Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Little Green Bus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A—The Current Transport Act does not include Community Transport as a statutory service. In a political and economic climate where austerity measures have resulted in cuts in funding “across the board”, in June 2011 Lancashire County Council removed the use of the NoW Card on community transport services. This resulted in the most needy and vulnerable members of the community in the Ribble Valley having to pay to access vital services each week. Had Lancashire County Council had their way this would have cost individuals £8 to £10 per week. Little Green Bus provides door-to-door services for these individuals and even though the equality impact assessment carried out by LCC showed that a negative effect would result from the above decision, the county council still went ahead with it. If the Transport Act were to include Community Transport, then everybody over age 62? would get free transport, not just those that are mobile enough to access the public bus stops/public transport. Eligibility criteria for patient transport has also changed making it virtually impossible for many individuals to access transport to medical appointments.

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

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

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

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

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

A—Not enough consideration is given to the environmental impact of building and planning public services. Eg the new Royal Blackburn Hospital has necessitated more people travelling much further to access medical services. The situation of the hospital also causes major backlogs in traffic at certain times of the day in an area that was already overcrowded with traffic. The environmental impact of such a situation is immense yet does not appear to have been considered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A—The Ribble Valley experiences problems with quality and speed of broadband links. Together with an elderly population, some of whom either cannot or will not use IT this does not lessen the need for transport infrastructure to access public services. Elderly people need social interaction to keep them physically and mentally fit. The use of IT for everything would render some of them “prisoners in their own homes” with no social stimulation.

4 September 2012