Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Bus Users UK

Summary

1. Current transport policies appear to adversely affect the accessibility of public services:

Centralised services mean better public transport is required but pressure on local authority transport budgets means that the opposite is happening.

Costs are increasing disproportionately in poorer areas.

2. Other policies are also affecting accessibility:

Transport links, cost and availability are often overlooked in the planning of new service locations which has significant impact on the ability to access services and jobs.

The adverse impact is worse for poorer communities.

3. The current approach of requiring accessibility of public transport does not appear to be working in practice:

Consideration does not seem to be reflected in implementation.

Budgetary and business constraints are overriding these needs in some cases.

The DfT could play a key role in ensuring the coordination of transport options in any area.

4. Transport-related accessibility of public services should be measured against clearly-defined criteria to ensure progress is made in a manner appropriate to the area’s resources and challenges:

Factoring for accessibility could be a measure of local authority efficiency along with other current measures.

Social and environmental concerns do not usually conflict with accessibility issues, the reverse is often the case.

An accessibility measure would be useful for policy-making.

5. Broadband and the internet will not remove the need for accessible public services in the foreseeable future:

Many people cannot use these methods.

Support for people to use the internet is generally available from services which can only be reached via accessible transport.

Response

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

1. As a result of the budget for local transport being decentralised and put under considerable pressure, in local authorities where bus services have been reduced, people find it harder and less desirable to visit town centre-based Council offices and services, GP surgeries, hospitals, educational establishments, community centres and so on. For those without immediate access to a car or the funds to pay for taxis, this can result in isolation, reduced access to democracy, social and health services and community activities, as well as a noticeable diminution in quality of life.

2. The impact on the most vulnerable members of the community, such as children, young people and elderly people is far greater than other households but there is a major knock-on effect on those trying to get to work and those trying to run small businesses reliant on passing trade or regular custom.

3. In addition, the costs of bus services can be prohibitive for people on low incomes or benefits to visit JobCentres or access any social services. In areas in which a high proportion of residents are on benefits and eligible for free travel, adult fares tend to rise to make up the difference. For example, in Brighton’s low-income Whitehawk district, it costs £2.20 each way to get into Brighton’s centre (a four-mile journey), meaning a couple will need to pay out £8.80 just to go into the centre and back.

4. These factors put the heaviest burden on the poorest communities, preventing many from using the services at all and resulting in bus operators closing or reducing the services on the grounds that they are unviable. This can also result in people eligible for free travel having no bus on which they could travel as it is not allowed for them to pay towards the service even if they wished to do so.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

5. The placement of new public offices and services do not always take into consideration the availability of transport links to ensure accessibility. Some have no links set up prior to the opening or relocation of public services but often no account is taken of the lack of coordination and joint ticketing between train, tram and bus services.

6. This can mean that, while a journey is possible in theory, it is impractical in terms of time or cost. This can result in those who are able to access to a car using it for that journey, impacting on the environment in terms of pollution and traffic congestion and also excluding those who do not have such access.

7. It also means that it becomes much harder for jobseekers to attend their required signing sessions and training, as well as making it difficult to get to interviews or commute to any job offered on time and at a reasonable cost, especially if a journey to a childcare facility also has to be factored in.

8. These are problems which have a significant adverse impact on the whole community but, again, the disadvantaged population suffers most.

Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?

9. It does not appear that the Government’s current approach is working in practice. While accessibility issues may be considered in local transport plans, the implementation seems not to be successful on a widespread basis, in particular in relation to bus services, the most commonly used form of public transport in the UK.

10. Local authorities and bus operators have budgetary and business constraints which may not mesh well with these priorities.

11. The Department for Transport may be well-placed to negotiate or require the coordination of all available transport services and timetabling with all concerned parties.

12. Incentives could be provided to reward transport operators to work in coordination with other types of transport services in the vicinity and subsidies for routes which are much-needed but unlikely to be viable. Penalties for lack of coordinating services could also be levied.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

13. Transport-related accessibility of public services should be measured on a longitudinal manner to ensure progress is made taking into account the numbers and demographics of the populations needing to be served, the services needing to be provided and the viability of the routes suggested.

14. Factoring for accessibility in rural or disadvantaged areas would help make for more tailored decision-making, in the same way that environmental and social factoring does now. It would play a key role in assessing the efficiency of public services in areas seen to be at risk of low accessibility.

15. Social and environmental concerns need not conflict with accessibility considerations, the reverse would usually be the case as poor environments and social conditions generally go hand in hand with low accessibility.

16. Accessibility definitions would need expert input, but we would expect to see the geographic and demographic aspects of an area taken into account, consultations with sample communities to test what they felt was reasonable and affordable and a measure of current accessibility given to each area and made public, agreeing targets for improvement and/or monitoring, engaging the public’s support in finding ways to improve local services.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services

17. It is commonly assumed that there may be a decreased requirement at some point in the future for public services to be accessible. However, older and more vulnerable people, people who cannot afford or understand technological possibilities, people with communication disabilities and people with literacy or language issues will always need the option of face-to-face contact in order to get what they need. Even if they are able to get support from community centres or libraries to access online information, they would still need to take public transport to access these facilities, which are increasingly available only in town centres.

18. With the current move towards centralising and combining most services for efficiency reasons, access to many services is already farther away than ever before. People will always need access to GPs, hospitals, dentists, schools, colleges and workplaces so it seems unlikely that there will be no need for public transport to access public services in the foreseeable future.

7 September 2012