Written evidence from Norfolk County Council (TIC 064)

Norfolk is a largely rural county with significant gaps in its transport infrastructure that disproportionately affect older people, disabled people and those without access to private cars. 28% of Norfolk’s population is over pensionable age, compared to 19% nationally. There are approximately 180,000 disabled people living in Norfolk and 38% of households have an income of less than £20,000. Many rural parishes have between 10-15% of households without access to a car.

 

 


  1. To identify where additional transport services are needed a needs assessment is carried out. Our default tool is accessibility planning software (Accession), which used to identify rural areas that are unable to access key employment locations within 60 minutes by public transport. This is then combined with secondary data, such as car ownership, income, age of population, etc to identify areas at greatest risk of isolation. Currently (August 2013) over 26% of Norfolk’s rural population are unable to access a market town or key employment destination by public transport, Monday to Friday. The spatial extent of this is shown on the attached map.
  2. We also use customer insight from a range of stakeholders - members of the public, parish and town councils, elected members, businesses and local transport groups. Transport operators also have a wealth of experience when it comes to demand for public transport in the areas they operate, although this tends to focus on the key movements between villages and towns. Unmet demand can, in some cases, be identified by the presence of or demand for, thriving community transport schemes.
  3. Once the need for a transport service has been identified, consultation is carried out with members of the public, Parish councils, local transport groups, etc to refine the proposed solution. However, it is not always clear whether these parties represent the population as a whole.
  4. A key challenge lies in aligning what we understand people need / want (i.e. what the data tells us) with what people tell us they need / want and what people will actually use. These can be very different things and without careful consideration can result in the provision of services that are poorly used.
  5. Where existing (usually conventional) services are not well used they may be replaced with a demand responsive service, operating as a feeder service to market towns. Travel demand in relation to isolated communities is often considered in this way, i.e. where do people live and where do they want to get to. However, in Norfolk there are many isolated communities that may be “trip ends”. For example, small businesses in rural areas may not be well served by public transport. Similarly with a focus on feeder services from rural areas to market towns it can be difficult to get from the town itself to an employment site on the edge of town.

  1. The rural nature of much of Norfolk makes it difficult and unaffordable to provide scheduled, frequent public transport services. Commercial services are concentrated on a core network and the Council’s focus on this is ensuring the reliability and regularity of these services, a high standard of vehicles and that journey times between key settlements offer a ‘there and back in half a day’ service. Accessibility for all is also a key priority.
  2. Outside of the core network the Council works with operators to provide a subsidised network that serves towns and villages. This is to ensure a minimum level of off-peak access to local services, such as doctors, local shops, etc. In areas where it is not financially viable to provide a regular, scheduled service DRT and community transport options are included in the public transport mix, often providing feeder journeys that integrate with scheduled bus services or journeys that are not otherwise provided for in the public transport network but for which there is demand. Norfolk supports 150 contracts, of which seven operate as Demand Responsive Transport in very rural areas.
  3. In terms of addressing the needs of different groups there is significant engagement with various interest groups, for example RNIB, Norfolk Deaf Association, Norfolk Youth Parliament those with mobility or learning difficulties, etc. Much of this engagement tends to focus on trying to make the existing transport easier to use, for example through information provision, driver training, use of accessible vehicles, etc, rather than focusing on the design of the service. However, in the most isolated areas, where DRT tend to exist, some mobility problems are addressed by providing a service that picks people up from their house.
  4. In addition many community transport services operate, both within urban and rural areas, with fully accessible vehicles and drivers trained in giving full passenger assistance. There is a significant emphasis in Norfolk on engaging with the community transport sector and developing the services for all members of the public. More can still be done in broadening the availability and appeal of DRT and community transport services to make them a widely accepted part of the public transport offer. However, these services still tend to be viewed by many as services for older people and not something that a young person would use. This can be addressed by thinking about what a vehicle looks like, using attractive vehicle graphics and making through ticketing easy and simpler.
  5. We try to integrate school, college and worker journeys, with all users able to access a DRT service.  A limiting factor is the time that services are available, where evening services have less demand and make journey costs proportionally higher. We only provide funding to six evening contracts, out of 150 contracts – only 4% of the total. Other evening services operate commercially but these are not in rural areas. Feeder services tend to be to market towns, but mainly to the service centres, meaning some areas on edges of market towns are poorly served by public transport.
  6. Many small businesses are located in the countryside which makes access to them by public transport very difficult if not impossible.  This can be a limiting factor for people seeking work as car dependency becomes a factor in securing employment.

September 2013


  1. Rail - The main challenges associated with providing rail services to isolated communities centre around the fixed nature of rail lines, thereby limiting access to those communities along the route. For communities not on the route, or those with mobility issues, it can be difficult to make a journey to a rail station. However, it could be argued that rail is not designed to serve isolated communities and perhaps it should be discouraged from doing so. In allowing rail services to serve small communities, inter-urban journey times are increased leading to a less appealing service. Instead these communities should be encouraged to use bus services to feed into the main towns with rail for onward connections via rail.
  2. Bus – Most public transport vehicles are large, purpose built buses built for high volume operation; these are often not well-suited to serving isolated communities. Often smaller vehicles, which are better suited to rural transport provision, are more expensive due to the low volume of manufacture and similar running costs to larger vehicles. There are also issues of interoperability of routes / timetables with different sized vehicles being required at different times of the day.
  3. Demand responsive services – these mainly operate in the most rural areas, serving some of the most isolated communities. For this reason this type of service typically requires a higher subsidy per passenger than more conventional public transport services. For example, three of the most well-established demand responsive services operating in Norfolk cost nearly £10 per passenger per day (i.e. per two passenger trips), compared to a maximum value of £3 per passenger per day on supported Local Bus Services. However, the DRT services serve nearly 70 villages between them. The nature of this type of service also means it can be difficult to provide a consistent service as the service will respond to the journeys that are required on a particular day. Experience has shown that for some groups this is less favourable than a restricted timetabled service, partly due to having to plan and pre-book journeys well in advance of travel. Part of the challenge here lies with effectively communicating the service to the public; this is more difficult than with the mainstream network as the services are less visible and only operate when they are booked. There have been difficulties in getting information about DRT services onto journey planning websites such as Traveline, which are yet to be resolved.
  4. Current work to implement journey booking software across the county’s DRT and community transport services is intended to improve the customer’s experience and options available, particularly in isolated communities as journeys will be able to be booked with the most appropriate service provider for the journey in question.
  5. There is further need to improve information about interchange opportunities between different services / modes, including onward travel options. The cost of interchange should also be reduced so as not to unfairly impact on those who depend on feeder services. This could be achieved through the extension of multi-operator ticketing and smart ticketing. Similarly the principle of the PlusBus scheme could be extended outside larger urban areas to isolated communities and include DRT / CT services.
  6. Commercial operators of public transport chase the major revenue streams on corridors of high demand. This tends to be at the expense of isolated or difficult to serve areas, which are left to rely on services provided by the local council (if affordable) to plug the gaps. We currently subsidise 150 contracts at a cost of around £3 million. For example, the speed and advantage of this to users of services on two commercially operated corridors in Norfolk (Fakenham to Norwich and King’s Lynn to Norwich) means that villages slightly off the main route are not served as well. As a result we have feeder taxi services from five villages to these two routes.
  7. Isolated communities generally do not produce enough revenue to sustain services at any decent level that promotes usage and car ownership tends to be artificially higher to address this. For Local Bus Services we would typically expect at least 30% of the cost to be covered by revenue.

  1. Norfolk’s public transport strategy is to include DRT and community transport services as a key part of the public transport network. Community Transport services currently operate 12 local bus services in Norfolk and deliver over 400,000 passenger journeys per year; this is likely to increase.
  2. The County Council set up, and continues to fund, the Norfolk Community Transport Association as an umbrella body with the aim of building capacity and helping to develop the CT sector.
  3. Community transport does tend to be very direct in addressing local need but this is often at a higher cost than conventional services.  When considering the pure transport cost, this is often considered too high.  However, when balanced by the health, social and economic value of the trip, the overall investment from the public purse gets a high benefit cost ratio. Unfortunately, budgets are not thought through in this way so the transport budgets can become overstretched.
  4. Support for community transport remains strong in Norfolk, although this is not a position that can continue indefinitely. Some CT services are also threatened by the withdrawal of funding from other funders, which is why Norfolk County Council, has commissioned a development programme to CT schemes to broaden their approach to transport delivery. Current funding, over and above existing grant payments (currently around £330k per year), is being planned to deliver more sustainable investment, rather than simply funding more vehicles or providing bigger grants.
  5. Community Transport schemes often have the resource, but sometimes not the will or experience to tackle expanded/upgraded rural transport services. Up-skilling and capacity building is required to develop the third sector to adapt and do something different, or to change and challenge the status quo.
  6. Rural isolation and more sustainable services can be created, with investment in the right areas with the right people. This can only happen if you have the right people running Community Transport Schemes, people that have both the social and financial awareness needed to deal with these issues effectively.
  7. In terms of more effective CT and improvements:

 

  1. Taxis and DRT are a genuine transport option and should be considered a fundamental part of the transport network in isolated communities.
  2. A network of scheduled services is not affordable and is not the answer in rural areas / isolated communities where the levels of demand are low.
  3. The challenge is for taxis and DRT to provide part of the journey and not the full length (i.e. provide links to towns / locations where other services can be picked up) and not duplicate a scheduled bus/rail service. We currently directly fund around nine rural taxi feeder services, which meet with bus services on a main road or at an interchange point.
  4. However, if people have to pay full taxi fares to get them about, it will put people off transport in general and is a barrier to certain people wanting to locate in villages and those that can, will invest in a car.
  5. Some CT services still operate under section 19 licences, which can restrict the type of service they can offer.
  6. Concessionary pass holders may not be able to use their passes in rural areas – can they afford to pay for transport? If not are there knock on effects for other services, e.g. health if people cannot afford to attend regular doctors appointments, socialise, etc. and rural residents are penalised through transport poverty.

 

 


  1. Generally, use of smaller vehicles creates a fairly low capacity in terms of the number of people that can be carried and therefore the maximum level of income that could be generated to cover the cost of provision.
  2. Isolated communities are generally spread over a wide geographical area resulting in high mileage, lengthy journey times, reduced opportunity to carry passengers and high driver time costs.
  3. Community based schemes tend to cover small geographic areas at a local level.  If there are no willing volunteers it can mean a village or community will not have a local based transport service.  Joining with neighbouring schemes could extend provision and reduce the need for volunteers and reduce costs.
  4. Could communities come together and identify their genuine travel needs and approach local taxi / bus / DRT firms to arrange their transport and agree costs, etc?