Hampshire County Council

Environment and Transportation Select Committee

The effectiveness of passenger transport services in meeting community needs in Hampshire.

Report of the scrutiny review group

31 March 2008

Table of Contents

Section Page

Foreword 4

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 6

Terms of Reference 7

Review Organisation 8

Background: 9

- National context

- Regional context

- Hampshire context

Findings of the Review:

- Value for money for expenditure on subsidised passenger 11

transport services

- Progress being made to identify and deal with gaps in 18

passenger transport services

- How to achieve more effective use of passenger transport 30

services

Conclusions 33

Recommendations 33

Glossary 34

Appendices: 35

Appendix One: Background documents

Appendix Two: Those contributing to the review

Appendix Three: Oral evidence sessions programmes

Appendix Four: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire

Appendix Five: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire respondents

Appendix Six: Accessibility pilots

Appendix Seven: Rural pilots in Hampshire

Appendix Eight: Feedback from Transport Forums

Further information regarding this report can be obtained from:

Lead Review Officer: Philippa Smart, Scrutiny Officer

Tel. 01962 847336

e-mail: philippa.smart@hants.gov.uk

Reports that have been submitted to Council can be downloaded from: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/environment-transportation/transport_review.htm

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES IN MEETING COMMUNITY NEEDS

SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

January 2008

Foreword

By Councillor Peter Hutcheson.

Chairman, Transport in the community scrutiny review group.

The influences that prompted the choice of topic for this scrutiny review lay in local public frustration with multiple providers of passenger transport, with gaps in information about what public transport is available, particularly in rural areas, and a perception that transport that is available in the community could be so much more efficient and effective if it was better co-ordinated.

While the work of the review group has encountered examples of the above weaknesses, it has also received evidence of progress to rectify them.

It is tempting to imagine that there is an easy, county wide solution to passenger transport issues across Hampshire. After lengthy consideration, it is the review group's belief that many answers lie in local solutions in local areas; what needs to happen on a county wide basis is the setting of the right frameworks and policy direction, such as the Hampshire Accessibility strategy and the mechanism for subsidising buses, the promotion of clarity about the roles and functions of the different transport forums where organisations and groups with an interest in transport in the community work on issues together, and the engagement with key, county wide partners.

The review group has found much to commend in relation to the current commissioning and provision of transport in the community and partnership working. Where it has identified areas for improvement, it has outlined constructive county wide recommendations, trusting that these will build on work in progress as well as extending that work into new areas.

I am most grateful for the interest and commitment of the review group, and for the research and recording of evidence undertaken by the scrutiny officer.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT IN MEETING COMMUNITY NEEDS

SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1. 1 At the January 2007 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Select

Committee, the effectiveness of passenger transport services in meeting community needs in Hampshire was adopted as a subject for scrutiny review.

1.2 The background to the review was a decision in full council in 2006 that Members and officers would establish a working group to look at ways of improving the availability of usage of community transport services. This topic was prompted by Member concerns that reflected public dissatisfaction with accessing services, and poor customer focus. In addition, two studies by voluntary and community sector organisations in Hampshire had identified issues of concern to older people in Eastleigh Southern Parishes, and to older people in Hamble le Rice when accessing hospital care.

1.3 A Member/officer group met during 2006, and agreed that, given the nature of transport issues for people in the community, the topic should be expanded to include a wider range of transport. Coinciding with that decision was the emergence of local government focused overview and scrutiny committees in Hampshire, and the identification of suitable topics for scrutiny by the new committees. The initial choice of scrutiny topics by the Environment and Transportation Select Committee, formerly known as a Policy Review Committee, was confirmed at the January 2007 meeting, and included Transport in the Community. A cross party scrutiny review group was set up, and held its first meeting in March 2007.

1.4 Earlier Best Value and Audit Commission reports in 2000 / 2001 on passenger transport issues in Hampshire had rated Hampshire Passenger Transport as providing Good Service with promising prospects for improvement. The Audit Commission report commented on areas for improvement, such as ensuring the delivery of cost efficiency improvements, market testing to identify other service providers, and developing a comprehensive monitoring service for all Passenger Transport. An action plan to secure the necessary improvements was put in place and performance monitoring within the Environment Department in 2007 reported that most of the recommendations had been implemented or, in some cases, were in the process of being implemented.

1.5 The Hampshire County Council (HCC) Environment Department includes transport options within one of four departmental improvement priority outcomes:

`Access and mobility is enhanced - services should be accessible to all. This can be achieved by considering carefully the locations of service delivery; reducing the need to access services in person (e.g. on-line services); and by improving transport options and maintaining the infrastructure. It is important to engage the community - particularly those hard to reach - to ensure the Department does not intentionally exclude anyone.' HCC Environment Department Plan 2007 - 2011

1.6 The Hampshire Local Area Agreement (LAA), prepared by the LAA Executive in 2006, included within its list of eight priority Action Areas the improvement of the co-ordination of transport and access to services across the county. Related objectives were:

- increase the range of services that are accessible

- remove non transport barriers to access by improving the design and delivery

of services and facilities

- improve information about accessing services and facilities

- improve transport by smarter use of existing services and pooling vehicles

- pilot studies to be undertaken

The review group noted the difficulty there had been in securing data to evidence the targets by within the county wide performance management of the LAA transport target.

Since the review completed its evidence gathering, progress on effecting the transition to the new style Hampshire LAA has been made, and this is affecting the transport element. The new LAA has a much broader remit than previously and encompasses most aspects of public sector and voluntary sector activities within Hampshire. LAAs are linked to the new National Indicator Set, which covers all the national priorities which local authorities are responsible for delivering either on their own or in partnership. Local partners can also agree additional local targets to support improved local delivery and outcomes. Ten Transport targets are included in the NIS and, in line with national guidance, the Hampshire LAA transport action lead has been consulting on the relative importance of the new transport indicators in order to identify, with partners, which of the ten are key, and what local indicators there could be. In addition, other new changes such Multi Area Agreements can incorporate Transport as a priority. The timescale for completing the consultation on the Hampshire Transport indicators was the end of January 2008; these indicators are then subject to negotiation between HCC and Government Office of the South East at the end of March. The national timescale for completing LAAs and Multi Area Agreements is June 2008.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 Purpose:

The aim of the review was to assess the effectiveness of passenger transport services in Hampshire in meeting community needs, and to make recommendations for improvement.

2.2 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

· What value for money is Hampshire getting for its expenditure on subsidised services ?

· What progress is being made by Hampshire County Council and partners in identifying and dealing with gaps in passenger transport services in respect of their ability to meet community needs ?

· What could be done to achieve more effective use of passenger transport services in Hampshire ?

2.2 While the review group understood that the term `transport' encompassed a very wide range of transport modes, for the purposes of the review the main modes considered were those used most commonly by fare and non fare paying adult passengers, namely bus, community and demand responsive transport, and to a lesser extent, rail, and transport for health and social care.

2.3 For the purposes of the review, `community need' was taken to refer to the needs of the general public in relation to being able to travel to destinations to undertake key aspects of life, such as employment, education and training, healthcare, and shopping and leisure.

3. Review Organisation

Cllr. Peter Hutcheson agreed to lead the scrutiny review group. The full membership was:

· Adam Carew (Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford)

· Nigel Clarke (Ringwood)

· Geoff Hockley (Fareham Titchfield)

· Peter Hutcheson (Church Crookham and Ewshot) - Chairman

· Jo Kelly (Basingstoke Central)

· Sam Payne (Petersfield Butser)

· Sharyn Wheale (Fleet)

3.2 The review group held its first meeting on 13 March, 2007, where it agreed

the project plan for the review, received initial background information and

began work on identifying key stakeholders.

3.3 In its preliminary meetings, the review group considered background research reports highlighting policy and practice issues relating to the three key areas to be explored, in order to understand the context in which the situation in Hampshire could be understood. A list of background papers is attached at Appendix One.

3.4 The evidence gathering for the review, was carried out in the style of a select committee, which included acquiring evidence through:

· invitations to a wide range of stakeholders to contribute written views

· two meetings of the review group held in public to receive oral evidence from invited witnesses

A full list of those who have contributed to this process, as well as the programmes for the oral evidence sessions are shown in Appendix Two and Three.

In addition, the review group wished to hear the views of groups and agencies within one area of Hampshire in order to listen more closely to what local voices had to say about the county-wide questions. A questionnaire was sent to a wide range of stakeholders in Basingstoke and Deane district inviting people to contribute their views on aspects of the review. A copy of the questionnaire and a list of the respondents is attached as Appendices Four and Five.

The review group are grateful for the time and consideration given by groups and individuals from Basingstoke and Deane who contributed to the review in this way, and to the HAT co-ordinator and others who assisted with the identification of contacts.

Due to prioritisation of another transport related review, this review was

placed on hold for three months between November 2007 and February 2008.

Information about the review, including evidence received, was made available to the public on the Hampshire County Council review webpage -

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-commitees/environment-transportation/transport_review.htm

4 Background

4.1 National context

4.1.1 The review took place within the context of what has been described by the director of the Greater London Group research centre at the London School of Economics as decades of under investment by successive governments in national transport, including road and rail. The consequences of this include -

- congestion

- the need for investment in elderly assets

- the need to influence public behaviour and attitudes

- the increasing role of private provision of public services

- the importance of the governance arrangements for local transport

In the view of the Local Government Association (LGA) there is undoubtedly some excellent transport policy practice by UK local authorities that compares with the best in Europe.

`The concern is that these are the result of individual initiatives to overcome difficult challenges, and there is not a systematic structure that drives policy in the direction of best practice'. Breaking the Gridlock. LGA 2007

4.1.2 Because of the national context, the emphasis on delivering improvements in transport has become focused at the local level. Local innovation is encouraged through various means; one is sourcing pump priming money, such as through the local government Innovation Forum transport pilots, to incentivise innovative local transport strategies. Another major mechanism is the Local Transport Bill 2007 - 08, aimed at strengthening local delivery by a variety of mechanisms, such as replacing the blanket national reporting through the Local Transport Plan with targets identified by local partners, reforming the existing legislation relating to local road pricing schemes, and enabling local authorities to improve the quality of local bus services.

4.2 Regional context

4.2.1 The South East Plan sets out a vision for the future of the South East Region to 2026. The Plan outlines how the region needs to respond to challenges such as housing, the economy, transport and protecting the environment. The Regional Transport Plan provides the context within which Hampshire, as the local transport authority, produces the county's Local Transport Plan (LTP).

4.2.2 Key regional transport policies include:

- managing the transport system to make the best use of capacity, combined with increased investment, especially in public transport, cycling and pedestrian access

- investing in communications technology to increase access to goods and services without the physical need to travel

- adopting stronger parking policies, but linked to a programme of access improvements

- taking a co-ordinated approach to encouraging community based transport in rural areas of need

- developing innovative and adaptable approaches to public transport in rural areas that reflect the particular and longer term social and economic characteristics of the region

4.3 Hampshire context

4.3.1 Hampshire's Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011 sets out the County Council's transport strategy for that five year period. The overall vision is of a strategy that:

`Enhances quality of life and economic prosperity by connecting people, communities, employment, goods, services and amenities'. LTP para 1.5

The main objectives of the LTP are:

- to increase accessibility

- to promote safety

- to reduce the impact of congestion

- to widen travel choice

- to improve air quality

- to support wider quality of life objectives

- to encourage value for money and efficient asset management

`At the heart of the strategy is the need to improve accessibility in its widest sense'. LTP para 1.7

The long term strategy is to reduce the number of journeys made, and the average length of journeys where this does not have disproportionate effects on quality of life or the economy, manage the existing transport networks effectively, and invest in additional capacity, where this is shown to be essential.

`It is clear that transport problems will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Increasing car ownership and use will cause more congestion, which will in turn lead to a reduced quality of life'.

`At the same time, problems of poor accessibility could increase for some communities and some groups of people....Increasing bus costs and uncertainty over government revenue funding for bus support is undermining the County Council's ability to improve public transport in areas of relatively low population'.

`As funds are limited, priority will be given to measures that deal with the most severe problems and/or benefit the greatest number of people, with particular weighting applied to disadvantaged groups'. LTP. Chp 1. Executive Summary.

4.3.2 Within Hampshire County Council, the Passenger Transport Group (PTG) section of the Environment Department has the leading role in delivering the passenger transport vision for Hampshire.

4.3.3 Within the voluntary and community sector, many passenger journeys are delivered by non profit making organisations without any direct public subsidy. One Community in Eastleigh referred in its evidence to a Dial a Ride service to Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury's for over a decade without such support.

5. Findings of the review group

5.1 Value for money for expenditure on subsidised passenger transport services.

5.1.1 The review posed the question `what value for money is Hampshire County Council getting for its expenditure on subsidised services?'

5.1.2 Figures provided by the PTG for spend in 2006/07 on subsidised transport were as follows:

a) Total spend on local bus contracts 8,423,500

Funding sources:

o PTG budget

o Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

o District/Parish Councils

o Cross boundary income

o Developers contributions

o Bus Challenge Funding

o Other HCC Department funding

o Other funding sources (New Forest National

Park Authority)

b) Total spend on non conventional transport 910,400

Funding sources:

o PTG budget

o District and Parish Councils

o Other funding sources (South East England Development Agency)

5.1.3 Aspects of value for money looked at in the review were:

· how robust is the process of achieving value for money ?

· how do the commissioning processes (tendering, contracting, service level agreement and grant making) assure value for money ?

· do arrangements for performance managing subsidised transport ensure sufficiently thorough oversight of value over time?

· how does public opinion feed into service monitoring and review ?

5.1.4 This aspect of the review was considered using evidence largely from county council sources and not from other stakeholders. It was the view of the review group members that parties external to the organisation would be unlikely to be in a position to contribute relevant information to the first three aspects. To test out the degree to which the public contributes to service monitoring and review, however, a question of this nature was included in the Basingstoke and Deane survey. Also, in the course of stakeholders responding to the other two areas of the review, several also included information and views about value for money matters, and these have been considered by the review group, and included within this report where relevant.

Robustness of the process for achieving value for money

5.1.5 The review group heard from officers how the Passenger Transport Group (PTG) is looking regularly at how to make their funds go further, given the constant financial pressures they are under. With regard to bus subsidies, for example, they seek new ways of funding bus services such as using contributions made by developers towards local transport, working with district councils and by entering Government funding competitions such as the Rural Bus Challenge.

`Developer funding has successfully been used to fund new passenger transport infrastructure and to provide new bus services. Government Challenge Funds have lead to the introduction of the award winning Cango services, whilst Kickstart funding has provided new buses and more frequent services in Aldershot, Farnborough and Yateley.' PTG, Environment Department, HCC.

5.1.6 Officers included in their evidence that the 2006 HCC internal Audit of the PTG concluded that there was an appropriate framework of control in place to ensure that budgets are set effectively and monitored throughout the year. No value for money opportunities were identified during that review.

5.1.7 Value for money on subsidised conventional bus services is usually measured by subsidy paid per passenger journey. A benchmark of £2.50 was adopted in 1986 and generally the support for each conventional bus service in Hampshire is encouraged not to exceed this. The PTG had recognised in 2006 that this mechanism was in need of review, and had referred the matter to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee. Elected Members had scrutinised a number of options for new bus subsidy criteria, and passed their recommendations to the Executive Member of the Environment in January 2007. These recommendations had not been acted on at that time, nor during the period of this Transport scrutiny review. Nevertheless, the evidence from the PTG suggested that work was `still progressing on this'. Given the time that has lapsed since the issues was first recognised, the scrutiny review group would have wished to see this work completed by the time the review was carried out.

An important dimension of value for money brought to the review groups attention unconnected to the HCC process outlined above was the potential within the non statutory sector to lever funding from other sources through partnership working.

`A recent example of such an activity was a joint bid by HCC, Community First New Forest and Test Valley CVS to the Big Lottery to secure funds to extend the Wheels 2 Work (Moped Loan Scheme for young people)'. Community First New Forest.

Further reference is made to this aspect of partnership working in the following paragraphs.

How commissioning processes assure value for money

5.1.8 In relation to subsidised conventional buses the review was provided with evidence about tendering and contracting; with regard to the non statutory sector, evidence related to service level agreements and grants. The review has chosen to highlight the following aspects:

Tendering

a) an important aspect of value for money in conventional bus services is the lack of competition for most public bus contracts. Generally, competitive tenders for bus contracts are limited to south east Hampshire, between Southampton and Havant, and parts of north east Hampshire. Tendering in this context cannot be a tool for social inclusion nor for influencing modal shift in transport choices.

`In many parts of the county, it is only the threat of competition, not actual competition, which keeps tender prices down'. PTG, Environment Department, HCC.

It was said that this situation reflected the nature of the market; although any coach operator could potentially also operate bus services, most prefer not to. The review is uncertain as to the evidence base for the impact of the threat of competition.

One way that the PTG was seeking to attract new contenders for contract work was to consider offering smaller tender areas; it had also intervened in the market through the pilot provision of new yellow school buses in Basingstoke.

b) the review group looked at the HCC conventional bus tender document,

as well as that of another county council, and considered that the tendering process and documentation could play a stronger role in assuring value for money in Hampshire. The group sees merits in the practice of a passenger transport contract tender list, which would involve a pre-qualification questionnaire assessment of fitness to operate contracts on behalf of the county council. The questions asked of prospective transport providers would elicit information about such matters as financial viability, compliance with equal opportunities issues including race relations, details of operating licences and vehicles, health and safety etc.

c) during the course of the review, the group became aware of how preparations were being made to introduce competitive tendering with the voluntary and community sector transport providers in order for the County Council to be compliant with EU competition law.

Concern was expressed by more than one provider that `value' would be eroded through the changes both directly and indirectly. Rushmoor Voluntary Services, for example, feared that costs would increase as a result and One Community in Eastleigh referred to its non subsidised services being `jeopardised' by the changes.

`The current consultation on competitive tendering for Dial a Ride and Community Transport Services has highlighted the risks of bringing commercial competition into these community based services. This threatens the added value generated by local fundraising and volunteer support for local voluntary car and minibus schemes. It also poses a threat to the existing DAR and CT operators, largely CVSs such as WACA, who are able to run an integrated service involving Dial a Ride, Community Transport, Shopmobility, Winchester Voluntary car scheme, and now taking on Bikeabout scheme in Winchester. Splitting up the operation for tender purposes risks the continuing viability of this co-ordinated appoach'. Winchester Area Community Action (WACA).

Contracting and purchasing

a) The review heard how contracts for conventional bus services normally run for four years, although the permitted maximum is five years. If required, contracts can be revised or terminated with two months notice.

Evidence from PTG officers described how Hampshire, while being the

third largest county in England from the point of view of population, ranks

twentieth out of all thirty four counties in the amount of spend on

subsidies to local buses. Evidence from Surrey, in comparison, gave that

county's ranking as second.

Consideration was given to the scope for obtaining greater value for

money from bus subsidies in terms of reducing the size of vehicles.

Arrangements for performance managing and oversight of value for money

a) Arrangements with regard to subsidised conventional buses centre round the four yearly renewal process which follow on a thorough review of the services supported. These reviews take account of:

· Changes in the availability of funding, such as the expiry of developer' contributions

· Usage of each supported journey within each contract

· Value for money of each contract in terms of subsidy per passenger

· Opportunities to improve Value for Money by deleting little used journeys

· Changes in the market place, such as the gradual rise in Sunday shopping

· Suggestions for changes to services which have been received, but not implemented, since the last tender renewal

`Parish and District Councils are consulted at the start of the process, which takes about six months in total. Regular dialogue is held through Quality Bus Partnership meetings (with operators, district and neighbouring authorities), meetings with parish transport representatives and local transport forums to ensure that the services provided meet local needs and aspirations.' PTG, Environment Department, HCC.

In addition to the four yearly cycle of bus retendering, the review group identified times of financial cutbacks as another key time when local area review processes should swing into action to provide oversight of value for money.

Changes to commercial services also give opportunities to review tendered services during the life of the contract.

As an example of the above processes in action, the Hart and Rushmoor Hampshire Action Team (HAT) expressed some concerns in their evidence that some of the bus services in their HAT area were no longer classed as value for money and would not continue to be subsidised, with the likelihood that they will be withdrawn. The HAT also had concerns that the possible replacement of these routes by Call and Go would result in less frequent services, people waiting longer, and buses not running at desirable times.

Performance monitoring arrangements between contract renewals include monitoring of passenger figures and cost data, and on-bus surveys carried out by HCC staff. An additional area for performance management could be size of vehicles in relation to area served.

b) Arrangements with regard to subsidised non conventional transport were described as centring round the monitoring of service level agreements and the renewal of grants.

The reviews of services between funders and operators were referred to as offering opportunities to discuss best use of resources and future needs.

While it was not clear at the time how the competitive tendering changes would impact on the performance management of value for money, for the purposes of the review, the focus remained on the arrangements still in place.

c) In addition to commissioner monitoring, transport providers themselves

provided evidence to the review of their own contribution to value for money through their estimations of where improvements could be made. Yateley's YELABUS Association referred to `local solutions to local problems' as being more cost effective. Suggestions included:

o the more imaginative use of all resources in a coherent system

o the use and extension of group hire methods for batching journeys

o the use of taxis and Voluntary Car Schemes (VCS) for short, low patronage trips

A perceived barrier to pursuing these strategies as widely as possible was lack of staff resources within the PTG group.

How public opinion feeds into service monitoring and review

5.1.9 Evidence from the PTG described the following as means by which they have sought to connect public opinion into subsidised services monitoring and review:

- volunteer public transport representatives in parishes

- use of public opinion surveys carried out in connection with Best Value Performance Indicator monitoring

- stakeholder involvement in the passenger transport area review process

- Transport Forums

- comments from the public encouraged through the PTG website and local publications

5.1.10 Evidence from Basingstoke and Deane respondents provided other information about this aspect of the review:

- Community Transport users on a Community Transport provider Board (Basingstoke Dial a Ride)

- mechanisms through the parish council such as village design statements and newsletters (Baughurst Parish Council, Steventon Village)

- feedback from existing transport service users and their families (Basingstoke Dial a Ride, and Basingstoke Neighbourcare, Grange Nursing Home)

- survey of non users of a service (Basingstoke Dial a Ride)

5.1.11 While the review group is encouraged by this range of methods for contributing to the achievement of value for money, it was concerned about some of the less positive views expressed by other Basingstoke and Deane respondents who talked about:

`This is the first time we have been approached to voice our opinions'. Applewood Care Home

` There is no direct approach to groups from the council'. Basingstoke Group. Civil Service Pensioners Alliance

`This residential neighbourhood is very close to Basingstoke town centre. This review is the first time we have been asked to give any input on public transport to my knowledge'. Eastrop Central Residents Association

`There is widespread concern in Whitchurch that there is NO consultation'. Member of the public

5.1 Progress being made to identify and deal with gaps in passenger transport

services.

5.1.9 The review group posed the question `what progress is being made by Hampshire County Council and partners in identifying and dealing with gaps in passenger transport services in respect of their ability to meet community needs ?'

5.1.10 Aspects of progress looked at included:

· how well established is the process for assessing community needs ?

· what is the current level of knowledge about the gap between identified need and current provision in relating to meeting community needs such as a) healthcare

b) employment

c) education and training

d) shopping and leisure

· what partnership working is taking place in relation to responding to gaps, particularly when these are cross boundary ?

· are there particular population groups, whether by age or disability, or economic groupings, such as job seekers and young people in training, for whom addressing gaps is problematic ?

The process for assessing community needs

5.1.11 From written and oral evidence received, the review learned that there are a number of different ways in which the needs of the community are assessed, as well as parties who might initiate or contribute to this. These included:

· Accessibility audit and planning

· Area Reviews

· Local pilots

· Local Strategic Partnerships

· Community Transport needs

· Individual Community Transport operators

· Parish and market town healthchecks

· District Councils

· Local Transport Forums

Given the county wide focus of the review, the review members have confined their comments to the following:

Accessibility audit and planning

Evidence from HCC Passenger Transport Group mentioned the thorough analysis of accessibility to four key aspects of peoples' lives, referred to in paragraph 5.2.2, made during the preparation of the 2006-2011 LTP. The review was provided with information about the percentage of households in Hampshire able to access key services by walking and public transport. These results came from the implementation of the initial stage of the HCC five year Accessibility strategy, based on the application of the national, Accession software.

From the strategy itself, the initial outputs from the use of Accession were described as showing clear trends:

· Fewer problems in the urban parts of the county in relation to accessing facilities such as doctors' surgeries and schools. The main problem related to further education, major retail centres and larger hospitals

· Some of the smaller settlements can have related accessibility problems in more than one service area, for example further education and hospital

· Rural areas generally have more problems than urban areas, with both local and sub regional facilities. This is particularly noticeable in the New Forest, some areas of Basingstoke, East Hants, Test Valley, and Winchester districts.

It was anticipated that additional needs assessments would need to be carried out in some areas, using such mechanisms as -

- population profile and travel need

- assessment of travel choice

- inventory of local facilities

- setting up of local steering groups

- resident surveys

- community street audits

- assessment of the built environment

A prioritised programme for producing access plans, tailored to every location, was drafted, going beyond transport provision, to encompass location, design and delivery of services. The aim was to complete all plans by 2008/09, top priority being given to:

`- those locations and/or groups suffering the multiple disadvantage of having poor local facilities, assessed according to the needs of the local population and limited travel choice' HCC Local Transport Plan, para. 5.63, p.161

Area Reviews

Area reviews have been the way transport needs of communities have been considered at district level since 2006. Hampshire county council officers described how the Reviews had replaced an earlier case by case approach of weighing up whether to subsidise services to meet particular needs as they arise, not uncommonly through the withdrawal of a route, or part of a route, run commercially by a bus operator.

` To reflect changing travel patterns and demand for services, Hampshire County Council has undertaken a series of district by district passenger transport reviews across the county designed to help provide passenger transport services which best match the changing needs of residents, visitors and the business community whilst at the same time ensuring that where funding is needed, this is affordable within the context of available budget provision'. PTG, Environment Department,. HCC

The cycle of reviews to cover all districts was still underway, and expected to be completed in 2008, the timing of each review being linked to the bus retendering process.

The review explored the strengths and challenge points of the area review process. Strengths included:

· it is a way in which conventional and non conventional bus services can be considered

· it is inclusive in terms of seeking to involve a range of local partners

· review outcomes can be the basis for future decision making when, for example, pressures on the transport budget require difficult local decisions about the continuation of services

Challenges identified by the review group include:

· the link to bus retendering places a particular emphasis in the review on buses, possibly at the expense of other transport modes

· the length of time the completion of the full cycle of reviews across all districts has taken

· rail operators and Health transport staff are not routinely involved

· there is lack of clarity in at least one district about the extent to which the review involves local stakeholders in making decisions, and this perspective was shared by a Community Transport provider:

` There needs to be a co-ordinated system to look at gaps and solutions to fill them across all sectors of transport activity'. One Community, Eastleigh.

· lack of clarity about the different functions in any locality of a Transport Forum and a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) Transport group, and the relationship between these, sometimes other local transport groups, and an Area Review

` The Hart LSP stakeholders are identifying transport problems but there is no active working group solving them. Both District and County say they do not have the resources to work on developing a coherent transport strategy for Hart'. The YELABUS Association, Yateley.

· How the district approach to needs assessment will be turned into a county wide perspective for the identification of issues that potentially require a strategic, county wide response

` In short, there is no clear single mechanism for strategic planning that enables community transport to have the links at locality level bridged to county planning for all partners'. Community First, New Forest

· the extent to which the public understands the process so that they can influence it, if they so choose

` How may we comment on `'the process for assessing community needs'' when the process itself is far from transparent, as exemplified by the latest (bus subsidy cuts) announcement ?' Fareham and Gosport Patient Network

` It appears, therefore, that the process for assessing community needs and knowledge of the gap between identified need and current provision is not well established, as far as we are aware'. Lindford Parish Council

Ideas for improvement were forthcoming from a number of contributors to the review:

- more District Council involvement

- greater involvement with commercial companies

- engagement of Health as a partner

- reconsideration of whether the Area Review boundaries are still appropriate

- creating a county wide, strategic overview of transport need

Comment

The review group recognises that the Area Review process for assessing local transport needs is well established, although perhaps not as well understood as it might be, and will have been completed across the County sometime in 2008. However, there is room for review of the process, to ensure that it is still the most appropriate model, and undertaken at the most appropriate level, to suit the varieties of populations in the county. The development of the transport element in Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) might indicate that there is no longer a one size fits all model for needs assessment, in which case, there needs to be clarity about what the new mixed model is to be.

Pilots

In addition to the county wide Area Review process, Hampshire County Council has initiated the assessment of needs through a series of pilots, see Appendix Six. As part of the LTP, four pilots, known as Accessibility pilots, were identified in 2006:

- access to Winchester hospital from Andover

- access to a wide range of services from Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford

- access to rural healthcare in the New Forest

- access to rural post offices in Basingstoke and Deane

At the time of the review, the first three of the four pilots were underway, although there were plans to make the second part of a broader research project to identify access improvements; the Basingstoke and Deane one was still in the preparatory stage, the latter delayed due to resource issues and discussions about amending the focus.

Emerging trends from the first two accessibility pilots suggested that there are accessibility problems for a small section of the community.

`Based on evidence from the two pilots, it seems likely that around 5-10% of residents in rural areas do not have a car and also have poor public transport accessibility to some services'. LAA Priority C Lead, HCC.

In parallel with the Accessibility pilots, the County Council was also developing plans for five rural transport pilots -

`The approach recognises the challenges which the authority faces in improving access in the more rural areas of Hampshire and that a `one size fits all' approach will not be the answer in the future' PTG, Environment Department, HCC

The rural pilots, described in Appendix Seven, largely provide opportunities for testing out solutions, such as better information and the extension of the Wheels to Work scheme, to needs already identified, such as people without cars living in rural areas, and younger adults accessing employment. Inevitably, in their implementation and evaluation there would be clear opportunities for confirming and updating knowledge about the particular needs that the pilots each address, as well as the possibility of identifying new ones.

Since the last meeting of the review group, HCC has been successful in acquiring funding for the pilots from the Local Government Association Innovation Forum.

Comments

1.While each pilot, Accessibility and Rural, appears well thought out and

purposeful, there is concern within the review group about the delay in the

start dates for the outstanding Accessibility pilots, given that more than a

year had gone by since they were identified

2. The review group believed that each pilot had clear outcomes, but were not

assured that there was a cycle for progress and interim outcome

reporting to ensure that local people, including councillors in District, Town

and Parish Councils, knew what was happening. With regard to final

outcomes, it is important that these are shared, even if there are difficult

decisions to be made about what improvements, if any, can be put in place

3. The review group understands that the need to access new funding has

become a driving force behind the series of transport pilots it heard about

during the course of the review. At the same time, however, given an

acknowledgement by the Head of the PTG of the need for progress on

achieving consistency across those pilots, the group would like to see

greater clarity about how the various strands of work achieve a strategic

impact across the county

Transport Forums

Members of the review group arranged to attend meetings of each Transport

Forum to share information about progress with the review, and to ask for

the Forum members' views about different aspects of the scrutiny.

Transport Forums are in place in most of Hampshire, in the following areas:

o East Hampshire

o New Forest

o Rushmoor and Hart

o Test Valley

o Winchester

The purpose of Forums are:

· To provide an understanding of passenger transport services in the area

· Provide a forum for discussing passenger transport areas of interest and concern

· Disseminate information on passenger transport developments at a national, county, district and parish level

· Identify local unmet transport needs and, where possible, contribute to the development of solutions for these

· Share good practice

· Involve local people in passenger transport initiatives eg. passenger transport reviews

· Provide valuable feedback on proposed new passenger transport initiatives

Members of the review asked the respective Forum members their views on different aspects of the Forum's role in identifying local unmet need and contributing to the development of solutions. A summary of views fed back is given in Appendix Eight.

- East Hants Forum had a number of examples of progress it had made to identify needs over the preceding six months, such as flagging the importance of the Petersfield Town Service bus route. In the New Forest Forum, in comparison, the Parish and Town Plans were reported as being the main vehicles for recording needs and aspirations

- Regarding whether members know what happens to the unmet needs information that is collected, neither Forum judged that they did. Both were concerned about difficulties in obtaining feedback

- Neither had a great deal of confidence that the Forum had contributed much to the development of solutions in the preceding six months

- There was a wish to see wider representation of more groups in the East Hants Forum, such as young people, unemployed people, walkers, health groups etc

- Suggestions from one Forum for strengthening it included holding more regular meetings, and being careful about the time and format of meeting

Comments

1. As far as the review group members can tell, local Transport Forums are

becoming well established groups in the areas they are in place, part of which

role is to identify local unmet transport needs and contribute to the solution

of these.

2.Some aspects of the Forums could be strengthened, for example, feedback to

the Forum members on matters it has brought to the attention of HCC, and

prompt recording of discussions at meetings.

General comment

Given the varieties of transport forums, groups and networks in local areas, there is a role for Hampshire County Council to lead on work with partners to ensure that there is clarity, locally, about the respective roles and areas of influence such groups can have.

Current level of knowledge about the gap between need and current provision

5.1.12 The review group posed the question of what is the current level of knowledge about the gap between identified need and current provision in relating to meeting community needs such as

a) healthcare

b) employment

c) education and training

d) shopping and leisure

Evidence was received from a variety of stakeholders regarding what was

known from their respective perspectives.

Local contributions were received from a number of non statutory

organisations, including voluntary sector organisations, community transport

providers, a Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Forum, as well as statutory

organisations - Hampshire County Council, District, Parish and Town

Councils, an education provider.

As the focus of the review group was on gauging the current level of

knowledge, its task was to evaluate that level from a county

wide perspective, as put across to it by respondents and from background

research, and to make general comments and recommendations, as

appropriate. The group was keen that some immediate response was made to

individual members of the public in difficulty, where they contacted the

review believing it to be able to deal with their personal travel predicaments.

Such responses were passed through for the attention of PTG staff for an

operational response.

Comments

1. County wide knowledge was described as having its basis in the results of the thorough analysis of accessibility across the county undertaken as part of the LTP preparation. Through this process, and with the use of nationally available Accessibility software, the HCC was able to work out the percentage of households in Hampshire able to access key services by walking and public transport. Services included were education establishments, healthcare facilities, employment, retail centres and food shops. It was acknowledged in the evidence from the PTG that this knowledge needed further work, as the estimates had not included Community Transport or rail. Also, the Accessibility pilots were specifically set up to build additional knowledge in those areas where the LTP Accessibility Strategy, which outlines the steps to reducing social exclusion, had identified the greatest need. Earlier references to this work can be found in paragraph 5.2.3.

The review group views this emerging county wide picture of need as a healthy and realistic approach to building levels of knowledge which cannot all be acquired at one go, or at one point in time. However, it is not so convinced about the overall direction of travel with regard to the LTP Accessibility Strategy, given that officers, in their oral evidence, found it difficult to say whether this was on course or not. If the strategy needs updating, then it is the view of the review that this should happen

2. Local knowledge was wide ranging, and linked to both positive and negative views about what was known:

` Bus needs for healthcare are being ignored and HCC and the bus operators don't seem to be able to respond quickly enough to changes in health service provision'. Councillor, East Hants District Council

` Shopping and leisure - our experience in the Winchester southern parishes demonstrates the need for more services to reach people in more remote rural locations, especially older people.' Winchester Community Action

` Very good at providing school transport but further education is left solely to the commercial providers. This is fine in an urban area which has good public transport links but can be a problem in more remote locations'. Havant Borough Council

`The bus links to Hook station need to be coordinated with train times and, because they cease early in the evening, are not of use to commuters, particularly those travelling to London.' Odiham Parish Council

` All of these needs ( a) to d) )are met by the current services'. Oliver's Battery Parish Council

Given the wide response to the review, particularly on this aspect, it appears to the group members that levels of knowledge are wide ranging and are articulated at parish level and upwards. Harnessing that knowledge to enable local people to engage in the decision making process is a considerable challenge, given the strength of feeling about local priorities and the current financial pressures.

Harnessing the views of partner agencies, such as health, is also fundamental to arriving at an assessment of need, and of the gap between that and current provision. A recommendation relating to closer working relationships with health has been made earlier in the report in paragraph 5.2.3.

Partnership working to respond to gaps identified

5.2.5 Evidence of partnership working, both formal and informal, was apparent to

the review from a number of responses received.

Formal partnerships ranged from cross boundary partnerships - such as the

Solent Transport Partnership, through partnerships in particular areas of

Hampshire - such as the Quality Bus Partnerships, to the more local joint

partnership working between two organisations - such as that between

Basingstoke Dial-a-Ride and Basingstoke Community Transport, as well as

those between groups of organisations - such as those involved in the New

Forest Transport Community Action Network.

Informal partnerships exist at local levels in the form of neighbour

care arrangements, for example, where a voluntary organisation, an organiser

and local volunteer drivers commit to offering their time and assistance to

people with travel needs, typically those with health and social care needs.

An example made known to the review was that of Basingstoke

Neighbourcare, which includes in its range of services a social car scheme

providing door-to-door transport with a personal element.

Other informal partnerships have a mutual interest focus, such as the

Hampshire Community Transport Operators Group, or a mutual outcome

focus such as those arising from County, District and Community Transport

working relationships, County and District partnership working to tackle the

local consequences of county level decisions, and County and District liaison

arrangements with rail companies. Sometimes working in partnership is for a

one-off purpose, such as the advice available from HCC to other agencies on

developing travel plans.

The advantages of partnership working have been many:

`When traditional bus services were withdrawn HCC and EBC joint funded a

Taxi bus scheme whereby people could book a taxi that was registered to run

at specific times, similar to a bus, and pay the equivalent bus fare....'

Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)

`Travel Tokens and Bus Passes can be used in specified cross-border

situations ie Stagecoach 3 services from Hart to Camberley and Frimley Park

Hospital in Surrey Heath'. Hart District Council

`The Quality Bus Partnership seems helpful in achieving more regular

services and circular routes, helping teens to return home at night and

clubbers in the small hour'. Basingstoke Alternative Action Group

`On Tuesdays, in partnership with East Hampshire District Council, BDAR

provides a Satellite Dial-a-Ride service working in and around the Alton

area. Patronage in this service is growing such that it would now be worth

working with EHDC to consider the case for increasing the frequency of

this once-a-week service'. Basingstoke Dial-A-Ride (BDAR)

Not all partnership working leads to successful outcomes:

`The loss of the express Portsmouth/Fareham/Southampton link was

disappointing although Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City

Council tried to sustain the service'. Fareham Borough Council

Population groups for whom addressing gaps is problematic

5.2.6 The review group was interested to learn what the countywide picture looked like with regard to the travel needs of particular population groups, such as those with specific disabilities, with particular age related needs, or economic groups such as job seekers.

In terms of age groups, particular needs highlighted included:

· older people without a car

`The main challenge to pensioners is faced when they give up driving and have to rely on public transport'. Civil Service Pensioners Alliance. Basingstoke Group

· older people in rural areas where there are limited local facilities

· younger people in rural areas, particularly regarding travel to work

· young people in general, especially for social and recreational needs

`Feedback from our Citizenship lessons with 14 year olds highlights the problems they have in getting to the main towns for leisure or meeting friends in the evening'. East Hampshire District Council

· young people travelling to further education and vocational education from outside towns

Other groups highlighted by respondents included:

· people travelling to work from rural areas

· wheelchair users: while some comments were very positive with regard to rail travel, others described continuing challenges:

` The train journey to and from Alton station is also not wheelchair friendly. The station has two platforms connected by a footbridge with steps either side. Therefore if the train arrives or leaves from the `opposite' platform wheelchair users are either unable to board the train or get off'. Alton College

With regard to bus travel:

`Cango buses only have provision for one wheelchair traveller at a time which prevents wheelchair users travelling together'. Alton College

· people on low incomes:

`I have to visit Frimley Park Hospital several times a year and each time I go there by taxi which can cost me £18 for the return journey. If the route 2 bus went through the hospital grounds I could just about manage the walk to the bus stop here, then the walk into the hospital. As Pensioners on low income this would make a great difference to us'. Member of Rushmoor Access Group

· people with disabilities:

` The lack of low floor buses in Fareham is a problem for some of the aged and disabled. There are some low floor buses for priority routes into Gosport where the Quality Bus Partnership is being developed. There are however not enough low floor buses to guarantee they will be on other routes in the wider area of Fareham. This leaves those with mobility issues having to use dial-a-ride'. Fareham Borough Council

Summarising the knowledge base within Hampshire County Council about

which sub population groups are affected most by transport needs, the Head of

Passenger Transport listed them as:

- Elderly people who do not have access to a car, or who do not feel comfortable driving, for example at night

- Young people

- People who cannot afford access to a car, including the unemployed

- People in single-car households who are not the main driver and who do not have access to a car for all of the day

- People with mobility impairment who find it difficult to use public transport

- People living in relatively isolated communities with limited local facilities

PTG, Environment Department, HCC

Consideration of whether addressing gaps between need and transport

availability is problematic led the review group into a number of different

areas:

a) while all buses do not have to be low floor until 2017 under the Disability

Discrimination Act, the ability of local authorities to influence bus operators

to use such vehicles is limited. Evidence from one commercial operator

described 55% of their fleet as being low floor, easy access compliant.

However, other evidence suggested that where prospective bus passengers

are uncertain as to whether or not the next bus arriving will be low floor or

not, the likelihood of this being their first choice of mode of travel is

reduced.

b) the extension of the national bus pass scheme in April 2008 for people over

the age of 60 and disabled people is predicted to have an impact on the

demand for bus services.

c) separate organisation of non urgent, health related transport by the NHS has

discouraged the use of HCC subsidies to community and other demand

responsive transport for similar purposes. This places an artificial

disincentive on the development and availability of such journeys tailored to

individual needs. A recommendation earlier in the report at paragraph 5.2.3

addresses this point.

Comments

1. Given the vital role that community and neighbourhood transport services play in responding to travel needs of particular groups, the review group would like to see greater emphasis on a marketing strategy that would appeal to those potential customers who might choose these forms of travel if their image was improved.

`...there has been a reluctance on the part of teenage school children to travel on community transport minibuses to events of their own choosing...not cool...poor image etc.' The YELABUS Association, Yateley

2. The range of different population groups mentioned across the county were mirrored in the responses from groups and individuals in Basingstoke and Deane. This indicated to the review group that there is a strong likelihood that populations in other areas of Hampshire would also be experiencing similar challenges.

3. In order to prioritise transport developments in local areas to meet unmet needs of those at greatest risk of social exclusion, the review group would like to see stronger local knowledge bases about the priority groups in localities, in order to gauge the potential demand, both current and future, for conventional and non conventional transport, and as a basis for planning.

5.3 How to achieve more effective use of passenger transport services.

5.3.1 The third question that the scrutiny review group members posed at the outset

of the review was:

What could be done to achieve more effective use of passenger transport services in Hampshire ?

5.3.2 Aspects of this question considered included:

· how do current methods of achieving effectiveness, in relation to co-ordinating commercial and non commercial services provided through rail, bus, coach, community and demand responsive transport, and Hampshire County Council, work ?

· could the current approach to co-ordinating services to reduce the number of empty seats, duplicated routes and vehicle under-use be improved, and how, and what, if any, additional steps could be taken, Hampshire wide, to improve effectiveness ?

Concerns about whether the co-ordination of transport services was as efficient as it might be lay behind the rationale for the scrutiny. To test out how this was working in one area, the review included a question about local views on this matter in the questionnaire to Basingstoke and Deane stakeholders; they were also asked for their ideas for improvement.

The responses included an example of how better co-ordination was being sought within the non commercial sector, where Basingstoke Dial-A-Ride, Basingstoke Community Transport and HCC had reviewed their operations to examine how they might work together more effectively. The results included a joint operating team, sharing of vehicle and driver resources, and sharing operating practices. However,

`Phase 2 proposed areas for further studies, including considering a joint operations office, assessing the case for financial merger, examining the scope for joint fund raising, and searching out / adopting good operating practices from similar operations in Hampshire and wider. Phase 2 is now on hold pending outcome to the HCC Tendering exercise'. Basingstoke Dial-A-Ride

Views about whether commercial and non commercial transport services were co-ordinated varied. Some thought that they were `reasonably so', and others thought they were not. Others declined to express a view and another answered that they did not know.

How current methods of achieving effectiveness through co-ordination work

The review heard about a number of different strategies employed by Hampshire County Council PTG and partners to co-ordinate commercial and non commercial services provided across different transport modes:

- capital investment in public transport improvements through the LTP such as accessibility improvements, new bus stations and bus and rail improvements, ferry refurbishment and terminal facilities

- information services, such as real time information, the Traveline journey planning service and text messaging of bus times, and marketing schemes

- building collaboration and capacity in the Community Transport sector, such as promoting Minibus Driver Awareness Scheme (MiDAS) and the Minibus Register to encourage the inter-lending of minibuses

- co-ordinated funding across the public and private sector through Quality Bus Partnerships to achieve more frequent and reliable services etc

- joint sector pilots under the School Travel Initiative

- working with partners to introduce the Solent Travelcard for use on multiple bus operator services across the Solent area in 2004

- working with the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) to develop high quality bus and rail travel with efficient interchanges

- the rural transport pilots in the New Forest, Test Valley, East Hampshire and the Winchester district, described in Appendix Six

- agency dialogue through Local Town Planning process, School Travel Planning, Hampshire Action Teams

Clearly, the range of strategies reflects a substantial investment in achieving co-ordinated transport arrangements across the county.

How could the current approach to co-ordinating transport services be

improved ?

The review was made aware of the factors limiting the influence a highways authority can have on co-ordinating passenger transport in a de-regulated market for bus and rail services.

`The majority of services, some 70%, are provided commercially by a range of different operators. People are often unaware that the County Council has no control over the frequency, fares or vehicles used or the routes operated by these services'. PTG, Environment Department, HCC

Recognising these limitations, there were clear views held by a number of different stakeholders, including respondents to the Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire, that the current approaches could be improved. These views tended to centre on three particular aspects:

· Better travel information

- timetables in supermarkets, educational establishments, transport sites

- better targeted bus information eg. for Farepass users,

- quality standards for bus information eg. accuracy

- greater application of modern technology such as real time information

· Increased partnership working

- building on the Solent Partnership through PUSH

- quality contracts and further development of quality bus partnerships

- more bus corridors

- more through ticketing

- more bus hubs and co-ordinated transport interchanges

- combining bus routes

· Clearer leadership role by Hampshire County Council

- to disseminate best practice

- to clarify the structures, county wide and locally, for co-ordinating local transport

- to engage with Health about non emergency transport

- to work with the rail industry to unlock blocks on rail travel for particular groups eg. wheelchair users and people with mobility problems, students at peak travel times

- to strengthen the voluntary sector

- to look at the timing of school opening hours

- to survey journey requirements

More general suggestions included reducing prices, regulation of public transport and funding for local solutions.

The review group understands that there are many calls on transport budgets at county and district levels, but that when it comes to improving the co-ordination of transport services across the county, better travel information, bus travel infrastructure and through ticketing should receive the highest priority.

As a longer term goal, the review group would like to see what impact changing the times of schools opening and closing would make to greater co-ordination between conventional and school transport.

6 Conclusions

7 Recommendations

Glossary

BDAR	Basingstoke Dial - A - Ride
CT	Community Transport
CVS	Council for Voluntary Service
DAR	Dial - a - Ride
EBC	Eastleigh Borough Council
EHDC	East Hampshire District Council
HAT	Hampshire Action Team
HCC	Hampshire County Council
LAA	Local Area Agreement
LGA	Local Government Association
LSP	Local Strategic Partnership
LTP	Local Transport Plan
MiDAS	Minibus Driver Awareness Scheme
NHS	National Health Service
PCT	Primary Care Trust
PPI	Public and Patient Involvement
PTG	Passenger Transport Group
PUSH	Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
VCS	Voluntary car scheme
WACA	Winchester Area Communtiy Action
YELABUS	Yateley's Bus for the Elderly and Less Able

Appendix One: Background Documents

Appendix Two: Those contributing to the Review

Appendix Three: Oral evidence sessions programmes

Appendix Four: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire

Appendix Five: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire respondents

Appendix Six: Accessibility Pilots

Appendix Seven: Rural pilots in Hampshire

Appendix Eight: Feedback from Transport Forums

Appendix One : Background Documents

Hampshire documents

Draft Directory of Community Transport Schemes. Environment Department, Passenger Transport Group

Bus tender, and community transport service specification pro formas

Hampshire County Council Local Transport Plan 2006 -2011

Sic Transit.....Hamble to Hospital. The Hospital Travel Needs of Older People in Hamble le Rice. Eastleigh Southen Parishes Older People's Forum. 2004

Missing the Bus. A study of travel concessions for Older People in Eastleigh's Southern Parishes. Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People's Forum. 2006

Environment Department Plan 2007- 2011.

Hampshire County Council Passenger Transport Best Value Inspection. Audit Commission. 2001

Regional documents

A Clear Vision for the South East. The South East Plan. Executive Summary. Draft Plan. 2006

National documents

Putting Passengers First. The Government's proposals for a modernised national framework for bus services. Department of Transport 2006

Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. Summary. Social Exclusion Unit. ODPM. 2003

Going Places. Taking People to and from education, social services and healthcare. Audit Commission. 2001

Eligibility Criteria for Patient Transport Services (PTS). Department of Health. 2006

The Future of Transport. A network for 2030. Department of Transport 2004

Making it happen: a guide to good practice in local transport co-operation. Community Transport Association 2006

Enterprising Approaches to Rural Community Transport. Community Transport Association. 2006

Breaking the Gridlock. Local Government Association. 2007

Basingstoke and Deane documents

Passenger Transport Area Review for Basingstoke andAlton

Audit Commission Quality of Life (transport) indicators for Basingstoke and Deane

Aspects of transport policy as it affects Basingstoke and Deane. Review briefing paper

Basingstoke and Deane population profile. Review briefing notes

Other documents

Transport in the Community: Background Information and Glossary of Terms. Review briefing paper

Community Transport: document research summary. Review briefing paper

Tendering for local bus services. Review briefing paper

Notes from `Improving Accessibility in Hampshire' Passenger Transport Group conference, March 2007

Transport Policy: document research summary. Review briefing paper

Rural bus pilots and Accessibility pilots: briefing notes. Review briefing paper

HCC Transport (Childrens and Adult services) and subsidised taxis: supplementary notes. Review briefing paper

Local Transport Bill 2007: summary of proposals and comment. Review briefing paper

Bus company accounts

Passenger Transport Area Reviews. Review briefing paper

2006 MORI survey of public attitudes to accessibility. Review briefing paper

Appendix Two: Those Contributing to the Review

Stakeholder group	Organisation
Local Authority: County Council - District and Borough - Parish and Town -	Hampshire County Council - Environment Department Hampshire County Council - Chief Executive's Department Hampshire County Council - HAT for Hart and Rushmoor Surrey County Council East Hampshire Hart Eastleigh Havant Fareham New Forest Gosport Rushmoor Alton Town Partnership Micheldever & Wonston Bishopstoke North Waltham Bramshill Odiham Burseldon Oliver's Battery Crookham Village Overton East Dean Penton Grafton East Meon Ringwood Eastleigh Southern Parishes Sherfield on Loddon (Older Peoples' Forum) Silchester Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Swanmore Goodworth Clatford Tadley Grayshott West End Headley West Tytherley & Hordle Frenchmore Hound Whitehill Lindford Whitsbury Liss Wield Marchwood
Other statutory agencies	Alton College Basingstoke and North Hants PPI Forum Fareham and Gosport PPI Forum Hampshire PCT (South East)
Transport user groups	Passenger Focus South Hampshire Rail Users Group
Members of the public	Eleven
Transport providers	Basingstoke Neighbourcare Community First, New Forest Community Transport for East Hampshire Hart Voluntary Action Havant Council of Community Service One Community Princes Coaches Rushmoor Voluntary Services Stagecoach South Winchester Area Community Action Yateley's Bus for the Elderly and Less Able (YELABUS)
Other community organisations	Rushmoor Access Group
Others	The TAS Partnership Limited

Appendix Three: Oral evidence sessions programmes

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

TRANSPORT IN THE COMMUNITY SCRUTINY REVIEW

Select Committee Meeting, Tuesday 25 September 2007

Chute Room, Elizabeth 11 Court, 10.00am to 2.00pm

Agenda

Focus: Value for Money: what value for money is Hampshire County Council

getting for its expenditure on subsidised transport services ?

Time	Line of Enquiry	Written evidence
10.00 - 11.00	Robustness of the process for achieving value for money *Witnesses:* - Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport (lead witness, supported by other officers) Hampshire County Council - Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey County Council	Appendix One
11.00 - 12.00	How the commissioning processes assure value for money *Witnesses:* - Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport (lead witness, supported by other officers) Hampshire County Council - Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey County Council - Andrew Dyer, Managing Director, Stagecoach South - Community Transport representative	Appendix One
12.00 - 12.15	BREAK
12.15 - 1.15	How performance management of subsidised transport ensures oversight of value for money over time *Witnesses:* - Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport (lead witness supported by other officers)Hampshire County Council - Andrew Dyer, Managing Director, Stagecoach South	Appendix One
1.15 - 2.15	How public opinion feeds into service monitoring and review *Witnesses:* - Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport (lead witness, supported by other officers) Hampshire County Council - Suzanne Adams and Pat Gulliford, Fareham and Gosport Network of Hampshire Primary Care PPI Forum - Community Transport representative	Appendix One Appendix Two Appendix Three

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

TRANSPORT IN THE COMMUNITY SCRUTINY REVIEW

Select Committee Meeting, Tuesday 9 October 2007

Wellington Room, Elizabeth 11 Court, 10.15 am to 1.00 pm

Agenda

Focus:

1. Progress being made by Hampshire County Council and partners in

identifying and dealing with gaps in passenger transport in respect of

meeting community needs

2. Achieving more effective use of passenger transport services in

Hampshire

Time	Line of Enquiry	Written evidence
10.15 - 11.15	Progress in identifying and dealing with gaps in passenger transport *Witnesses:* - Gwil Williams, Community Access Officer, East Hants District Council - Michael Clowes, Chief Officer, Community First, New Forest - Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport (lead witness, supported by other officers) Hampshire County Council	Appendix One Appendix Two Appendix Three
11.15 - 12.15	Achieving more effective use of passenger transport services *Witnesses:* - John Bucket, Priority 3 Action Lead, Hampshire Local Area Agreement - Gwil Williams, Community Access Officer, East Hants District Council - Michael Clowes, Chief Officer, Community First, New Forest	Appendix Four Appendix One Appendix Two
12.15 - 12.30	BREAK
12.30 - 1.00	*Witness*: Cllr Kendal, Executive Member for the Environment

Appendix Four: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL: ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY REVIEW: TRANSPORT IN THE COMMUNITY

BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE

The `Transport in the Community' scrutiny review group is interested in your views about the following questions.

1. How does public opinion feed into the monitoring and review of

subsidised bus services and community transport, in Basingstoke and Deane ?

( The review group is interested in the extent to which the public has a voice in the ongoing monitoring and review of subsidised transport services. This may have involved you in one or more of the following: customer feedback surveys, comments or complaints systems, focus groups, annual evaluation, service development planning etc. The group is also interested in your views about the strengths and weaknesses of getting your voice heard)

2. What partnership working is taking place in Basingstoke and Deane in

relation to responding to gaps between identified transport needs and current

service provision, including when these are cross boundary ?

( The scrutiny of transport in the community is looking at what progress is being made by Hampshire County Council and partners in identifying and dealing with gaps in passenger transport services in respect of their ability to meet community needs; those needs would include being able to access healthcare, employment, education and training, shopping and leisure. To undertake this, working with partner organisations and community groups is essential. The review group is interested in being clearer about what partnership working you have been involved in, or know about, as well as your views about this )

3. Are there particular population groups, associated with age, disability etc

or economic groupings such as job seekers and young people in

training, for whom addressing gaps is problematic ?

( The review group is aware that there has been a Hampshire County Council initiated review of the community's different needs for transport in Basingstoke and Deane. What the group would like your help in understanding better is whether there are particular groups in the local population for whom bridging the gaps presents a challenge; and if you think that there are, what these challenges might be, and how you see them being dealt with)

4. Are commercial and non commercial transport services (such as rail, bus,

coach, community and demand responsive transport, and Hampshire County

Council transport) co-ordinated in your area ?

(The review group is interested in what could be done to achieve more effective

use of different kinds of passenger transport, for example to avoid empty seats,

overlapping services etc. It assumes that there is work ongoing in respect of this,

and is looking to find out how well this co-ordination works, from your point of

view. The group would also be interested in any views you have about how this

could be improved).

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Thank you for taking the time to give your views. They will be considered by the Transport in the Community scrutiny review group, which will be preparing their comments and recommendations later in the year.

We will be able to acknowledge your response if you provide your contact details. If you prefer to remain anonymous, please indicate in general terms the kind of organisation / group / community whose views you represent, as this will be helpful when the responses are analysed.

Name and contact details:.....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Name of organisation / group / community:................................................ ........................................................................................................

____________________________________________________________________

If you are interested in talking in more detail to someone involved in the review group, please indicate below, and let us know. Someone will be in touch afterwards to follow this up with you.

I would be interested in providing more information about my views on the transport questions of interest to the Transport in the Community scrutiny review group.

My preference for doing this is:

a) by telephone contact Tel. No...........................................

Best time to call................................

b) by inviting a member of the scrutiny review group to attend a meeting of the group I represent.

Group:..............................................................................................

Proposed date / time / venue: ......................................................................................................

PLEASE RETURN TO : Scrutiny Team, Hampshire County Council, Policy Unit, Chief Executive's Department, Elizabeth 11 Court, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8UJ

Appendix Five: Basingstoke and Deane questionnaire respondents

Applewood Care Home

Basingstoke Alternative Action Group

Basingstoke Dial - A - Ride

Basingstoke Group Civil Service Pensioners Alliance

Basingstoke Neighbourcare

Basingstoke and North Hampshire Foundation Trust

Baughurst Parish Council

Chineham Parish Council

Eastrop Central Residents Association

Grange Nursing Home

Learning Difficulties

Members of the Public (2)

Rooksdown Medical Practice

Sherfield on Loddon Parish Council

South Ham library

Steventon Parish Council

Town Mills Residents Club

Appendix Six: Accessibility Pilots

Briefing note

Introduction

1. In 2003, the Government published a Cabinet Office called "Making the Connections", which highlighted the link between transport and social exclusion. The report found that people without a car could be excluded from some essential services because of poor transport.

2. Following this report, the Department for Transport asked all authorities to develop accessibility strategies as part of their Local Transport Plan. These accessibilities should focus on access to:

· Healthcare (doctors and large hospitals)

· Education (primary, secondary and further)

· Employment

· Food shops

3. Hampshire County Council published its accessibility strategy in its second Local Transport Plan. At the heart of the strategy are four geographical pilots to assess the level of accessibility problems and to develop improvements. These four pilots are:

· Access to Winchester hospital from Northern Test Valley

· Access to a wide range of services from Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford

· Access to healthcare in the New Forest

· Access to rural post offices in Basingstoke and Deane

4. In order to make the best use of officer time, progress on these four pilots is being staggered. Good progress has been made on the first two studies - the second two are due to start shortly.

Access to Winchester Hospital

5. This pilot was chosen in response to a decision by the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to change the type of treatments undertaken Andover and Winchester hospitals. This required residents in the Andover area to travel to the Winchester hospital for some operations that had previously been undertaken at Andover. A number of patients had complained about poor public transport services between Andover and Winchester.

6. The study has found that public transport services are particularly poor between Andover and Winchester. For more than half of Andover residents a public transport journey to the hospital takes more than one hour each way. Residents in the villages outside Andover can be faced with a journey of more than 90 minutes. These journeys often involve several changes of bus and train. For example, a typical journey from one of the Andover villages could involve two bus journeys and two rail journeys. The study also found that public transport information is confusing and hard to find. Taxis are relatively expensive, with anecdotal evidence of one-way fares of more than £30.

7. As a result of these difficulties, the majority of patients and visitors (78%) come to Winchester hospital by car - either as the main driver or by getting a lift from friends and family.

8. Accessibility to the hospital is particularly difficult for the elderly, who are less likely to own a car and more likely to encounter physical difficulties on journeys that involve walking or changing mode.

9. The study is now investigating ways to improve accessibility, including revised information and the feasibility of introducing a shuttle bus service between Andover and Winchester.

Access to services from Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford

10. This pilot was chosen because initial assessments suggested that this area suffered from poor accessibility to a wide range of services. The communities of Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford have a limited range of local services in relation to the number of residents. This means that they need to travel to one of the nearby towns for services such as hospitals, colleges of further education and larger shops.

11. However, public transport links to other towns are relatively poor. There is no rail station and bus services are infrequent and lengthy. An additional complication is that there are several nearby towns that residents use for different services, including Basingstoke, Guildford, Farnham, Alton and Petersfield. This means that the bus network is stretched by having to service several different destinations instead of just one "parent town".

12. The area has higher than average car ownership rates. This means that the majority of residents are relatively unaffected by the lack of facilities and poor public transport because they can drive to nearby towns. Only 6% of residents have no access to a car, but this group of people can suffer from severe poor accessibility. This is a particular problem for the elderly and the young who rely on public transport and lifts from friends and family.

13. Residents of the area are also concerned about pedestrian facilities and congestion, but these appear to be considerably less of a concern than the lack of public transport services. As with the Winchester hospital pilot, there is also scope for improving public transport information.

14. The longer term solution for the area would be to attract more facilities and services so that there is a reduced need to travel. In the short term, improvements to public transport would help to improve accessibility, but may be difficult to finance because of the relatively small numbers of people travelling by public transport. As with the earlier pilot, a shuttle bus to a nearby town may be the most effective solution.

Emerging trends

15. The accessibility work is beginning to show clear trends. Hampshire has higher levels of car ownership than the national average. People with access to a car generally have good levels of accessibility to a wide range of services and destinations. Some car owners can experience accessibility difficulties, for example elderly people can be reluctant to drive at night because of poor eyesight.

16. Public transport accessibility is generally reasonable or good to services which are available very locally, such as primary schools, post offices, GP surgeries and food shops. Most households can access these services fairly easily. Accessibility to services is also generally good in urban areas, although some areas are beginning to suffer from increased levels of congestion and parking difficulties.

17. With a few exceptions, most rural communities have reasonable levels of access by public transport to their nearest town. This allows people to access the majority of services which may not be available locally, such as banks, libraries, employment and more specialised shops.

18. The most severe accessibility problems are encountered when people need to travel to a destination which is not in their nearest town. This includes some journeys to hospitals, colleges of further education, prisons, and administrative centres such as the County Council headquarters in Winchester. These journeys can be difficult because not all of Hampshire's towns are well linked to each other by public transport. For example, there are good rail links between Basingstoke, Winchester and Eastleigh, but not between Andover and Winchester. Areas such as Whitehill and Bordon do not have rail stations. Bus services are usually designed to cater for short local journeys and not for longer journeys between urban areas.

Iain Reeve

Transport Special Projects Manager

24 April 2007

Appendix Seven: Rural pilots in Hampshire

Briefing note: Rural Bus Pilots

1. Hampshire County Council is holding preliminary discussions with the Local

Government Association and the Department for Transport (DfT) about pilot rural bus schemes.

2. In December 2006, the Department for Transport published a bus policy paper called "Putting Passengers First". This paper invited local authorities to work with the Government to test radical new ways of managing local bus services.

3. Hampshire County Council has developed a proposal for four rural bus pilots, which would test different approaches in different parts of the county. Under this proposal, the four pilots would be:

· A "hub and spoke" pilot in the New Forest. This would remapping bus services to ensure the maximum use of vehicles. Larger scheduled buses would be used for journeys between larger settlements and on routes where there are larger numbers of passengers. Smaller vehicles and community transport services would be used for shorter journeys to connect with the scheduled bus services.

· An "individual transport brokerage" pilot in the Test Valley. In this pilot, people wishing to travel would telephone a central call centre which would arrange suitable transport. Depending on the destinations and number of people travelling, the call centre could arrange a taxi share, a minibus or a larger bus.

· A "coordination" pilot in East Hampshire. This would consist of a desktop mapping exercise to establish travel patterns and the availability of vehicles operated by different agencies and operators. The intention is to identify duplication of services which could be reduced by more effective coordination.

· A "community" pilot, where local people would be empowered to organise and share transport services, such as community transport, lift share and taxi share. Local people would also be encouraged to maintain and distribute improved information about transport options available locally.

4. These proposals have been well received by the LGA and DfT, who have asked for the ideas to be further developed. In particular, the DfT are keen to see increased cross boundary working in the pilots.

5. Further information on these pilots will be provided to the Scrutiny Review as progress is made.

Appendix Eight: Feedback from Transport Forums

HAMSPHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

TRANSPORT IN THE COMMUNITY SCRUTINY REVIEW

Feedback from review group member's attendance at Passenger Transport Forum Meetings

(October/November 2007)

New Forest Forum: Cllr Clarke

East Hants Forum: Cllr Carew

Line of Enquiry

Transport Forum

Response

Examples of progress this Forum has made to identify community needs for transport over the last six months

New Forest

East Hants

The main vehicle is seen as the Parish or Town Plans where such needs/aspirations are recorded. Penny Verlander, (NFDC) has the role of sifting and liaising with officers - NFDC and County.

The express bus service planned from Horndean to Petersfield station, although there is real concern about linking these up to other services. HCC do not seem to have taken this on board.

The Forum was also instrumental in showing HCC how important the Petersfield Town Service Bus (No 94) is.

Cllr Carew's EHDC and Parishes lobbying to get a 73 bus service was mentioned as a success story between HCC, EHDC and Parishes but this was set up about 4 years ago and was not recent. It was pointed out that Parishes and EHDC had to fight to get HCC to set it up in the first place. It was also pointed out that this was just 1 day a week and had replaced a full time weekly service, and that it had taken 3 years for HCC officers to change the day of the service from Thursday to Wednesday apparently due to contracts. HCC Officers said that it was still not as commercially viable as EHTF members liked to believe. Cllr Carew said that he was grateful to HCCs John Mariner and EHDC officer Gwil Williams for helping to facilitate this service, it's a good example of cross council working.

The Transport Forum also raised HCC officers awareness of key issues in the East Hants area. After a lot of hard work by local members they are now much more aware of the problems facing the Whitehill and Bordon area which was a recurring theme in the earlier Forums. More evidence from models such as Accession simply proved the point about its inaccessibility.

Important but not directly relevant points were made about the negative impact of HCCs cuts to buses, cuts to the CANGO bus which affected 70 plus school children at Wield.

Whether Forum members know what happens to the information of this nature that is collected

New Forest

East Hants

I would judge that there is as yet not a reasonable feedback loop.

Forum members felt that there was never any follow up and reporting back from HCC officers of areas of concern that they had raised. As one member put it `'Our views just disappear into a great black hole in Winchester and we never hear anything again''.

The extent to which the Forum contributes to the development of solutions to the unmet transport needs it has identified over the last six months

New Forest

East Hants

Zero, the best they can do is articulate a need.

Very little.

The 73 bus was mentioned again but was not in the last six months.

The planned express service from Waterlooville to Petersfield station was cited as a good example.

The range of partners in this Forum

New Forest

East Hants

One district, Parish and Town Councillors, including a Clerk and Town Plan officer, Age Concern and a Hospital Car Scheme representative. Generally, representation was poor and did not reflect the potential needs or interests of the New Forest.

HCC, EHDC, Town Councils (Whitehill, Petersfield, Alton), Parish Councils (some in East Hants but not all attend), AMK (bus operators) regularly attend, SWT and Stagecoach occasionally attend, Surrey Bus Users, Disability Groups (e.g. South Downs), Alton College, Community First East Hants (volunteer umbrella group)

There was concern that the Forum lacked adequate representation from the following groups:

Young people / unemployed people / horse riders / schools and tertiary colleges / walkers / more cycling groups / health groups / Hospitals / bus user groups / bus and train companies / ethnic minorities

(a) The strength of partnership working in the Forum, and (b) what affects this

New Forest

East Hants

(a) and (b) Mainly passive, due to poor representation and lack of knowledge or suitability of the forum to engender that kind of working.

(a) The Forums are strongly welcomed by all as a very good idea `'it's an important dialogue''. But members were not sure how effective the meetings were or if they were `'actually listened to'' - they also claimed never to see the end results.

There is often a lot of unity amongst user groups and their elected representatives but less so between service users and service providers.

(b) - regularity of meetings: not regular enough, (although this was a view not shared by everyone). Should be convened any time major bus cuts or train alterations are on the agenda.

- timing of meetings: thought to be a major

issue. Daytime meetings suited elderly, retired people not busy commuters and school age people. Evening meetings were thought to be a better option in the future.

- format of meetings: endless power point

presentation by officers followed by questions and general gripe sessions was felt by EHDC officers and oneor two councillors not to be the most constructive use of time.

Workshop and interactive sessions could be introduced to help break up the monotonous format

Levels of confidence that the Forum can influence transport issues

New Forest

East Hants

Marginal. Mainly a communication device from District and County on what is happening to those who bother to turn up. Perhaps the model is wrong, particularly for the New Forest, which in practice is four sub regions and lacks an active and capable forum for Towns and Parishes. Nominally, it has as its focus and champion the New Forest Association of Local Councils (third tier). However, the Association is effectively moribund and has been for some time - resources, mission and therefore role. NFDC and NPA talk to those who turn up at their official liaison meetings - divide and disinterest.

General lack of confidence.

Members were not sure how effective the meetings were or if they were ever listened to. They also claimed never to see the end results.

`'Complaints disappear into a black hole at HCC and there is little or no follow up''. They are not sure there is any effective linkage with the HCC HATs meetings - which they claimed were not well publicised.

Conclusion re East Hants (Cllr Carew)

East Hants Transport Forum was thought to be very valuable but its make-up, regularity, timing and format of meetings needs to be addressed.

When it works, it works well, but there are major concerns as to whether issues raised by EHTF are ever listened to or acted on by HCC, i.e. there is not enough follow up from HCC as to issues of concern raised by EHTF members.

There is concern that East Hants HATs needs to be more closely integrated into these discussions.

There needs to be more joined up thinking and consultation between HCC, EHDC, the Parishes and user groups - lack of consultation over recent bus cuts were a case in point.

Comments from minutes of Forums

a) Rushmoor and Hart

· access to hospitals is an ongoing issue

· communication and information is key, a lot of goodwill but co-ordination is an issue