Written evidence from Dengie Hundred Bus
User Group (BUS 22)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This submission is made, as Chair, on behalf
of the Dengie Hundred Bus Users Group [DHBUG] a community group
which was set up in 2010.
1.2 The Group was originally set up to combat
the withdrawal of the 31X through the upper part of Althorne,
a local village. However that exercise coincided with the consultation/review
of concessionary fares and that led to more members and a wider
review. It soon became apparent that the problems being encountered
in Althorne, are also being experienced across the whole of the
Dengie and in all probability will be representative of problems
in other rural areas. It is for that reason that we feel it is
appropriate to make this submission.
Content
1.3 There is a summary of our findings / experiences
under each of the areas of interest. Our evidence is largely empirical
with the focus on meaningful involvement in transport management
at local community level. Key features have been highlighted.
Background
1.4 The purpose of the Group is to campaign for
continued and improved bus services and travel facilities in the
Dengie Hundred area as part of an overall public transport system
that:
— provides
services that satisfies residents needs;
— is
coordinated, integrated, and affordable;
— reduces
car usage, road congestion; and
— as
a consequence, provides greener travel with a decrease in the
carbon footprint.
1.5 The Dengie Peninsula is part of the Maldon
District in—"Central Essex". The Peninsula covers
an area of about 140 square miles. It is surrounded by water;
to the north by the River Blackwater; to the east by the North
Sea; and to the south by the River Crouch. There are no bridges
across the estuaries, the lowest crossing points are Maldon [Blackwater]
and Battlesbridge [Crouch]. The three main centres of population
are Burnham on Crouch, Southminster, and Mayland. The Peninsula
has two of the least densely occupied electoral wards in Essex—Tillingham
and St Lawrence.
Travel patterns
1.6 Transportation is a particular issue for
residents in the Peninsula as the surrounding waterways make for
a significant reliance on East/ West links. The only railway line
serving the District runs between Southminster and Wickford, stopping
at Burnham on Crouch, Fambridge and Woodham Ferrers en route.
At Wickford there are connections to Southend and Shenfield to
London Liverpool Street. The importance of this branch line is
likely to increase with the introduction of Crossrail—running
from Shenfield to Heathrow. There is a telling argument for "Park
and Ride" principle for train passengers eg free parking
at stations for season ticket holders. A "Quirk"
review of station assets?
1.7 For the District as a whole it is reported
that 93% of the 25,000 households have at least one car and 15%
of these have two or more [3,348 households]. When a car is used
for work the remainder of the household will often be dependent
on other means of transport. 69% of economically active residents
use a car to travel to work, either as drivers or passengers.
9% use public transport [7% train; 2% bus]. 13% cycle or walk.
About half the workforce travel out of the District by train or
bus and 78% by car. These figures illustrate the dependence in
the area on private transport but also show the link to the local
economy [car servicing].
1.8 With migration into the District and developments
in the Thames Gateway the probability is that the number of commuters
will increase. Extra traffic, and increased congestion is anticipated
with developments at Bradwell [on east coast]—nuclear power
plant and wind farm.
2. IMPACT OF
THE REDUCTION
IN BUS
SERVICE OPERATORS
GRANT INCLUDING
ON COMMUNITY
TRANSPORT
2.1 We are in a "Guess and Fear" stage.
2.2 To date, for a lay group such as ourselves,
the information on the "cuts" is being released in general
terms only. Attempts to get assessments from both local councils
and service operators have been essentially "dead batted".
Everyone it seems is waiting for details.
2.3 The broadly held assumption is that we are
entering into a less [possibly non] subsidised era. In some quarters
there is "belief" that overall bus subsidies could be
reduced by up to 50%. The expectation is that BSOG will be reduced
and the most quoted figure is seen to be by 20%, there will also
be the prospect of reductions in the reimbursement for Concessionary
Fare Passengers. If true, all assessments are that there will
be a reduction in services. With any level of service reduction
the impact is likely to be serious at this time when both customers
and contractors need it to rise in order to maintain let alone
improve services.
2.4 Our view is that there is an urgent need
for voluntary and community sector groups, working in partnership
with local contractors, to provide more rational, integrated,
and relevant facilities. However, without access to hard facts
it is impossible to even start putting together a meaningful business
plan.
3. CONCESSIONARY
FARES
3.1 This has been a live issue since the Group
was formed and as a consequence opinions have been canvassed.
The prevailing concern, and our original, campaign goal was for
the continuation of the "early start time" [ie 9 AM
rather than the strategy guide of 9.30]. The local case for
this adjustment is based on the infrequency of service and to
avoid unfairness where people further along the route could use
the bus whilst others were "departure time excluded".
3.2 Feedback on the direct question at a public
meeting in answer to the question—"would you be
prepared to pay a reduced fare [as distinct to free passage]?"
brought a strong response "Yes—provided it was
a good service". The general finding is that the
potential to travel "countrywide" is not jealously guarded.
The discussions almost always centre on the convenience of a service
rather than the cost.
3.3 For people currently using buses to travel
to work there is concern that fares will increase or services
will be lost as the number of pensioners increase. This is not
only because national concessionary funding does not increase
in line with the network coverage, but also from strong suggestions
that the payments to contractors for concessionary fares are to
be reduced and rural services will be the first to suffer. Needless
to say if there is no service, the pass is meaningless, already
the case in some localities in this area.
Fares versus public funding
3.4 To avoid the "no service" situation,
customer expectations of fares may well need to change. So that
affordable fares can be offered, the emphasis will need to be
on encouraging more paying customers ["greater passenger
contribution"] and that will require more convenient services
ie fit for purpose.
3.5 Travel vouchers could be a useful approach
to allow users to choose the transport option that best meets
their needs. In some cases this could mean the traveller who is
eligible for concessionary travel uses the bus when they're able
to do so free of charge. Then, in recognition that the bus services
can be limited in rural areas, voucher provision would allow an
affordable level of support for them to use on the more responsive
transport eg taxi and community transport trips.
3.6 Another option would be to reduce the number
of scheduled services and replace them with "demand responsive
transport" services where "top up" fares can be
charged to concessionary pass holders. This could mean that elderly
people can still benefit from reduced cost transport which could
be seen to be better than the alternative of having no transport
at all!
3.7 A further advantage of such an approach is
that fare and subsidy levels can be used to manage the budget
whereas if an authority only supports conventional bus services
it will be forced, when facing a budget shortfall, to cut some
services altogether.
4. HOW PASSENGER
VIEWS ARE
TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN
PLANNING
4.1 In making this submission a key purpose is
to draw attention to the barriers to community involvement that
follow from the [over?] commitment to "Performance Management".
With its matrix of "scores, weighted indices, and ranking"
all too often treated as a single entity and manipulated according
to a particular policy.
4.2 During our inquiries it has frequently been
observed that we "do not understand"; often that will
be true but we have yet to be convinced that the official/councillor
making the observation does either, particularly on the issue
of other approaches ie alternatives to the total reliance on "Performance
Management"!
Sharing Experiences: "Organisational Gridlock"
4.3 Our collective experience is that the existing
"Partnership Arrangements" have all sorts of boundaries
and these create both visible and invisible barriers to the efficient
passing on of "hard" information [facts, numbers, data]
and the "soft" information [expectations, judgements,
feelings and opinions]. The free flow of such communication is
essential if the local community is to be involved and interact
in a positive way with the rapidly changing environments [financial
and transportation].
4.4 For localism to be effective there has to
be greater flexibility, much improved communication together with
a clear commitment to meet the changing conditions, people's needs
and expectations—including the capacity to create understanding
of any limitations.
4.5 Partnership has to be meaningful and that
will need progress from "consultation" [this is what
we are going to do what do you think?] and pass "participation"
to real "involvement" [ie how can / should we deal
with.. .?]
Tackling the problems
4.6 From our review of various Government and
other Reports dealing with Rural Services we have identified the
following core ambitions:
— Improving
and integrating transport services to provide:
— services
that satisfy residents' needs;
— are
coordinated, integrated, and affordable;
— reduced
car usage, road congestion; and
— as
a consequence, provide greener travel with a decrease in the carbon
footprint.
— Creating
more flexible, demand responsive transport.
— Providing
targeted / specialist transport.
— Improving
the location and delivery of services.
— Providing
better local transport information.
— Encouraging
passenger involvement [feedback and suggestions].
4.7 Accepting that the CSR is driven by the need
to reduce public expenditure it will inevitably mean that funding
will decline and reinforce the need for efficiency in the design/delivery
of services. It should also mean that services/budgets are reviewed
to ensure they all provide the best match against social needs.
In turn that requires that we move from "post graduate mathematics"
to meaningful communication; paying less attention to what we
spend, rather putting the emphasis on how we spend it.
4.8 Our, admittedly limited, research leads us
to believe that the CSR and the "Big Society" proposals
provide that opportunity to think laterally—to focus on
local transport needs and tailor facilities to match those needs
in the context of both the economy and the environment.
Access to Transport
4.9 Access to transport can be a major barrier
to social inclusion and deprived neighbourhoods. Our enquiries
have shown that poor transport links can isolate people from jobs,
education, training and essential health services. It can also
increase residents' isolation by making it harder for them to
visit family and friends or take part in other social activities.
There are a number of our members who cannot drive due to financial
constraints, disability or age. For the 16% of households who
do not own a car, the lack of mobility causes particular hardship.
This is because there is a continuing decline in the availability
of rural services [including closure of shops, pubs, post offices
and now Banks], requiring people to travel greater distances eg
to collect post that could not be delivered.
4.10 People on low incomes, whose only option
is to run a car, often then struggle to meet the cost of running
it. These costs are generally higher in rural areas because of
the distances people have to travel and because filling stations
tend to charge higher prices
4.11 It is estimated that low income households
in the least densely populated areas spend an average of 30% more
on motoring per week than those in the more densely populated
areas.
Passengers' Views/Involvement
4.12 From this Group's perspective this is the
most pressing need for change after a review/ revision of the
"Performance Management" data/techniques.
4.13 We believe it is essential that future planning
centres on locality, with the core focus on customer and community
needs. Beyond that there needs to be a meaningful involvement.
Not only around current needs/provision but also recognising that
passenger convenience is an essential feature if we are to encourage
wider use of public transport.
Making the case for investment
4.14 Our case for investment is built on:
— Access
to services;
— Building
an inclusive society.
For example, transport to employment and/or training
helps not only to get to work but also opportunities to train
for employment. At the same time it offers companies the chance
to increase their competitiveness with improved labour market
catchments and a better trained workforce.
4.15 Although rural residents travel more and
pay proportionately more for transport, there is a greater proportion
of the transport industry workforce in urban areas. Investment
in local depots can address that situation and cut "dead
mileage". The community transport sector also acts as a significant
player in the market with voluntary roles as drivers, passenger
assistants, and admin staff investing "in kind" ie time.
4.16 It is seen as essential in planning public
transport that educational authorities think about transport beyond
their statutory deliverables. Local partnerships will need to
include education planning and transport in their deliberations.
This also covers the need to ensure fair and equitable access
to extended school provision—breakfast and after school
clubs events. This planning is likely to be particularly important
with the withdrawal of Educational Maintenance Allowance.
Passenger Focus
4.17 The website is a useful source of information
but more hyperlinks [eg to Government sites] would be useful.
4.18 Important that the Reports provide the general
guidance as well [eg on Bus Service Changes]. In our case the
question was why the changes were being made, and the reply was
due to congestion and time keeping. With two performance indicators
[LTP2 and LTP5] there should have been an explanation on where
the congestion was occurring, the time of the day and whether
that could be addressed to avoid the re-routing if accountability
is to be meaningful. A classic case for arbitration or appeal.
No guidance was available.
Annex A
THE ALTHORNE EXPERIENCE
A.1 BACKGROUND
EXPLAINED BY
URSULA BENJAFIELD
"For the past 20 years or so I have been a Parish
Transport Representative for my local village, Althorne, in Essex.
The role is unpaid and involves working in partnership with Essex
County Council Passenger Transport Department and also liaising
with local bus operators, in the case of First with Alan Pilbeam,
MD of First Eastern Counties.
The effect of my input is often fairly minor, but
in 2007 as a result of discussions over a long period, First agreed
to divert the 31X Burnham on Crouch to Chelmsford bus through
our village. This diversion took only an extra four minutes but
the effect on the residents was enormous. Althorne is a small
village of about 1,100 residents, including more than twice the
national average of elderly, and this new bus service transformed
our lives. Suddenly people could access their doctors' surgeries
and hospitals in Burnham, Southminster, Maldon and Chelmsford,
get to work, to the bank, libraries, shops, swimming pool, visit
their families and friends, etc, all under their own steam.
Sadly, in December 2009, the service was withdrawn
from five of our six bus stops and many people have been cut off;
the bus now effectively bypasses the village, stopping once at
the northern edge of Althorne. The geography of the village—on
a steep hill—has meant that very many of the former users
of the 31X service are not able to walk up to 1½ miles to
the only bus stop. We have a patchwork of other bus services,
but nothing to match what we had with the 31X.
First's reason for withdrawing the bus was to meet
punctuality targets—we were told that insufficient people
were using the bus. This is a small village and we see and know
what people are really doing. We believe First's figures were
wrong—their survey was undertaken during August which is
atypical."
A.2 THE SECRET
ART OF
BUS TRAVEL
There are 13 different bus services which go through
Althorne but only one (the 31X) which could be said to be
really useful, unless your needs just happen to coincide with
the odd service.
Of the 12 services, six only run during school
days, ie term-time M-F. The 67, 510, 524, 593 are school
buses which can be used by the general public if there are spaces.
The 200/220 are school buses which are used during the
school day as shopping buses between their morning and afternoon
school runs.
The Fords 5 & 6 run fortnightly, one on Thursday
to SWF and one on Friday to Chelmsford, and you need
to phone Fords to find out which week you are in.
The D2 runs one bus from Southminster Station
to Latchingdon which passes through Althorne in the late afternoon,
but different time M-F and Sat.
The D3 runs from Burnham to Maldon through
Althorne, M-F only, but during the school holidays too. It runs
children to school, as well as people to work
The D5 is fairly complicated:
Sundays—no buses at all unless you can get
a lift to Latchingdon—then two hourly to Maldon and Chelmsford.
Annex B
FROM ALTHORNE ISSUES, TO THOSE FOR THE PENINSULA
DENGIE BUS
ROUTES: COPIED
FROM ECC BUS
MAP
B.1 This Map is seen to show a diversity of service
routes but also suggests a more integrated service plan could
be designed / developed. Follow on enquiries on this possibility
tended to confirm our doubts on the management system currently
in use.
B.2 A response from the Bus Company explained:
"Essex County Council (ECC), may decide to
support a service through tender subsidy; subject to the local
authority's transport strategy and parameters set for supported
services.
My understanding from discussions last year, is that Althorne
has a population between 1,000 to 1,999. I believe ECC's parameters
for supported services, based on the funding at the time, is at
a level of four return journeys per day for six days of the week."
B.3 In turn we looked at the Essex Road Transport
Strategy 2006-11 Table E.3 which sets out the Minimum Service
Levels for Deep Rural Areas which are based on settlement size.
We question the validity of this approach partly on the issue
of population size but also on the "separation of settlements".
Our analysis suggests that a more valid measure would be population
"on the route" ie the cumulative total of the populations
for all settlements on a specific bus route. Similarly we feel
a better statistical base would be on households / adults.
B.4 Given the need to have local verifiable
data our conclusion is that the better indicators are the number
of properties having a liability for council tax linked with the
electoral roll. MDC provided the data. There could be a further
indicator from analysis of "work places" ie through
Business Rates and possibly the number of households qualifying
for Council Tax Benefit / Single occupant reduction as a measure
of deprivation.
B.5 Whilst it has not been possible to assemble
local evidence on income and expenditure, the impression
is that earnings for those working locally are less than those
commuting to work.
However soundings suggest that research for Joseph
Rowntree Foundation [A minimum income standard for rural areas]
has a relevance to the local transport costs for rural communities.
Footnote: Work in partnership with representatives
from other bodies
The Group:
— has
two committee members who are Representatives on the Parish Passenger
Transport Group;
— has
affiliated to Bus Users UK;
— has
direct access to the Director of Viking Community Transport;
— has
close support from Burnham Town Council and Althorne Parish Council;
and
— has
access to officers at the RCCE.
Burnham Town Council Office is an information point
where people can pick up bus and train timetables and apply for
concessionary bus passes and senior rail cards.
The Group will seek actively involved in consultation
when the Essex County Council Dengie Connections bus contract
comes up for renewal in 2012.
January 2011
| 
