Written evidence from Harrogate Friends
of the Earth (BUS 24)
1. CONTEXT
North Yorkshire is the largest county in England
and one of the most rural and sparsely populated areas, covering
3,340 sq miles, 40% of which is designated as National Park. Almost
33% of residents live away from the main centres of population,
many in the Dales and Moors regions which are both National Parks.
The County's population is 599,000.
The Office for National Statistics reports that the
cost of living in rural areas is £2,600 pa more per household
than the cost in urban areas. Of this differential nearly
£1,000 pa is for higher transport costs. Fuel
for vehicles costs more in rural areas, bus fares per mile are
higher and distances to vital services are much greater.
By 2015 at least 30% of the population of North
Yorks will be over retirement age. Many
older people cannot afford to run a car and are reliant on public
transport. Oil price rises will increase dependence on public
transport. Rural areas also suffer from higher unemployment and
lower wages. Fewer people claim benefits to which they are entitled.
At least 25% of farmers in the area are living below the poverty
line. The rural economy is heavily reliant on agriculture and
tourism. Hotel and restaurant workers, shop workers and those
in food manufacturing earn low wages and rely on public transport
to get to and from work.
A good Transport infrastructure is vital to the
economy of the region and to the health and well-being of its
residents. For many workers on low wages public transport is their
only option. The Beeching Axe fell very heavily on North Yorks
rail network, so buses are the only form of public transport in
a large part of the region.
NY has the highest CO2 emissions (38%) from transport
of any rural county. (The national average is 21%). A good and
improving public transport system is needed to reduce overall
traffic volumes.
Nationally, 99% of the
population has access to primary schools, work, shops and services
within 15 minutes. In North Yorkshire the figure is 82-93%.
Nationally, 77-89% of
the population has access to GPs, Hospital, and secondary schools
within 45 minutes. In North Yorkshire the figure is
62-70%.
It should be the entitlement of every resident to
be enabled to travel for employment, education, services, shopping,
surgeries, hospitals and social events.
2. EFFECTS OF
BUS CUTS
PROPOSED BY
NORTH YORKS
CC
(i) NYCC's proposed bus cuts will cause disproportionate
damage to access for people, including wage earners, dependent
on public and community transport.
(ii) Proposed cuts to services have been
administered by a simplistic focus on evening and weekend buses,
rather than on an evidential basis which reflects demand and level
of subsidy per journey. There are daytime services - untouched
by these proposed cuts - which are being subsidised at a rate
of £93 per passenger (* see attached table).
(iii) Cuts to services on Sundays and Bank Holidays
will affect tourism, a key source of employment and revenue. Tourists
are more likely to bring cars into National Parks and AONBs with
consequent increases in CO2 emissions and congestion.
(iv) NYCC describes the service between
Whitby and Sleights as underused; yet trhee evening buses carried
at least eight people per service and only one carried only one
passenger. The service is the only means for Sleights locals to
access work opportunities in Whitby, working in restaurants, bars
and other tourist-focused businesses and for carers to reach relatives.
Passengers are willing to pay more (even an extra £3-5 per
journey) for the bus. But they cannot afford, on low wage rates,
to pay the £10+ per taxi journey.
(v) NYCC officers do not seem able to grasp that
many employees do not work 9-5 from Mon-Fri. In the Selby area
many people are employed in the power stations and work shifts.
They need buses early and late in the day and at weekends.
(vi) NYCC has chosen to take a blunt axe
rather than pruning shears to services. They are disregarding
the needs of workers, carers, families etc who rely on return
journeys at weekends and evenings.
(vii) NYCC is proposing to front-load the
cuts of £600,000 into Year 1 rather than spread them
evenly over four years.
(viii) NYCC appears to be consolidating
their own Integrated Passenger Transport Unit and its core
staff by withdrawing contracts from Community providers (notably
Little Red Bus) even though the County cannot replicate what LRB
provides and what residents value so highly. There is a huge gulf
in understanding between NYCC and its poorer residents as to the
meaning of Integrated Transport Services. The county seems to
be choosing to compete unfairly with community providers, withdrawing
funds that should really belong with local communities.
(ix) Community transport has been built up with
conspicuous success to meet the needs of rural residents. It takes
children to schools, patients to GPs and clinics, the elderly
to day services and people to work, all in the same pattern of
journeys. The existence of Little Red Bus is now being put at
serious risk by NYCC, apparently as part of a deliberate policy.
During schooltime, shoppers, tourists, those living in isolation,
carers etc can call on the CT service. Community services should
be enhanced not destroyed.
(x) In NYCC's IPTU discussions with District
Councils and PCT, Community Transport providers were not included
in the discussions.
(xi) There is little evidence that NYCC is thinking
through the consequences of its day to day decisions on bus subsidies
or is open to persuasion that it might be pursuing unreasonable
policies.
(xi) NYCC justifies its every decision to cut
bus services as being imposed by central government. It seems
to be neglecting its duty to manage the bus cuts with maximum
professional skill to minimise impact on the disadvantaged. There
has been no comparison of subsidies provided to Mon-Fri services
during hours of 9-5, even though NYCC's own data shows that some
enjoy much higher subsidies than for evening and weekend services.
(xii) Consultation with the public proved resoundingly
hostile to the bus cuts and there have been waves of alarm (letters
to press and councillors) about the threat to community transport
and subsidised public transport, but this level of resistance
has been misrepresented by officers as compliance and support.
(xiii) Strong arguments have been registered
by local groups, local councillors, parish councils and other
interest groups, all seeking a more rational, evidentially based
approach to cutting services. These have been dismissed with only
a token response.
3. NYCC LOCAL
TRANSPORT PLAN
3 (2011-16)
It is our contention that the tactics on bus cuts
are seriously flawed largely because the underlying strategy,
expressed in the LTP3, is steering us in the wrong direction.
(a) The failure of the County Council to fulfil
its responsibilities to those communities and individuals who
depend on public and community transport, and who need it to be
better integrated, is compounded by its woefully inadequate LTP3
(2011-16). This lacks serious analysis of the increasing need
for integrated systems, of the scope to reduce traffic volumes,
and of NYCC's obligation to cut CO2 emissions. It is a missed
opportunity to re-balance the vision for future transport in North
Yorkshire in favour of the disadvantaged. It fails to address
the biggest environmental issue for us all - the impact of climate
change
(b) LTP3 is a charter for car owners. It understates
the wider needs of its elderly, young, work-seeking and disadvantaged
communities. We (FoE Harrogate) have presented a coherent counter
to LTP3 both on paper and in committee. This has been ignored
with contempt by officers.
(c) LTP lacks internal consistency and rigour.
It states, inter alia, that:
— there
is 9% unemployment in rural areas, but it is not clear how much
transport issues impact on this
(Why can we not find out how much?);
— everything
that NYCC does will contribute towards sustainable communities
(increased isolation by removing community transport will not);
— NYCC
will seek to influence access to services
(little evidence of this);
— NYCC
will encourage integration of different modes of transport
(little evidence that NYCC really grasps what integration means
at user level);
— public
transport and CT will be better integrated to give a seamless
service (This cannot be achieved unless Community Transport providers
are treated as valued partners rather than competitors to be ostracised);
and
— the
role of taxis is often undervalued
(but this option is beyond the means of those who are having their
buses cut back).
(d) LTP3 lacks specific strategies and targets
to achieve and measure progress.
(e) North Yorkshire's public and community
transport provision will be significantly worse than the level
of financial cuts necessitates, largely as a result of defensive
and unresponsive leadership within the County Council. Their refusal
to acknowledge the outcomes of consultation and public opposition
has been wholly unreasonable and unreasoned.
(f) NYCC consultation process with council
tax payers on the LTP3 showed the five highest priorities from
respondents as:
— support
for the local economy;
— improve
access;
— improve
public transport;
— encourage
alternatives to car use; and
— improve
access to remote areas.
The response from NYCC to this has been tokenistic.
(1) The LTP overlooks the huge potential
to encourage tourists to leave their cars and use public transport.
Bus and rail services lack co-ordination, connectivity, joint
ticketing and publicity
(2) There is no co-ordination between transport
services for education, social services, and non-urgent patient
transport within the PCT area. This leads to a huge amount
of duplication, unnecessary extra costs of providing transport
and increased road congestion
(3) NYCC spends £4 million on taxis for
pupils attending special schools and £18 million on transporting
pupils to mainstream schools. Many of the journeys are for less
than the statutory two miles (primary) and three miles (secondary)
pupils. A small cut in this transport budget would more than recoup
the savings that NYCC will achieve with the bus cuts (£600,000).
Any balance could help improve bus services and community transport
elsewhere.
(NYCC Social Services spend £3.8 million
on taxis and N Yorkshsire and York Health Trust spends £4
million on non-urgent patient transport)
Better use of bus services and CT would
bring huge savings to these budgets which could then be invested
in better transport provision for all. This in turn would help
reduce levels of unemployment, increase access for tourists, who
spend money in the local economy and protect the needs of the
disadvantaged. It could vastly improve access for residents. There
should also be a reduction in CO2 emissions.
An Integrated Transport Service cannot be achieved whilst each
local department is defending its own funding and traditional
ways of working.
4. HOW ARE
PASSENGER'S
VIEWS TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT?
NYCC needs to commission more effective customer
research. Whilst Passenger Focus may give some feedback from customers
about bus services, research is needed at bus stops and bus stations
asking travellers for their views on local transport. Questionnaires
should be available on board all services and on line throughout
the year.
www.transportdirect.co.uk should be clearly mentioned
on all information about transport as being a useful tool to plan
journeys countrywide.
Workplaces should establish how staff travel to
work and should be required to provide information on public transport.
Likewise the tourist industry needs to clearly indicate how places
of interest and accommodation are accessible by public transport
(as in National Trust Handbook) and how services interconnect.
5. WHAT ARE
THE FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS OF
"FREE" OFF-PEAK
TRAVEL?
Our own researches indicate that people with free
passes are generally very willing to pay - perhaps £1 locally
or £3 per day towards the cost of their journeys on the buses.
They recognise that a free bus pass without bus services that
meet their needs is worthless. Some bus operators issue a ticket
but it doesn't state a destination, as the passenger is not asked
to give a destination. Therefore, there is a lack of information
about length of journeys, or which areas are most frequently travelled.
Also, in areas popular with tourists, who have come from other
areas outwith N Yorks, it is the local taxpayers who pick up the
cost of the journey rather than the tourists own local council.
In N Yorks, which has high tourist numbers, this means that N
Yorks council tax payers have an unfair burden to pay for. Yet
local bus users travelling outside peak times, but paying full
fare, often cannot have a seat, due to high numbers of free bus
pass users.
CONCLUSIONS
Even after the current round of cuts, NYCC has a
large budget at its disposal for transport services. To achieve
best value it needs to act upon a clear set of principles which
genuinely represent the whole of its community and which secure
access for the young, the old, the isolated, the low paid and
the disadvantaged. It has received a huge amount of constructive
comment about how it can improve its transport services despite
the need for budget cuts.
There is little evidence that NYCC is prepared to
listen or to adopt a different mindset towards its transport policies
and administration. By 2010, the county had grown one of the best
(possibly unique) community transport systems in the UK- the LRB.The
major, and immediate, decision is whether NYCC will build on that
success or allow it to melt away. The aim should be to improve
public and community transport so that people will view it with
confidence and use it more. With better information available
through an Oyster-card type system and better IT scheduling, as
developed by LRB, it could turn retreat into a huge success.
North Yorkshire could still develop Public and
Community Transport services second to none in the UK and save
money.
INFORMATION SOURCES
ONS report on cost of living in rural areas, quoted
from article in National Press 28 December 2010.
NYCC LTP3 produced in November 2010.
Costs of school transport services and non urgent
patient transport and transport for social services obtained under
FOI act.
TABLE OF WEEKDAY BUS SERVICES RECEIVING SUBSIDIES,
SHOWING NUMBERS OF PASSENGERS AND COST OF SUBSIDY PER PASSENEGR
PER JOURNEY IN £'S
JOURNEYS ARE ALL IN NORTH YORKSHIRE AREA
TOTAL COST OF SUBSIDIES IS £1,374,700 PA
| Contracts Comprising Services
| Description | Annual Cost
| Approx Pax/Yr: | Cost per Pax
|
| | 1.374,700
| 521,193 | 2.64
|
| 72,73.74 | Skipton - Grassington - Buckden - Ilkley Combination
| 364,698 | 111,456 | 3.27
|
| North Craven Taxibus | North Craven Taxibus Mon-Fri
| 21,823 | 5,215 | 4.18
|
| 580 | Skipton - Gargrave - Settle - Giggleswick (Mon - Fri)
| 25,518 | 23,924 | 1.07
|
| 581 | Feizor - Austwick C E Primary/Ingleton-Settle-Horton In Ribblesdale
| 108,027 | 20,482 | 5.27
|
| 210 | Skipton Malham | 9,701
| 1,945 | 4.99 |
| B1 | Horton In Ribblesdale - Settle - Slaidburn
| 69,300 | 13,629 | 5.08
|
| 136 138 139 | Ripon Roweller
| 74,198 | 22,594 | 3.28
|
| 138 | Ripon - Laverton - Ripon
| 9,880 | | |
| 36 | Reeth - Leyburn (Friday Only)
| 4,684 | 475 | 9.86
|
| 156,157 | Wensleydale Services (Mon-Sat)
| 208,053 | 121,767 | 1.71
|
| 156, 157 | Northallerton - Hawes (Sundays)
| 22,106 | 8,836 | 2.50
|
| X59 | Hawes - Darlington (Mon - Fri)
| 49,100 | 9,039 | 5.43
|
| 159 | Richmond - Ripon (Mon - Sat)
| 187,009 | 113,380 | 1.65
|
| Post Bus | Northallerton - Hawes Wensleydale Post Bus (Mon - Fri)
| 6,594 | 9,004 | 0.73
|
| 30, 113, 520R, 521R | Richmond/Hawes/Garsdale Area Combination
| 129,709 | 20,415 | 6.35
|
| 158 | Woodale - Middleham - Leyburn (Fri Only)
| 4,946 | 560 | 8.83
|
| 144 | Masham - Bedale | 21,848
| | |
| 73 | Richmond - Bedale Northallerton (Mon - Fri)
| 4,269 | 3,446 | 1.24
|
| 73 | Richmond - Bedale Northallerton (Mon-Fri)
| 30,451 | 4,915 | 6.20
|
| 24 | Harrogate - Pateley Bridge (Winter Sundays)
| 7,910 | 2,327 | 3.40
|
| 66A | Skipton - Grassington (Sundays)
| 14,886 | 27,784 | 0.54
|
| | |
| | |
| | 386,838
| 147,671 | 2.62
|
| | |
| | |
| X59 | Skipton - Harrogate (Mon - Sat)
| 92,871 | 54,450 | 1.71
|
| 142, 143, 779H, 778H | Ripon - York - Boroughbridge
| 213,117 | 32,498 | 6.56
|
| 131, 132, 134 | Ripon Town Service
| 41,883 | 60,307 | 0.69
|
| 23, 623H | Harrogate - Ripley, Markington - Bishop Thornton - Ripley - Harrogate
| 38,967 | 416 | 93.67
|
January 2011
|
