Written evidence from Coastal Accessible
Transport Service Ltd (CATS) (BUS 50)
1. GENERAL
1.1 In common with many rural counties, the current
public bus transport network in Suffolk comprises fully viable,
partially subsidised and substantially subsidised services operated
by large national, medium and small localised private companies
and some 20 community transport operators (civil society organisations).
1.2 Coastal Accessible Transport Service Ltd
(CATS) is an Industrial & Provident Society (for community
benefit) based in rural coastal Suffolk and operating 11 vehicles
under Section 19 and Section 22 Permits as Community Transport.
In 2009-10 we delivered over 28,000 passenger journeys covering
some 186,000 miles. Passengers include those unable to access
scheduled transport through disability, frailty or rurality. Services
include the traditional community transport offer including Community
Car Service, Dial a Ride and Wheels within Wheels. These are now
supplemented with contract services for Adult Care Services, school
children (including those with special needs) and increasingly
the Demand Responsive Transport services for the general public
which are replacing scheduled services in rural Suffolk.
1.3 CATS is dependent on volunteer drivers for
the majority of its journeys but uses paid drivers for contracted
services. Some drive on both a voluntary and a paid basis on different
services. The voluntary Management Committee also includes our
drivers and the disabled'.
1.4 CATS considers that it has represented the
best of the "Big Society" since 1998
2. SUMMARY
2.1 We recognise the current requirement for
a reduction in public spending but consider a "silo"
approach to reduction in public transport support payments through
BSOG and local authority bus schemes and services risks the unintended
consequence of increasing the overall cost to the public purse.
2.2 Although community transport claims a relatively
small element of total BSOG payments, removal or reduction will
have a disproportionately large impact on its operators and passengers
for whom alternative transport eg cars, is not an option. We believe
that evaluation of the broader cost of this impact will identify
the true value of this element.
2.3 Reductions in local authority funding for
transport particularly in rural areas risks increasing costs for
other government departments including benefits for job seekers
and residential care for the elderly whilst limiting economic
development opportunities.
2.4 The current restriction of concessionary
fares to traditional bus services discriminates against those
for whom no such service is available. This includes rurally isolated
passengers as well as the disabled, frail or elderly.
2.5 Community transport activity is significantly
influenced by its passengers who are included as members and shareholders
3. REDUCTION
IN BUS
SERVICE OPERATORS'
GRANT
3.1 Much community transport activity is supported
by Suffolk County Council on a deficit funding basis giving no
facility for the development of reserves. Withdrawal of BSOG payments
from central government increases the call on the County Council's
already reducing transport budget. The overall effect is likely
to be the closure of many small rural community transport operators.
3.2 Although the numbers of passengers on community
and sponsored transport services are small compared to the total
number that use public transport, reduction or total withdrawal
of financial support including BSOG will mainly impact rural areas,
the elderly, local employees and employers, Job Seekers Allowance
claimants, students and those not in education or employment (NEETs).
This threatens residents' access to the conventional activities
of life whilst increasing the overall cost to the public purse.
Consider the following examples.
3.3 In her 80s, Pam values her independence.
Access to shops, medical appointments, social activities and her
church is only possible through community transport. She would
otherwise require more expensive residential care and would lose
the ability to choose how to manage her life and activities. This
also applies to our many passengers who access day care or other
support.
3.4 Robert, a wheelchair user, is employed by
a successful tourist hotel in a coastal town which has no public
transport access. Community transport enables Robert to reach
his workplace from his own rural home, contributing to the Treasury
through income tax and reducing his demands on Benefits budgets.
Community transport also provides the feeder service to the town
from the rail station eight miles distant enabling tourists and
residents to reduce car use and the associated carbon emissions,
increase the financial viability of local businesses, reduce unemployment
and retain permanent residents in what would otherwise become
second homes with their attendant disadvantages.
3.5 CATS works with some success with the local
Job Centre in providing training and voluntary driving placements
for JSA claimants, facilitating a return to employment although
not necessarily as drivers. We understand that York University
has estimated a cost of some £100,000 per person in terms
of rent, free school meals, child tax credits and other benefits
payments plus lost National Insurance and Income Tax.
3.6 We therefore request that the Committee considers
the broader impact on the public purse implicit in the above examples
against the relatively small cost of BSOG payments to community
transport.
4. REDUCTION
OF FUNDING
TO LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
4.1 Commercial network operators are already
streamlining both routes and frequency to maintain viable levels
of patronage. Proposed withdrawal of County Council subsidies
for scheduled services puts more provision at risk and increases
demand for community transport. However, much community transport
activity is supported by Suffolk County Council on a deficit funding
basis thus exacerbating the downward spiral.
4.2 Reductions in local authority capacity for
support for community transport threaten access to the conventional
activities of life for those individuals and communities least
able to access alternative transport. However examples of innovative
approaches and good practice within the community transport sector
are available from the Community Transport Association (UK) and
provide a basis for further mutually beneficial co-operation with
local authorities.
4.3 Together with the other communications components
including ICT, transport should be considered the "glue"
which holds local, regional and national communities together.
As demonstrated above, we believe that reduction in the support
for bus services, and in particular for community transport must
be seen in a wider context. The true impact on the public purse
is likely to be a significant increase in overall financial costs.
However the costs in human and economic terms, lost opportunities,
increased disconnection and disaffection cannot yet be calculated.
4.4 We recognise that this is outside the remit
of this Committee, but would urge the Committee to encourage a
review of the method of identifying "savings" across
Departments and funding streams (silos) in public spending to
ensure true efficiencies.
5. CONCESSIONARY
FARes
5.1 We believe that dial-a-ride and similar community
transport services should be eligible for off-peak concessionary
fare arrangements. These passengers are not able to use conventional
scheduled public transport and are therefore discriminated against
in having to pay for what would otherwise be free.
6. PASSENGER
INVOLVEMENT IN
BUS SERVICE
PLANNING
6.1 As an Industrial and Provident Society for
community benefit, our shareholders are the community and determine
our activities as well as electing the Management Committee.
6.2 The voluntary Management Committee include
CATS drivers and representatives of local community groups who
use the services.
6.3 Suffolk County Council undertook extensive
consultations before withdrawing scheduled services and introducing
Demand Responsive Transport. The services operated by CATS have
subsequently been moulded by passengers to meet their travel patterns.
After six years, the original service still demonstrates a random
pattern. The service in its second year quickly established a
regular pattern to meet peak flows with utterly random routing
in the intervals. After only 10 weeks, passengers on the latest
service have yet to settle.
January 2011
| 
