given bus arrived ex-passenger service, it would be left ready for the next departure, having been fully fuelled at the start of the day. Garage staff removed the arriving ‘running number’ (the identity of that day’s combination of trips) and installed the next available number in the route sequence. On paper, this was the full ‘X’ allocation of buses; the turn-round time inside the garage hid the identity swap and enabled the true ‘X-minus-1’ operation. 7.6.1 In London the density of population and generous location of intelligent eyes uncovered this, but in outlying areas, where fewer people exist to detect this, public purse costs will accumulate. 7.7 A major issue with rural bus operations is bus standardisation; European Union rules govern width and length maxima, which most manufacturers adopt as default, charging extra for variations. The EU-wide maximum permitted width of passenger service vehicles is 2m55, but this is often excessive for country lanes and narrow roads in ‘traditional’ centres. This leave undesirable options: (1) purchase dearer, non-standard (ie narrower) vehicles, which may reduce carrying capacity; (2) schedule less efficiently so that buses do not pass each other in restricted areas; (3) use minibuses, which have limited capacity, and may not satisfy travel demand.
7.8 Suppliers of buses to the UK must offer reasonably priced and available smaller vehicles of suitable and sufficient capacity. This may mean centralised manufacturing support, either to bus builders or operators or to Local Authorities procuring routes and services. 7.9 Rural rail operations are constrained by two key factors – trains which are too small (particularly ‘Class 15x’ types of trains – series 150, 152, 156, 158 notably) and single-tracked route sections. The former restriction leads to dangerous overcrowding – eg the route linking Birmingham and Norwich, where two-carriage class 158 trains are used, with excessive standing and crush-loading over segments serving bigger intermediate and terminal locations. The latter restriction prevents a ‘clock-face’ service from being operated (ie so many minutes past each hour), as ‘passing loops’ act as hindrances to increased or regular operations.
7.10 Train supply must be increased – type 15x rolling stock is not yet life-expired, and should be rebuilt as longer trains, re-engineering single-carriage (or ‘car’) units into two-car trains, and 2-car trains into three-car formations. By re-forming those trains, new rolling stock would be needed to maintain and improve services. This would be an opportunity for UK train manufacturing and component suppliers, and would help to meet increasing passenger demand, as well as developing a better service for rural and less-densely-populated areas.
7.11 Railway track patterns must be analysed for the restrictions they; double-tracking and use of former routes needs attention; where track doubling cannot be achieved, opportunities for more ‘passing loops’ should be examined. 7.12 Extreme loadings on small trains often arise from poor or nil alternative – a bus may run parallel or close for some or all of those segments, but the elapsed time on the roads and possibly
infrequency of operation deters these options, and ‘forces’ those who must use public transport on to trains, or if they are capable, to use private cars.
7.13 An inspection regime should be instituted, ring-fence resourced and sustained, to audit and examine claims from operators of road and rail passenger services; this regime must be staffed by professional transport people. Scheduling constraints must be described and demonstrated by bus operators in receipt of public funds. The practice of claiming commercial confidentiality in the use of public funds must be rescinded; where public money is used, those receiving it must show how, where and when this resource is utilised. 8 ‘Knowing the deceits’: 8.1 ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) is dependent on no-one questioning it. In December 2011, ATOC released a ‘breakdown’ of how each penny per £ of the rail fare was divided up. This was a technical deceit, too complex for media to challenge – it went beyond the time-slot a radio or tv programme could allocate, and would not productively fill column inches of printed media. I asked ATOC if I could speak to the analysis compiler; the instant reply was ‘he’s left the industry’. I asked for a means to contact him; the instant reply was ‘we have no means to reach him’. My enquiry was two days after the press release. 8.2 A typical ATOC deceit in this analysis was that N% of each fare went in staff costs; so, imagine two passengers are in the queue at Waterloo ticket office… The first passenger asks for a day return to Surbiton (a London south western suburb, served by local trains), which for the sake of argument costs £6, out of which N% is for staff overheads. The second passenger wants an open First Class return to Exeter, which for the sake of argument costs £200. The booking clerk will only have pressed a different combination of computer buttons. Is the same N% really applicable for both transactions? ATOC’s analysis ignored internet bookings, companies such as Trainline, and purchases from a station ticket vending machine [TVM]. Assuming a TVM is working (and both passengers understand how to use it, and are able to), each passenger has only pressed different buttons on the same machine. Both transactions take the same time and resource, both cost the same for the train operator to deliver. Is the argument that staff overheads are averaged per transaction? If so, over which period, and what is the basis of the calculation by ATOC, given that each TOC pays different wages to their staff, has different (Commercially Confidential!) contracts for their ticket machines, and pays different rentals to the freeholder, Network Rail? ATOC is also very good at selectively deriving misleading positive data from quarterly Passenger Focus satisfaction reports. 8.3 Proofs of claims of constraints are essential if the UK is to fairly cost the provision of transport services across the country. Again, the need to change the rules of train franchises, the laws on Companies, Finance and Tax, the guidelines on accountancy practice are vital. 8.4 Change is needed in recording deduction of service charges on operators published accounts; these are paid to external providers (usually a parent company’s subsidiary for centralised HR, IT, payroll, uniform etc), taken from the profit and loss statement. These inflated ‘service charges’ are consolidated on Corporate accounts making it impossible to see how this money is disbursed. 8.5 External cash flows from the subsidiary reduce operating profit and tax liability without harming the company’s viability. UK train franchise rules limit profit margins to 3%, but ‘profit’ is whatever an accountant determines, as long as accountancy guidelines permit that latitude. 8.6 The other unaddressed issue in public accounting of transport companies is that ‘profit’ is deceitful – the key value is ‘return on capital’. Profit only arises from the day-to-day running of the operation; return on capital, which is unconstrained by neither law nor contracts, is what the operator takes back for its investment. The Financial Times has pointed out that in the transport sector, ‘return on capital’ is effectively a licence to print money, and makes ‘profit’ irrelevant. “In some cases you can make between 50 per cent and 70 per cent return on capital employed” said Mark Manduca, Bank of America Merrill Lynch transport analyst in London, but “profit margins are low – typically in single digits... Franchising does not require train operators to tie up large amounts of capital, which can ensure strong returns” (Financial Times, WED02JAN13).
9 ‘Professional workers’: 9.1 Trained and competent staff are the backbone of any transport operation, especially where the internet is not a suitable means to determine a means to travel. 9.2 Machines do not answer questions; TVMs display highest fares first, imposing a silent, un- notified duty to interrogate the machine for alternatives. In the case of South West Trains at Waterloo, all requests to a TVM for a journey to Basingstoke will first offer the routeing via Reading which is infrequent, longer than the through service would take and requires a change of trains via non-adjacent platforms. This ticket is also valid for the cheaper, direct services, which run up to four times each hour and will take up to an hour less than the ‘via Reading’ option. It is not possible to see from this enquiry at a machine that this is a less-desirable option, let alone why. 9.3 Abellio Greater Anglia TVMs within Greater London do not offer holders of the London ‘Freedom Pass’ the opportunity to buy a ticket onward from the ‘Zone 6’ boundary – this leaves the passenger with the option of queuing at the booking office window or paying twice for that segment of the trip. This facility is available on the Southern franchise, so it can be done. 9.4 There is no requirement for TVMs to be consistent in the facilities offered, nor for them to have the same layout, all of which forms a disincentive to use.
9.5 TVMs must offer services consistently, openly showing how to access best value tickets and the same terminologies used across UK railways. This would best be served by a national ownership, whose single management structure could enforce this. 9.6 This extortion is replicated across the UK, regardless of TOC or location. At unstaffed ‘rural’ stations, or outer suburban stations where there is no continuous staffing, the only means of legitimate travel is a ticket from the TVM, assuming it is working and the passenger can use it. Longer journeys (those across franchise boundaries) cannot be bought from most TVMs. 9.7 Despite the size and programming capacity of TVMs, TOCs rarely put the national fares network into them. However, revenue staff on trains (guards or travelling ticket inspectors) have portable machines which have all national fares, so TOCs can put this facility on their TVMs. 9.8 Professional workers, trained and certifiably competent to national standard, assist actual or intending users, issue tickets from booking offices which machines can’t, assist those for whom the internet is a nightmare. Some transactions can only be at ticket offices – Senior Citizen or other railcards are not accepted by every TVM; refunds can only be at a ticket office or by post; using compensation vouchers issued for late or cancelled trains can only be at a face-to-face site. UK booking offices access Eurostar ticketing, hardly any TVMs can. 9.9 Professional workers oversee transport schedules. The more a computer does, less individual skill is needed for corporate outputs. This reduces operational sustainability, de-skilling those who would be tasked with recovering a degraded situation. In urban regions, the availability of vehicles and people may bring about a fast resolution, but degraded ‘rural’ service is critical to livelihoods and safety. Resource is sparser; reliance on professional Controllers to understand and react is vital. 9.10 My year on the Underground’s ‘Graffiti Task Force’ revealed that social issues transcend transport – there is no definable boundary. Keeping ‘transport’ separate from ‘Society’ is self- defeating. Those who know that only technology stands between them and committing an anti-social event are aware that the chances of successful escape rise exponentially. To catch unwanted behaviour, technology has to be working, accurate and monitored; someone has to become aware that something untoward is happening. The critical issue, we discovered on the Underground is ‘reaction time’ – how fast can an adverse incident be recognised and resource arrive at the scene? 9.11 Rural distances compound issues, risking more deterioration before resource arrives; Network Rail some years ago cut their Mobile Operations Managers (MOMs) locations. In Wessex region, MOMs serving Weymouth (Dorset) were based at Eastleigh (Hampshire), over seventy miles away. If a railway incident needed attention, the only fast means of getting west of Poole was rail, the means most likely disrupted. Professional workers are more effective than a phone, radio or a CCTV unit.
9.12 The UK has no shortage of people willing to become transport professionals – the reluctance is in the employers who service the corporate need first. A cultural and commercial shift is essential to improve the transport quality in all areas, not just the lesser-populated regions.
9.13 A railway needs operating and maintenance staff within reasonable distances, suitably and sufficiently equipped to travel and work on the ‘permanent way’. A risk analysis may show low likelihood of an event but the other aspect, the severity indicator has been ignored. A railway is a safety-critical facility: lives cannot be reduced to half of a risk analysis. 10 ‘Dangers’: 10.1 Community railway experiments exist with volunteers at stations. While this gives human presence, training cannot cover all outcomes. Risk Assessment matrices rank adverse event likelihood against impact. Volunteers in safety critical environments may not know the worst a railway can deliver, but are unlikely to safely manage such events, and may even worsen them. 10.2 Volunteers must be as competent to the same standard as paid staff. A volunteer alone in an otherwise unstaffed station is equally at risk in the dull period as in peak hours. Station duties are a mix of clerical, routine and critical; to sub-divide these aspects is to raise the risk profile. 10.3 Volunteers (from bitter experience elsewhere) are most likely to be absent in adverse weather, to take time off at short notice leaving no cover, to take short-cuts because no-one is looking and rarely see actual, only perceived risk. The first rule of the railway is ‘everything affects everything else’; that was my first lesson when I joined the main line railway in 2000. 10.4 Volunteers may be useful to keep quieter railways viable, but mercenary interpretation by the TOC determines that. Paid staff contribute to the local economy, increasing money circulation; volunteers have just an uplift (valuable but not the same). 11 Summary Transport constraints are as much ‘invisible’ as determined by analysis and funds. Only transport professionals can light up those deliberately-dark nooks beloved of transport operators.
August 2013
Written evidence from Leslie Bowman a councillor within Seaton Valley, Northumberland (TIC 035)
Thank you for the privilege to write this report on public transport and other related services.
I am Leslie Bowman a councillor within Seaton Valley, Northumberland. I do not officially represent the residents or the Seaton Valley Council in this report, but as someone who lives and works within this part of Northumberland and has an ear for the people of this area.
Outline This area of South East Northumberland is poorly served by public transport and all pervious national and local government and has not provided a good sound framework for good, safe, relevant public transport service to this community of 5 villages. Example: Although we are not far from national rails services we have no links with bus services. Most of the bus routes have not changed much since the 1930s even though people lives and work place have.
Public transport is provided by bus services operated mainly by Arriva and on one route by Go North East. We have no rail service in the valley.
Action Required.
Bus Services
I get many complaints about the Arriva bus services as they are cutting back on routes and isolating villages in the process.
We need more bus companies in the area to shake Arriva who has 95% of the bus services and yes they must make a profit but must also service the community.
The Cost of fares is extremely expensive and for families it must be back breaking.
We need a system of ONE ticket for all bus journeys ( Transfare ) to get to your destinations.
We need bus services to National Rail connections like Morpeth Station which provides mainline services to London and places south. Edinburgh and Scotland. We have none.
We also need connections with a rail service at Cramlington Station and Tyne and Wear Metro System.
We also need a connection with our local International airport Newcastle Airport (NCL.)
The connections above should be for ALL of Seaton Valley not just the parts the bus companies like to have to make profits.
The residents of one village would love a service to and from Cramlington and Station as they do not have any service there at all. They never have done and will never see it happen under this present system.
The quality of the buses must improve. They are to be quiet, comfortable, cooled in the summer with air con and cosy in the winter when bitter cold outside with air quality improvements.
We need bus actual running times at bus stops, just like many cities. More so because routes are longer than cities and traffic problem can wreck havoc on bus time tables. Mobile phone apps with real time.
We should be thinking Green Buses. Electric etc.
All buses should be disable friendly ie. Mobility, Blind, Deaf, and other less able persons. At the moment 99% of bus services are NOT.
We need bus shelters and more of them, which are clean, dry, good repair, with seating, lighting for nights and the winter months. Fitted with real time transport times. And a bin.
We need a rail service in Seaton Valley. We have a famous line going through 3 of our 5 villages that was closed to passengers in the 1960s (50 years ago). It is a mineral line at the moment and could be put back into passenger use with little cost, providing confections to Newcastle, Blyth, Bedlington, Ashington, and the county town of Northumberland and Mainline Station, Morpeth.
August 2013
Written evidence from Hambleton & Richmondshire Rural Transport & Access Partnership (H&R RTAP) (TIC 036)
• How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities?
1. We are aware that North Yorkshire County Council measure current bus and community transport passenger numbers.
• To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
2. In a large rural area like North Yorkshire many isolated rural communities are lucky to have any public transport at all and the limited services that are provided have to try and meet the needs of all potential passengers.
• How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities?
3. Community Transport comes in many forms, the traditional 16 seater accessible minibus providing a demand responsive service is rarely cost effective in isolated rural areas. The distances involved and sparse populations mean that services which provide targeted individual transport are usually much better at meeting individual people’s needs. Community car schemes, with volunteer drivers using their own cars, help people who are unable to access public transport due to disability, age or rural isolation. Wheels 2 Work moped loan schemes have proved particularly effective in providing young people with transport to work or training and a stepping stone to the future.
• How could Community Transport be improved?
4. Consistent support and funding from the local authority allowing the communities and Community Transport providers the autonomy and flexibility to provide services that best meet the needs of local people. Short term funding arrangements have proved a barrier to development and progress.
• To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
5. Ideally they should have a choice of affordable services so that they can choose what best meets their needs and circumstances at that time. Having both taxis and other demand responsive transport services available would be a ‘step up’ for many of our rural communities in North Yorkshire.
• What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities?
6. Rurality, sparsity of population and journey distance to essential services means that the cost and or subsidy per passenger journey is more expensive than other areas.
7. External funding is necessary for the co-ordination of all community car schemes as the law requires that the charge to the passenger meets only the drivers vehicle running expenses and is not able to include an administration charge. 8. Would it be beneficial for the government to ring fence local authority funding (based on rurality) for community transport?
• How can these services be made more affordable? 9. North Yorkshire County Council currently spends £4.4m a year on subsidising the 20% of bus journeys which are not commercially viable. NYCC are currently consulting on reducing the money spent on support to bus services by £1.1m. The cost of providing concessionary bus passes is expected to be £8.7m in 2013/14. Some members of the H&R RTAP believe that passengers using concessionary bus passes should pay a percentage of the cost of the journey. The money saved could then be used to support the provision of more bus services and community transport services. 10. Consider the introduction for concessionary fares for young people in order to encourage them to use public transport, with the hope that they continue to do so when in employment and able to pay the full fare.
August 2013
Written evidence from Gwen Harlow (TIC 037)
Services to and from Brigg Railway Station
1. Brigg is a small market town surrounded by villages for whom no public transport is available, e.g. Cadney has no bus service (except the school bus for the children only). In order to use a bus it is necessary to drive to Brigg, then pay to park, which rather defeats the object of using a bus.
2. However, if it were possible to park at Brigg railway station, and catch a train, this would be worthwhile, but sadly there are no trains, except one on Saturdays.
3. Access to the rail network in Brigg would open up the rest of the country for people living in this area, who currently must drive.
4. This is a particular disadvantage to the retired population, as the DVLA is somewhat swift to take away driving licences from people with various medical conditions. These people are then dependent upon friends or relatives to take them to wherever they wish to go, or to get them to the bus stop or other railway station.
5. Some years ago there was a regular service to Grimsby and I recall that some people used this line to commute to work, thus relieving the roads of quite a number of cars. It would be possible to commute elsewhere from Brigg if only the trains were available.
August 2013
Written evidence from Fare Enough (TIC 038)
Fare Enough is the campaign raising awareness of the poor working conditions of private hire drivers in the UK. The campaign was established by Samuel Fisher after his experiences of attempting to start Greenbean Cars, Leeds' first environmentally friendly private hire service, in 2010.
1. Problems associated with the provision of private hire services in isolated communities
1.1. Isolated communities in northern cities, such as those on low incomes and the elderly, often rely upon the private hire industry to make trips that are otherwise very difficult using the public transport network. This note sets out how private hire services can rely upon the exploitation of private hire drivers who often end up working in conditions of financial servitude. It also sets out why the working conditions of private hire drivers appear to vary dramatically across the country. The note specifically examines the private hire industry which is a pre-booked services as opposed to the taxi and hackney carriage which can be hailed on the street.
1.2. The private hire car industry is a major employment sector in this country, with over 231,000 drivers holding private hire licences in England & Wales. Whilst a proportion of these drivers are employed, the overwhelming majority operate as self-employed agents working under licensed operators with radio circuits. There are widespread concerns about the working conditions of private hire drivers, the amount of debt they enter into each week in order to receive work from the licensed operators and the amount of hours that they need work in order to pay off their debts and earn a basic income. None of these issues appear to come within the remit of a regulatory authority. This is in contrast to the far fewer drivers working in the bus and coach sector (131,000 across the UK), who fall clearly within a regulated vocational transport profession, who mostly work for employers and whose working hours are strictly limited and largely controlled by the use of tachographs to ensure the safety of the public.
2. Executive Summary
2.1. Private hire drivers in northern towns and cities provide an essential service to isolated communities but are heavily exploited.
2.2. Private hire drivers have to overcome typical weekly overheads of £420 (see section 6) . Consequently a private hire driver often earns no more than £2.00 per hour for a 50 hour week. Drivers will typically work 70 hours per week, compromising road safety and the relationships with their families.
2.3. Such exploitation persists because private hire drivers are not usually represented by trade unions. Similarly, drivers have historically been considered by the courts to be self employed and therefore unprotected by the National Minimum Wage and Race Relations Act (which renders them vulnerable to labour exploitation and race discrimination cf Mingeley v Pennock And Ivory t/a Amber Cars (2004, IRLR 373))
2.4. The exploitation of drivers is systemic and a consequence of the radio-rental business model employed almost universally by private hire operators.
2.5. The Law Commission is currently reviewing the private hire and taxi industry on behalf of the Department for Transport with the purpose of proposing wholesale reform. They are expected to submit a draft Bill to Parliament by the end of this year. Its remit however does not include factors relating to the working conditions of private hire or taxi drivers. 3. Introduction
3.1. From my experience as a private hire operator and a private hire vehicle leasing business in Leeds it appears the poor working conditions of private hire drivers directly relate to the radio- rental business model employed universally by operators across the city (see section 5). Unfortunately, the radio-rental model is open to abuse by unscrupulous operators taking advantage of its drivers who are unable to protect themselves through employment law or trade unions. The radio-rental model puts significant downward pressure on fare prices which leads to drivers earning as little as £2 per hour for a 50 hour week. When the major operator in a city chooses to suppress fare levels it forces smaller operators to behave in a similar fashion to keep their prices in line with the market rate. Initial research indicates that this is the predominant practice of operators in many towns and cities outside of London.1
4. Political and legal context
4.1. The Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of taxi and private hire services. The Law Commission's taxi and private hire services impact assessment (July 2012) recognises that vulnerable groups such as those on low income and those with impaired mobility 'constitute a significant proportion of users'. As acknowledged in the Commission's consultation paper (May 2012) people in the lowest 20% of incomes are 40% more likely to use taxis and private hire vehicles than those in the highest 20%. Any reforms that protect drivers therefore need to recognise that an absence of a viable service for isolated communities would effectively restrict their opportunity for travel, be it for leisure or business. Nonetheless this service should not be guaranteed through the exploitation of its drivers.
4.2. The Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal have often found private hire drivers to be self employed and therefore unprotected by National Minimum Wage legislation.2 There is concern that only the interests of the operator and consumer are taking precedence within the Commission's review since the Commission has stated that reviewing the employment status of drivers is not within the remit of their review. Since a reliable transport service for isolated communities depends upon stable working conditions of its service providers, I submit that it is imperative that the relationships between the driver and operator and between driver and consumer is given serious consideration by this Committee.
4.3. This is especially important given the ambitions of many in the public transport sector to see the taxi and private hire industry becomes more innovative and professional in order to provide demand-responsive services such as taxi-buses (as proposed by the National Association of Taxi Users). For these ambitions to be realised the working conditions of private hire drivers have to be better protected. When considering the role of taxis and private hire services in relation to transport provision for isolated communities, I recommend the Committee take a tripartite approach to industry relations that includes all three key stakeholders; operator, consumer and driver.
4.4. Needless to say the benefits to Government of improving the working conditions of private hire drivers are numerous; reduced dependency upon welfare benefits, taxable income increases, a
1 One report indicates private hire drivers in Accrington are earning 75p per hour for an 80 hour week. ('Accrington Cab Drivers Take Action', Cab Direct, 16 April 2013 - http://www.cabdirect.com/taxi_trade_news/news.cfm/accrington-cab- drivers-take-action#.UhYmihu1F_0) 2 Mingeley v Pennock And Ivory t/a Amber Cars (2004), IRLR 373 Related case - Stringfellows Restaurants v Quashie (2012) EWCA Civ 1735 rise in service levels and the speedier development of innovations – for example the environmentally friendly services that are popular in London.
5. How the radio-rental business model works, the benefit it brings to private hire operators and its implications for consumers and the wider public
5.1. Operators do not receive income directly from the fares of their cash customers.3 Instead, operators receive a fixed weekly 'radio-rent' in advance from each private hire driver in their fleet. Payment of the radio-rent enables drivers to receive jobs through a radio or digital despatch device connecting them to a vehicle dispatcher at the operator's base. Drivers retain all the fares that they are paid to them from the custom received through this radio or device.
5.2. Under the radio-rental model, there is a natural incentive for operators to increase their radio- rental price or add further drivers to their fleet (in order to rent more radios) irrespective of the work load. Over time, this practice is often taken too far leading to the work load of the fleet becoming diluted and private hire drivers experiencing a drop in the number of fares received. Drivers can be added to an operators fleet without any additional cost to the operator since the driver will own the private hire vehicle and arrange vehicle insurance cover. Therefore the radio- rental model removes any expansion cost or risk from the operator.
5.3. Seeking to retain the loyalty of their customers, operators have an additional incentive to keep fares as low as possible. Of course, this is unusual for a commercial operation but it is only achieved in this instance because operators do not receive income directly from fares.
5.4. In the case of the private hire industry very low fares effectively prevents both established, conscientious operators lead by example and treat their drivers with greater dignity. Fares are currently so low that established conscientious operators (that are not the dominant actor in the local market) would not be able to raise their fares high enough to guarantee the National Minimum Wage to their drivers without losing their entire customer base.4 A dominant actor within a radio-rental market would however be able to raise fares without being hurt commercially to the same degree as if a lessor operator did so. Because all other local operators are likely to retain low fares, and because there would be no direct short-term commercial benefit in financial terms, there is no clear incentive for a dominant operator to raise fares in this way. The only motivation for raising fares for a dominant operator would be to prevent a driver revolt, but given the power of a dominant operator over its own drivers and, critically, other local operators such a revolt from drivers is very unlikely.
5.5. Low fares have an additional benefit of establishing a higher barrier to entry for new operators to the market. Normally, new entrants to any market will compete with established companies by offering a more competitive service coupled with a reduced price – at least for the initial period of trading. Normally, a reduced cost offers an incentive for potential clients to risk departing from their established service provider in order to test the service of a new and unproven competitor. Since new competitors will not enjoy the same scale, levels of experience and range of services customers of its established rivals will enjoy, it is often very important for new entrants to be able to offer this reduced price.
5.6. In deciding whether to change to an operator that is a new entrant drivers will only be attracted
3 Operators do receive some direct income generated from account clients paying a premium fare but this represents only a small proportion of their income for most operators outside London. 4 Approximate calculations estimate a fare rise of 50-80% (for most towns and cities outside of London and the South East) would be necessary for the National Minimum Wage to be met within a 50 hour week. to a new company if their daily income exceeds that of their previous operator. If fares at the new operator are at market rates or slightly lower then this operator will need to provide more fares per day to attract drivers. This appears to be an impossible task for any new operator within a mature radio-rental market. To provide more fares per day the new operator requires not only a significant initial customer base but the concomitant fleet of vehicles to provide the flexibility and adequate level of service required to handle that sufficiently large customer base. This is very rarely achieved. Since a new operator will have to ensure their prices remain at or below the local market rate inevitably means their drivers will be working for well below the National Minimum Wage (see section 6). Where the radio-rental model is prevalent, any improvements to the working conditions of drivers at even the most conscientious operator will therefore be marginal and potentially worse.
5.7. Not only are private hire drivers unprotected by trade unions and National Minimum Wage legislation they are also unprotected by the normal market mechanisms that would otherwise be able to assist them. If the structural complexion of the industry in certain cities was not broken to such a degree the market would allow established, conscientious operators to behave differently and raise standards. Again, if the market was not broken to such a degree, new operators acting as social entrepreneurs could also enter the market and improve the working conditions of drivers. In short, it is impossible in most UK cities for conscientious operators or social entrepreneurs to improve the working conditions of private hire drivers when they are effectively forced to pay their drivers well below the National Minimum Wage for a 50 hour week.
5.8. When the implications of the radio-rental business model have reached maturity, consumers also benefit financially from under-priced fares. In Leeds for example, a journey shared between two people is often cheaper in a private hire vehicle rather than on a bus. Consumers also enjoy an over supply of private hire vehicles which improves service response times.
5.9. Consumers and private hire operators both benefit in the short term from this business model whilst private hire drivers are placed under significant financial pressures, often leading to financial servitude (see section 6). Over the long term established operators benefit from reduced levels of competition and a gross imbalance of parity between themselves and drivers which enables operators to reap large commercial rewards. Conversely, in the long term customers start to experience a dramatic reduction in the quality of service levels as a consequence of very low pay attracting only the lowest skilled workers. More broadly, road safety standards also diminish dramatically as drivers are forced into working 10-12 hours a day, six or seven days a week.
6. Implications of the radio-rental business model for private hire drivers
6.1. There are two main implications of the radio-rental business model for private hire drivers. The first is level overheads drivers face every week, the second is the amount of time it takes to earn a living after settling these weekly overheads.
6.2. Initial research of local drivers indicates that, for a 50 hour week, average weekly overheads for a driver in Leeds can be as much as £420. The majority of this outlay is comprised of vehicle ownership/rental and insurance costs and the radio-rent which is all paid in advance to the operator every week. The most expensive option is to rent a vehicle, which combined with the radio-rent, can cost a private hire driver in Leeds £270 per week. The remaining outlay is for fuel and other costs that can total over £150 per week depending on the number of miles driven. Total weekly overheads for a private hire driver in Leeds can therefore be at least £420 per week. 6.3. Due to the high weekly overheads, low fare prices and a shortage of fares, drivers at a major private hire operator in Leeds can expect to earn as little as £2.00 an hour for a 50 hour week.
6.4. In practice private hire drivers in Leeds typically have to work four days per week (without an income) to repay these weekly costs. Once these overheads are paid, aside from fuel costs, drivers are able to retain their income and so they seek to work as many hours as possible. It is not uncommon for drivers in Leeds to work 12 hours a day for seven days a week.
6.5. During an economic downturn the two implications described above are compounded by lower consumer demand and an increase in the number of drivers entering the sector, having lost their jobs in other industries. Anecdotal evidence in Leeds suggests there are currently fewer fares available but more private hire drivers. This further exacerbates the dilution of fares between drivers and effectively forces service and safety standards even lower as more experienced, higher skilled drivers migrate into other sectors, but more commonly, work even longer hours.
6.6. The consequences of long working hours and low pay go beyond individual drivers. There is also a significant effect upon driver's families and the safety of their customers and other road users. It may be considered useful to conduct further research into the impact of extended working hours of private hire drivers upon the levels of road safety standards.5
7. Other models - The profit-share business model
7.1. There are other business models that are actively used by private hire operators that I believe better respect the relationship between operator, driver and consumer.
7.2. In London a profit-share model is commonly used which means operators have a direct relationship with the price of their fares. Like any other sector this places upward pressure upon prices which is balanced by consumer pressure and market competition.
7.3. Under the profit-share model the operator, in exchange for providing customers and a vehicle to the private hire driver, retains approximately 50% of the total fare income generated that week. Since income levels for the operator are the same irrespective of the number of drivers in its fleet, there is no incentive for the operator to increase the fleet size when the work load does not require it.
7.4. Under the profit-share model operators do not compete primarily on the prices of fares, as they do with the radio-rental model. Instead, because operators have an interest in keeping fares as high as possible, they compete on customer service levels and innovation in order to demonstrate a competitive offer. This appears to be a more favourable model; drivers and operators enjoy a shared commercial interest (which better protects the financial interests of drivers) and consumers benefit from a higher quality service that does not rely upon the exploitation of drivers.
8. Conclusion
8.1. Urban isolated communities rely upon private hire services for both business and leisure activities. However the industry is riddled with labour exploitation which is unacceptable even if it does mean providing a very low cost service for the wider public and isolated communities
5 1.1. DfT data sets should be able to assist with comparing the rate of involvement of private hire and taxi drivers in road collisions against the varying working conditions of drivers in different parts of the country - http://road- collisions.dft.gov.uk/ such as low income groups.
8.2. The radio-rental business model extensively employed in the private hire industry has a profound negative impact upon its drivers forcing many of them to work over 70 hours a week. Under the radio-rental model customer service standards are substantially reduced, drivers are exploited, and whilst consumers enjoy low fares, public safety standards are compromised.
8.3. Much can be done to improve the industry and better integrate it into the public transport sector. In my view improving the industry so that it can provide a quality service to isolated and non- isolated communities alike can only be achieved when considering how to improve the relationships between all three key stakeholders; operators, consumers and drivers.
8.4. For regulators, there are advantages to improving these key stakeholder relationships as mutual interests between the stakeholders improves standards thus requiring less regulatory control and enforcement action.
8.5. If regulators ignore the internal relationship between the operator and the driver then there is a much greater requirement for regulations, enforcement action and expenditure on safety and service quality matters. The ideal position for the government and regulators is to encourage internal stakeholder relationships that are largely self-regulating. This path provides a context for reducing friction within the industry and reducing the attendant regulatory costs which are otherwise required to resolve. Presently the private hire sector contains an enormous amount of conflict built into its stakeholder relationships. Even with a new regulatory framework that the Law Commission are currently developing the sector will continue to be difficult to regulate properly as key stakeholder relationships are broken, strongly opposing each other through an expression of their vastly divergent interests. To ensure a stable, safe and equitable private hire market for the general public the interests of all parties are best served through reforming the structures that allow for the necessary improvement of stakeholder relations. This is particularly important for isolated communities since private hire drivers serving these communities are themselves highly likely to be isolated and vulnerable.
August 2013
Written evidence from Seascale Parish Council (TIC 039)
Paragraph Comment from Seascale Parish Council 1. What is an ‘isolated community’? Within Copeland Borough Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy Seascale is defined as a ‘service centre’ and as such is considered appropriate for future development. It has its own railway station, a regular bus service, some access to community transport and demand-responsive options. ‘Rural’ is not necessarily the same as ‘isolated’. Seascale is a rural community but it has broader links with public transport than do some other communities in West Cumbria. These links may be far from perfect but they do exist. 2. How is a community’s relative isolation best measured? There are three fundamental socio-economic criteria for its members: (a) the ability/inability to move in and out of the community for work and leisure; (b) the ability/inability to have goods and services (e.g. online shopping) delivered; (c) the reliance on permanent essential services and key amenities resident in the community. The Transport Committee’s remit considers physical isolation, but an increasingly important interpretation of isolation is a reliable, efficient and cost-effective online presence. 3. The lack of a Sunday rail service (from approximately 19:00 on Saturday to 06:50 on Monday) does render Seascale an isolated community in this period and it has long been argued that this has a detrimental impact on both local residents and holiday-makers. The absence of a Sunday rail service means that accessing one of the region’s most popular tourist attractions (the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway) almost certainly requires private transport. However, relatively traditional Sunday trading patterns are observed in Seascale, with most businesses remaining closed. 4. A prolonged period of severe weather could also render Seascale an isolated community. Bad weather in winter 2012-13 disrupted essential grocery deliveries from the south. 5. The last half-century has seen an overwhelming bias towards ownership and use of the private car. This has been to the detriment of public transport and, in particular, to the railway network. The question of improving passenger transport does not only concern the provision and funding of additional services, but also fundamental cultural issues of lifestyle, independence, flexibility and sense of community. The Transport Committee’s five questions assume that additional passenger transport would be universally welcomed. It is unlikely that additional services would encounter objection, particularly on a hypothetical level, but whether they would be comprehensively used is a slightly different matter.
August 2013
1 of 1
Written evidence from Northumberland County Council (TIC 40)
Summary a) Northumberland County Council covers a large area, including many isolated communities (both in urban and rural areas), hence it is replying to this Inquiry as it is very relevant
b) NCC identifies demand for transport to isolated communities by evaluating demand for services that already exist
c) The extent to which the needs of different groups of passengers can be taken into account is constrained by available budget
d) The challenges associated with providing better public transport to isolated communities are varied, but the only way they can be overcome is through more, and more consistent, long-term revenue funding
e) Community Transport has a valuable role in meeting the public transport needs of isolated communities but has constraints. It can be improved by better funding
f) The extent to which isolated communities should be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive services should be determined by communities themselves
g) The main challenge to the public transport needs of isolated communities is the need for long-term, consistent revenue funding.
1. Introduction – about Northumberland and why this evidence is being submitted
a) Northumberland is a large County, comprising both rural and urban communities.
b) It is home to 312,000 people and covers 5013 sq km, of which 96.7% is classified as rural. 49% of the population live in rural areas
c) There are important contrasts between the three administrative areas of the County as per the following table
Table 1 : Characteristics of Northumberland and bus use Pop’n Pop’n density % of Annual Annual bus (people per households bus passenger sq km) with no car* passenger boardings per boardings head of pop’n South East 149,000 989 27% 5.9m 39 Area
North Area 91,000 38 20% 2.2m 24
West Area 76,000 31 15% 1.1m 15
Northumberlan 316,000 62 21% 9.2m 29 d total
*compared to the figure for England & Wales of 44% of households with no car
d) The South East Area is thus much more urbanised and densely populated, has more households with no car and therefore generates more bus use. Social deprivation is greater than in the other two Areas.
e) As the Table also shows, the North and West Areas are much more rural. They contain communities that are as remote as any in England, and car ownership is higher (and bus use lower) than in the South East Area. Overall, the North and West Areas are more prosperous but this conceals the many pockets of deprivation and exclusion made worse by their distance from essential services and facilities thus increasing many daily living costs.
f) About 80% of bus services in Northumberland are commercial, i.e. not subsidised. These run mainly in the South East Area. In the West and North Areas, services are much sparser and, apart from some trunk routes, are largely subsidised by Northumberland County Council.
g) Northumberland County Council (NCC) is responding to this Inquiry as it wishes to contribute to the debate on public transport provision for isolated communities, because it contains many such communities in both rural and urban areas. NCC’s “Sustainable Communities Strategy”1 has the following “Big Partnership Issues”
• Making climate change work to our advantage • Maintaining and creating sustainable communities • Rebalancing our economy • Giving everyone a voice and influence • Providing healthy lifestyle choices • Supporting our young people into adulthood • Delivering services differently
Delivering all of these depends heavily on making sure that none of the County’s communities, whether urban or rural, experience isolation and exclusion.
h) NCC’s experience is that factors causing isolation differ between urban and rural communities as follows:
• In rural areas, communities are isolated by geographical remoteness, topographical factors or a combination of both. Any community that is separated by many miles’ distance from the nearest centre of employment, education, shopping, leisure and healthcare provision is inevitably going to be isolated simply by location. However, other factors also cause rural isolation. There is more than one village in Northumberland (as elsewhere) that stands close to a major road with plentiful bus services, but that is cut off because diversion off that main road is judged by the bus operator concerned not to be worthwhile. Alternatively, a relatively large village that stands, for example, at the head of a valley will have a worse bus service than a smaller community that happens to be situated on a major road between two or more large communities that generate enough bus usage to warrant a high-frequency service.
• In urban areas, NCC’s experience is that commercial bus operators wish to concentrate on high-frequency, regular headway, inter-urban services that are perceived as offering attractive journey times. Such operators are, therefore, reluctant to contemplate diverting these services round housing estates that are seen to add to journey times, deter long distance passengers and prevent efficient scheduling of vehicles. This trend has resulted in many residential areas left without bus services even though there may be significant (but not vast) demand for a bus In such cases, it is not always the whole community that is isolated, but often its most vulnerable members. A bus company may withdraw a service, and the Council may decide not to fund a replacement, on the grounds that there is an alternative service within the generally recognised benchmark of 400metres’ walking distance. This does not take account of the fact that some members of the community are unable to walk that far. Their needs may be better met by a door-to-door, dial-a-ride type service; however, when public transport budgets are already at full stretch the addition of an extra layer of service provision may not be possible.
2. How do Government and local authorities identify demand for passenger transport in isolated communities (including rural and urban areas and island communities)?
a) NCC identifies demand for passenger transport in isolated communities mainly in a reactive manner by analysing the demand for those services which already exist, be they commercial or subsidised. Where commercial services are scheduled for withdrawal or curtailment, or where subsidised services have to be reviewed due to budget constraints or retendering, NCC bases its decisions on the basis of value for money for the subsidy required (see answer to Q5 below). We do not proactively attempt to identify demand for new services which do not already exist, or set criteria for service levels based on, for example, car ownership or population, because we do not have the resources to introduce new services in this way.
b) NCC cannot comment on how Central Government identifies demand for passenger transport in isolated communities. This responsibility appears to be left to bus operators and Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) 3. To what extent are the needs of different groups of passengers (e.g. people with disabilities, older people, young people) taken into account in determining the provision of public transport to isolated communities?
a) Clearly, commercial bus operators base their decisions solely on commercial criteria i.e. whether a bus service is profitable, rather than the needs of passengers
b) Like most LTAs, NCC’s ability to take into account the needs of different groups of passengers is severely limited by budget considerations. That part of our public transport budget that goes towards funding subsidised services in urban areas does not allow for provision greater than that based on the “400metre walking distance” rule-of-thumb described earlier.
c) In order to provide services that offer value for money, “need” has to be expressed in terms of sufficient passenger usage to justify expenditure. Many communities express views along the lines of “this village needs a bus service” or “young people need a bus to take them into town in the evening” but without evidence of demand services cannot be provided.
d) NCC does, however, recognise the additional cost of running services to rural communities by having different value for money criteria for subsidising bus services as follows, on the basis that rural services will be longer than urban ones
• NCC will subsidise services that are up to 5 miles long where net subsidy per passenger does not exceed £3.00
• NCC will subsidise services that are between 5 and 10 miles long where net subsidy per passenger does not exceed £4.50
• NCC will subsidise services that are over 10 miles long where net subsidy per passenger does not exceed £6.00
4. What are the main challenges associated with providing better and more consistent bus and rail services to isolated communities? How can these challenges be overcome?
a) NCC wishes to answer the first part of this question separately for isolated urban communities and for isolated rural communities and then to answer the second part of the question for all communities.
b) For isolated urban communities the challenges are:
• How to provide services that are sufficiently attractive in terms of quality, accessibility and journey times to generate usage, while ensuring that everyone’s needs are met. Vulnerable people who cannot walk more than 400metres to a bus stop may want a door-to-door service with slower running times, a lowfloor vehicle and plenty of time to board and alight. Other passengers many want a service that offers faster journey times and be content to walk a moderate distance to a stop.
• Road layouts often mean that services are costly and complex to provide – NCC has a recent example of a sheltered housing community whose residents need a bus service but where the location at the end of a cul de sac makes operation of a service very difficult.
c) For isolated rural communities the challenges are:
• The sheer distances involved, and the low population density means that services have high running costs and low passenger income.
• Rural bus routes are often indirect, with resultant long and unattractive running times compared to a car
• Rural roads can preclude the use of larger capacity vehicles, so the overhead and wage costs are high relative to the number of seats on the vehicle
• NCC’s experience is that many rural services are run by older vehicles because they are cheaper to operate, but which will soon be non-compliant with PSVAR. Members of some communities in Northumberland have expressed strong preference for retention of a non-compliant vehicle which is cheaper to run if this will ensure continuity of services while elderly and disable passengers welcome the use of a lowfloor vehicle and feel excluded if one is not offered. Some lowfloor buses have difficulty coping with rural roads because their layout renders them more susceptible to damage, this increasing operating costs still further.
d) These challenges can only be effectively overcome by allocating significant additional amounts of revenue subsidy to services. No bus operator can be expected to run unprofitable services, while LTA budgets are already tightly squeezed. Recent changes to BSOG have further damaged the cost/income ratio of many bus services. Past initiatives such as Rural and Urban Bus Challenge consisted only of short-term funding. While NCC appreciates the pressure on Central Government finances, it feels constrained to point out that if services to isolated communities are to be improved, there is a cost attached.
5. How effectively do Community Transport services address the needs of passengers in isolated communities? How could Community Transport be improved?
a) Community Transport (CT) plays a valuable role in providing transport to isolated communities (rural and urban) through • Some costs are lower than the commercial sector due to absence of need to make profits and (sometimes) lower wage costs due to use of volunteers or part-time staff
• Culture of volunteering and community care resulting in a level of quality and personal attention above that of conventional public transport, particularly with services such as demand-responsive minibuses and voluntary car schemes
• Ability to access funding that is not available to the commercial sector e.g. Lottery etc
b) However, these advantages should not be overstated. Some costs such as fuel are no lower than for the commercial sector and CT schemes, by their very nature, are small-scale locally based organisations who may not have the capacity to take on high-frequency intensive bus services
c) The question of how can Community Transport be improved should be seen in the context of the fact that CT should be regarded as a means to an end (better passenger transport) not an end in itself. All providers of passenger transport can be helped to provide improved services by consistent, secure long-term revenue funding.
6. To what extent should passengers in isolated communities be expected to rely on taxis and other demand-responsive transport services?
a) This may be up to local communities to decide. Experience in Northumberland and elsewhere is very mixed. Some communities have welcomed demand-responsive services because of their flexibility and perceived better quality and customer care, especially if they are locally-based and have some element of community ownership and involvement.. Other communities have rejected such services because they are perceived as “second best” or “charity”, with the need to pre-book, with 24 or 48 hours’ notice, being compared unfavourably with the “turn up and go” element of a fixed route, timetabled bus service which can be accessed spontaneously. Operation of demand-responsive services under Section 19, so they are only open to registered members, restricts the customer base and highlights the impression of separateness. Officers who have been involved with demand-responsive transport have also come across public perceptions that they are only for “old” or “disabled” people, particularly if the operators are associated with particular groups of people.
b) NCC is also concerned that, unless properly resourced, demand responsive services may not always be able to meet all requests. It is aware of cases in the County and elsewhere, of demand responsive services that cover a large area where requests for service at similar times, but from different parts of the operating area, cannot be met simply because the vehicle cannot be in two places at once, even though there are spare seats on the vehicle. The resources needed to provide sufficient capacity to meet such eventualities may be such that it is no more expensive to provide a traditional, scheduled fixed route service.
7. What are the main challenges associated with funding transport services in isolated communities? How can these services be made more affordable?
a) The main (indeed the only) challenge is that services to isolated communities have higher costs and lower income than those to communities that are easier to reach, and therefore need funding to close the gap between the two.
b) If isolated communities are to be offered better access to the services and facilities they want and need, i.e. their isolation is to be overcome, then this will require significant amounts of consistent, long-term revenue support. As has been stated previously in this letter, short-term funding opportunities with heavy emphasis on capital such as the former Rural and Urban Bus Challenge created many new, innovative schemes which often generated sufficient usage for the communities concerned to want them to continue, but did not generate sufficient income to cover long-term running costs. Councils then had to decide whether to use scarce funds to pay for their continuation or allow then to disappear.
c) Some form of revenue-based, long-term financial support would seem to be the solution. Perhaps there could be some form of “Isolated Communities Transport Fund” offering, through a bidding process, revenue funding for, say, five years for schemes that demonstrated effective tackling of rural or urban isolation?
d) NCC welcomes the publication of the report “Valuing the social impacts of public transport”, published in March 2013 by the Department for Transport. Space constraints preclude a detailed analysis of this very valuable report, but its publication shortly before the current Inquiry is certainly timely. However, its appearance begs the question that if Government is prepared to commission research that shows the social benefits of public transport2 and in particular the value of public transport to excluded groups3 and the fact that those isolated from public transport cannot enjoy its benefits3 then it should be prepared to back this up with funding that tackles these issues and delivers the resultant benefits shown by the report
References
1. Northumberland County Council (2011) “Northumberland : Resilient for the Future – Sustainable Community Strategy for Northumberland May 2011” accessed at http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=10150
2. Department for Transport (2013) “Valuing the social impacts of public transport : Final Report” p i-ii 3. Department for Transport (2013) “Valuing the social impacts of public transport : Final Report” p 11-33
August 2013