School Transport and Post-16 Transport Services Proposal Insight Summary

Background

From 12 March to 7 May 2025, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £97.6 million budget shortfall for 2025/26.

The proposed changes to School Transport and Post-16 Transport services were:

to use bus pass usage data to reduce the number of regularly unused seats
to increase flexibility to meet short-term variations in demand by using the full licensed capacity of buses
to make discretionary transport more viable by asking parents to increase their financial contribution to the cost of the transport
to promote the most independent forms of transport assistance by prioritising a Public Transport Season Ticket or Personal Transport Budget (PTB) over contracted transport, where this is appropriate and more cost-effective

Who responded to the proposal?

In total, 1,195 responses were received to this proposal via the consultation response form, of which 12 were from organisations and 9 were from democratically Elected Representatives. Responses were received from all parts of the County, ranging from 27 in Havant to 150 in Winchester.

Of the 1,172 who told us that they were providing a personal response:

485 had a service user relationship to school transport (by being current, previous, and expected future users of School Transport, or their carers)
346 had a service user relationship to Post-16 Transport (by being current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport, or their carers)
600 were from households that included children or young people aged under 25, of whom 282 included children or young people aged under 25 with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND)
220 were classed as disabled as defined by the Equality Act 2010
87 were from households earning up to £20,000 per year

Two respondents did not indicate whether they were providing a personal response or were doing so in another capacity.

Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 338 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. All of these comments have been shared with the service for consideration.

A further 17 responses were received through direct correspondence via letter or email (unstructured responses) which included comments relating to the proposed changes to this service. 12 of these were individuals and 5 were from organisations. These responses are reflected in the analyses in this report and have been shared with the service for consideration.

Proposal: to use bus pass usage data to reduce the number of regularly unused seats

Levels of agreement with this proposal

1,175 respondents provided feedback on this proposed change. 77% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 12% who disagreed with it. 10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents from ‘other’ ethnic minority groups (36%)
respondents aged under 25 (28%)
respondents from households earning up to £20,000 per year (24%)
current users of Post-16 Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (24%)
current users of School Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (21%)
respondents from households that included Children and Young People (CYP) aged under 25 with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) (21%)
respondents from Basingstoke and Deane (20%)
respondents from households that included CYP aged 5 to 11 (17%) or 12 to 16 (18%)
respondents who identified as neurodivergent (15%)

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of disagreement with the proposed change. They were:

concerns that children would need to carry and use an internet-connected smartphone, potentially unfairly impacting households in poverty, those without internet access, or parents/carers who prefer not to give their child a smartphone
risks of technical issues with the digital bus pass meaning children could be denied transport
concerns over schools discouraging smartphone usage among students
some respondents worried that decisions to remove bus passes might be made quickly, without engaging with the parent or carer beforehand, such as if a child misses school for an extended period for a legitimate reason but would require their bus pass when they return to school (however, this possibility was also seen as a potential benefit of using digital bus pass data by those in favour of them)

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Digital Bus Pass usage Data, I agree with this broadly but not all children have a smart phone capable of a digital pass. Schools are rightly discouraging children from having smart phones until they are older to promote childhood and social interaction in the real world, so this proposal will need to be considered in this context."

"I do have concerns that a digital bus pass would mean the students have to carry their mobile phones for this and know that one of my children would be quite bothered by that as it's against school rules to have a phone in school, and he would really struggle having his. This child is undiagnosed but most certainly ASD."

"The County Council should consider…engaging with school transport users about non-usage of a bus pass before removing the pass. It should not rely solely on usage data from digital bus passes to make automatic decisions on whether to remove bus passes."

“Blanket policy changes do not consider context for individuals where these changes would likely be detrimental. Statistics/data from unused seats on buses will not account for reason for the seat not being used (eg where the education provision is not able to meet the needs of the person) and could unfairly remove their access to transport”

“…students with particular conditions, including some students with SEND, may be more likely to be absent from school on multiple occasions, and therefore the data for those student’s journeys may suggest non-usage of a bus pass over a particular period of time. As such, this scenario needs to be taken into consideration”

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents from households earning over £60,000 per year (87%)
respondents from households without CYP aged under 25 (85%)
respondents from households with CYP aged under 25 without SEND (85%)
respondents who travel around Hampshire by train (85%) or walking (83%)
males (83%)
respondents who did not identify as neurodivergent (82%)

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of agreement with the proposed change. They were:

a desire to deliver better value for money by reducing unused bus capacity
a view that there are too many seats not being used on school transport
the opportunity for the County Council to save money by quickly removing bus passes where they are not being used
to allow the County Council to offer unused transport to other students as discretionary transport arrangements

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Utilising data on unused seats to arrive at the most cost-effective/efficient transport method makes good sense."

"There are too many empty seats on buses, with several buses going to the same area and schools."

"If the child is long-term absent or a frequent non-attender because of not wanting to go to school, then transport should be suspended to that child."

"Having worked at a secondary school until recently, I am acutely aware that many students offered bus passes within catchment do not regularly use them and that seats on buses are therefore being left empty, at a cost to the council. I believe that if the bus passes were checked regularly and data collated effectively on those not being used, then others could be offered these seats."

Proposal: to use the full licensed capacity of buses to help meet variable demand for spaces

Levels of agreement with this proposal

1,175 respondents provided feedback on this proposed change. 77% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 13% who disagreed with it. 10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

current users of Post-16 Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (27%)
current users of School Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (27%)
respondents from households that included Children and Young People (CYP) aged under 25 with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) (25%)
respondents from households with children aged 5 to 11 (24%) or 12 to 16 (22%)
respondents from households earning up to £20,000 per year (21%)
respondents aged 35 to 44 (20%) or 45 to 54 (18%)

The data also indicated higher disagreement amongst respondents with school-aged children in their household, and respondents aged 35 to 54. This reflected the higher disagreement amongst respondents who were parents and carers of users of School Transport and Post-16 Transport services, who were more likely than average to have CYP in their household and be aged 35 to 54.

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of disagreement with the proposed change, which were:

the safety of children when standing on a bus, particularly those with SEND who may be less able to safely stand on a bus
concerns that the need for all seats to be used may not be enforced, with some children needing to stand even if seats are unused

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"…it does increase the risk of falls or injuries by students moving or struggling to stay balanced while standing, and potentially increases the likelihood of an accident as the driver may be distracted."

"I will not support using standing capacity on rural routes. The speed buses travel at on faster rural A roads would make this unsafe."

"I strongly object to the use of 'Standing Room' capacity on buses. While safety could be impacted, my greatest concern is the increased likelihood of physical/verbal misbehaviour of some students which is likely to disproportionately impact younger students travelling on the buses."

"… if standing capacity were introduced it could further encourage the current situation where some refuse to remove bags from seats to allow the seat to be used."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents from White ethnic groups who did not identify as British, Irish, or Gypsy/Irish Traveller (93%)
respondents from households without CYP aged under 25 (88%)
males (87%)
respondents from households earning over £60,000 per year (85%)
respondents aged 65 or over (85%)
respondents who travel around Hampshire by train (83%)

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of agreement with the proposed change, which were:

views from adults that it is reasonable to expect children to stand on buses where necessary, with some mention of surprise that it is not being done already
concerns that, if standing capacity is not available, children may be turned away from buses which are unexpectedly at full capacity
agreement with the principle of the proposal, on the condition that it would not result in children with SEND being forced to stand on buses

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"I am astonished that the full capacity on buses isn't already used. I sometimes travel on the public buses that local further education students use, and they manage to stand without apparently coming to any harm."

"…we will still see overcrowding of buses as we do currently. Not having the standing capacity available for this will mean that children who get on later (that are meant to be on that bus) will have to be refused entry because of the legal capacity of the bus."

"I agree with the principle as it would free up buses, but those with dyspraxia would struggle to stand for a whole journey."

Proposal: to ask parents to increase their financial contribution to the cost of discretionary transport

Levels of agreement with this proposal

1,178 respondents provided feedback on this proposed change. 51% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 37% who disagreed with it. 12% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents who were separated, but still legally married (67%)
current users of Post-16 Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (63%)
current users of School Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (63%)
respondents aged under 25 (59%)
respondents from households earning £20,001 to £30,000 per year (49%)
respondents from households that included Children and Young People (CYP) aged under 25 (48%), particularly those with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) (58%)
respondents who identified as neurodivergent (52%)
respondents living in Basingstoke and Deane (48%) or rural areas (45%), compared with 31% of those living in urban areas

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of disagreement with the proposed change, which were:

sentiment that this would be unfair on service users of Post-16 Transport with SEND, due to transport being provided at no charge for CYP with SEND while attending statutory education
a view that there should be no charge for school transport offered to CYP without SEND, in the same way that school-aged children with SEND are not charged for School Transport
feelings that charges discriminate against families without Post-16 education facilities in their area
the impacts of charges on families’ budgets, with some comments mentioning other impacts on their living costs, or the impacts on households just above the low-income threshold
concerns that charges would reduce access to education for CYP, with some mention that CYP are expected to be in education until the age of 18, which may not be affordable if Post-16 Transport costs increase

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"I do not think parents should contribute to costs of school transport, this is a more vulnerable age group and will increase the amount of non-attendance."

"In law, young people are expected to attend an educational setting, employment or training; however, by withdrawing Post-16 transport, HCC are risking a lot of SEN young people into becoming NEET as parents or the young people themselves will not be able to get to an educational setting."

"If you go to your catchment school and it is over 3 miles, the children should be entitled to free transport. We should not be putting barriers in the way of getting children to access their school."

"This idea discriminates against families living where there is no 6th form/post-16 school provision. Transport whilst in compulsory education should be free for all, not just a select few. If there is no 6th form in the immediate secondary schools, transport should be free."

"Parents who work may have to contribute to transport, however they may only be slightly over your thresholds and struggling but still having to contribute."

"People in poverty are being discriminated against because they will not be able to afford to contribute to transport or to pay to be their child’s travel assistant, so their children will lose their education... Parents will have to give up work to meet these demands, sinking them further into poverty."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents living in Gosport (76%)
respondents from households without CYP aged under 25 (69%)
respondents aged 55 or over (67%)
males (62%)
respondents from households earning over £50,000 per year (62%)
respondents living in urban areas (58%), compared with 41% of those living in rural areas
respondents who travel around Hampshire by bicycle (62%), train (57%), or walking (57%)
those who did not identify as neurodivergent (57%)

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of agreement with the proposed change, which were:

the view that parents and carers should be responsible for the transport of their children, including the cost of this
a desire to make School and Post-16 Transport services financially viable
that means testing provides a fair way of ensuring the service is available to those who need it
personal views that the respondent appreciates the service and believes parents and carers would be willing to pay for it

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Parents should cover child travel costs like majority of population or use funds from a job like all other 16-year-olds."

"I agree that parents should take more responsibility rather than assuming the state will pay for everything."

"If everyone paid towards transport, even low-income families (just a small contribution), surely this would help the situation so that our disabled children can carry on with getting transport to & from their special needs colleges."

"I would strongly prefer to contribute/pay for my child’s transport costs, than it being taken away or her being forced to take public transport."

"Asking parents to increase their contribution to travel is something I am always wary of in terms of fairness and ability to pay. However, if this relates only to discretionary journeys (where children could safely either walk or cycle), then I would be less concerned."

"Where parents can clearly afford to cover costs, then they should."

"My children have received free bus transport to primary and secondary school due to rurality, but it would not have felt unreasonable for us to contribute to the cost of this."

"Most parents would be willing to contribute if it meant their child would be safe."

Proposal: to prioritise granting a Public Transport Season Ticket or a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) over contracted transport, where this is appropriate and more cost-effective

Levels of agreement with this proposal

1,173 respondents provided feedback on this proposed change. 65% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 20% who disagreed with it. 14% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents aged under 16 (50%)
respondents from households that included Children and Young People (CYP) aged under 25 with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) (41%)
respondents who identified as neurodivergent (29%)
current users of Post-16 Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (24%)
current users of School Transport, and the parents or carers of current or expected future service users (21%)

The comments provided suggest some common drivers of disagreement with the proposed change, which were:

concerns about PTBs, with some respondents feeling that the level of support they provide would not be sufficient, that families would not be able to source transport as cheaply as the County Council, or views that parents and carers may not use the money to pay for transport costs
a view that PTBs are a means of the County Council waiving its transport duties and are therefore not a suitable alternative to arranged transport
concerns that public transport may not be suitable or may be unsafe for CYP with SEND

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"I have previously been offered a Personal Travel Budget and the amount offered was nowhere close to meeting my fuel costs for the journey, let alone the costs to my time and loss of earnings."

"A personal budget…is likely to be a less efficient use of public funds as individual families will not have the purchasing power of the county council and will also not be able to share taxis as individual families will not know of other families taking similar journeys."

"I'd worry a personal budget might be misused. How it's managed and paid would need careful consideration. Sadly we live in tough times, and that money might be used for other things and could leave the post-16-year-old unable to travel because the money has gone."

"The season ticket seems a much better idea than a budget—that seems to be absolving the council of responsibility, and the budget won't necessarily get spent as it should be."

"The method of payment could be open to abuse—is it monthly or termly for example? Will there be sanctions or penalties (although not at the detriment of the child) if this money is found to be misused?"

"As a parent of a SEN child with an EHCP and complex anxiety needs, my child would not cope on public transport, i.e. a bus. The taxi with a handful of children is just about tolerable for her."

"Public transport is often not a safe space for vulnerable adults/children as they can be taken advantage of or mocked, which is very daunting and scary."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents from households without CYP aged under 25 (82%)
residents of Gosport (81%)
respondents from households earning over £50,000 per year (78%)
respondents aged 55 or over (77%)
males (77%)
respondents who travel around Hampshire by bicycle (74%), train (71%), or walking (71%)

Agreement with the proposal appeared to be driven by:

a belief that if CYP are capable of using public transport, a bus pass would be a suitable option for meeting the County Council's duties
support on the condition that suitable public transport provision is available
agreement with the idea that a bus pass with the necessary ITT to use it would improve the life skills of CYP with SEND

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Using public transportation and training are good ideas, but considering that children and young people with disabilities are more vulnerable, it's also important for bus drivers to be trained to assist them if necessary, such as in situations where they lose their transportation card or get on the wrong bus."

"If public transport exists that can enable young people to travel in that way, then it makes sense to me to use what is already there as long as there is capacity on the buses to accommodate the potential increased number of users."

"Use of public buses is fine, as long as they run at the right times and my child isn’t hanging about in town for long periods waiting for a bus after school finishes."

"I think the proposed changes are sensible and the right thing to do. There are ways training a young person will benefit them hugely now and in the future, bringing independence and confidence."

"Offering a bus pass on public transport is a benefit to everyone. Less traffic, fair, increased usage means better public transport. It promotes a life skill and independence."

"…in the right circumstances, this could help guide students, and their families, towards transport assistance that promotes independence."

"The use of public transport is a good idea where it is available as [it] also promotes independence amongst younger children."

Other types of transport support that respondents felt the County Council should offer, where they can meet the needs of the student and are cheaper than arranging transport

Respondents were asked to indicate other types of transport support that they felt would be appropriate for the County Council to offer, in lieu of arranging transport.

Of the 1,161 respondents who shared their views, 65% felt that the County Council could offer season tickets for public transport, 50% selected Independent Travel Training (ITT), and 42% felt that a personal transport budget should be offered where suitable.

11% of respondents selected ‘something else’. When asked to describe these options, 26% of these respondents indicated they would want existing transport modes that are used by the Service to continue to be provided. 24% did not reference any transport modes, instead providing other feedback such as potential impacts of parents needing to take children to school, concerns about access to education if transport is not available, or expressing views that none of the options would be viable.

Of those who made suggestions of other types of transport assistance:

15% mentioned the need for any alternative transport to be accessible for Children and Young People (CYP) with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND)
8% suggested that transport be focused in less accessible areas of Hampshire (such as rural villages)
8% suggested that minibuses or school buses should be introduced where not available
6% suggested that single-passenger transport should not be used where it is possible to use shared transport
5% suggested a greater use of taxis
5% felt that parents should be encouraged to take responsibility for their child’s transport

There were also less frequent mentions of:

reducing underutilisation of transport
prioritising safety of transport modes
encouraging active travel modes
using concessionary bus passes
encouraging parental lift sharing
making transport easier to cancel at short notice if a child cannot attend school
reducing the outsourcing of school transport
using mixed modes where appropriate (such as transferring between buses or a train and a bus)
reducing use of public transport
instead, providing tutors who visit the CYP at home
allowing the use of disabled bus passes before 9:30am
reducing the cost of taxis for families of CYP with SEND
encouraging older students to help younger students travel to school
providing free public transport to all CYP in Hampshire
using Occupational Therapy services to support CYP with SEND travel to school

Main impacts of the proposed changes

The overall comments provided about these proposals were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposals could have if implemented.

185 out of 338 respondents (55%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal mentioned potential impacts of the proposal in their feedback. Of these comments:

30% mentioned impacts on people in rural areas, with comments describing a lack of transport options available, poor pedestrian facilities on countryside roads, and longer travel distances to places of education
26% mentioned impacts on people with jobs, due to the greater expectations of parents and carers to take children to school or support with the journey, leading to people being unable to work or needing to change their working patterns
24% described impacts on Children and Young People (CYP) with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND), particularly describing impacts on their wellbeing or putting them at risk of abuse by other passengers
22% described risks of safety to CYP, for example due to perceived safety risks for young people standing on a bus, or the need for CYP to walk beside busy roads for part, or all, of their journey
15% mentioned a potential loss of education due to CYP being unable to travel to school or college, with comments mentioning this may be caused by poor public transport services, increased anxiety for CYP, increased charges for parents and carers, or by parents and carers needing to be more responsible for their child’s transport
impacts for parents or carers were mentioned by 15% of respondents, specifically in relation to additional stress from supporting with transport, and by having to deal with services when applying for transport with higher thresholds for eligibility
14% of respondents mentioned impacts on families in poverty, relating to higher charges for transport arrangements, with mention that families with CYP with SEND are already more likely than average to be experiencing financial hardship and some felt that Personal Transport Budgets (PTBs) would not cover the costs of transport
fewer than 10% of respondents also mentioned the following potential impacts:

impacts on physical health or disability (9%)
impacts on the environment (9%)
impacts of costs of transport (8%)
potential increases in traffic or congestion (7%)
impacts on mental health (5%)
impacts on family life (4%)
impacts on the local economy (4%)
impacts on families without a car (4%)
impacts of increased journey times or distances (3%)
impacts on people due to their age (3%)
a potential for a loss of social contact or skills (2%)
impacts on women (2%)
impacts on the budgets of other services (2%)
impacts on asylum seekers or refugees (1%)
reduced safety for drivers or other road users (1%)

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Public transport in rural areas is also unreliable and subject to change, meaning students will be impacted by missing classes."

"I would not want standing room on school buses to be the norm given the length of journey in some rural areas."

"I have had to leave my job of over 20 years to accommodate the removal of my child’s transport."

"How would a parental travel budget work for a shift worker, nurse, or a parent who has to be at a 9am meeting in London? Please stop assuming that as a parent my only job is to transport my offspring."

"My daughter has autism. She has acute anxiety and is not able to use public transport."

"If children were allowed to stand on buses and the Kings Worth bus crash had happened, how many more injuries would have been likely?"

"…the school bus is the safest mode of transport for our local rural community - and one we'd happily subsidise!"

"Parents with SEN children are under huge amounts of pressure and expecting them to drive or escort the children themselves adds to this burden."

"…those of lower income demographic might not be able to afford or would struggle to afford to pay for transport, thus detrimentally impacting those already struggling financially."

Impacts on protected characteristics

Respondents were asked in the Response Form which characteristics or issues they felt would be potentially impacted by the proposed changes. Respondents were able to select any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, as well as poverty, rurality, and environmental impacts. These responses indicated that, based on the 1,086 responses to this question, people with the following characteristics are likely to be most impacted:

The majority of respondents (53%) felt that people with health or disability issues could be impacted, which was higher amongst those with Children and Young People (CYP) with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) at home (76%), current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport, and their carers (70%), and the organisations or groups who responded (67%). Where comments mentioned specific health or disability issues, these related to CYP or parents and carers with mobility issues, learning disabilities, mental health issues, or neurodivergent conditions.

Half (50%) felt that people in rural locations could be impacted, higher amongst the organisations or groups who responded (92%). Impacts in rural areas tended to relate to reduced transport options compared to urban areas, and longer journey times and distances to education settings, which could result in reduced access to education.

Almost half (44%) felt that people could be impacted due to their age, including 83% of the organisations or groups who responded. Age groups mentioned were mainly children, although there was also some perceived impact on adults who are parents or carers of children with disabilities.

Similarly, 44% felt that people in poverty could be impacted, again 83% amongst the organisations or groups who responded. Poverty-related impacts mentioned included impacts from higher proposed charges for transport, financial impacts as a result of parents or carers being unable to work if they need to take their children to school, impacts on the budgets of families earning a little above the low-income threshold, and the cumulative impacts of reductions in support available for people with disabilities.

Other characteristics mentioned at lower levels were:

environmental impacts (14% of respondents), specifically in relation to increased pollution from more car journeys being made if access to transport is removed, which could also cause more road congestion
sex (4% of respondents), with comments indicating that women could be more impacted than men as primary caregivers to their children
race (3% of respondents), which was selected more frequently by those of black (22%) or Asian (13%) ethnicities
gender reassignment (3% of respondents), selected by 9% of those from LGBTQ+ groups
pregnancy and/or maternity (3% of respondents)
marriage and/or civil partnership (2% of respondents)
sexual orientation (2% of respondents), selected by 9% of those from LGBTQ+ groups
religion or belief (2% of respondents)

16% of respondents indicated that they did not feel there would be any impacts as a result of the proposed changes.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Asking disabled adults (the poorest in society) to contribute to their disabled children being taken to schools that are over 3 miles away is a disgrace and clearly discriminates based on age, disability and economic background."

"For many children with SEN needs, they are emotionally younger than their years and therefore it would not be suitable for some children to travel alone on public transport. I for one, would not be happy sending my child to school alone on public transport. She is 12 but emotionally only about 8 and no sense of stranger danger."

"Digital tickets require every child to have a phone with internet access at a time when this is being discouraged for young children!"

"There are fewer options for transport into school if living rurally or if living with disability."

"We have very limited finances, but not low enough to be considered a low-income family. We would need to borrow money in order to pay contributions to transport."

Suggested alternative proposals

80 out of 338 respondents (24%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal provided suggestions of alternatives to the proposal, or suggestions for how the proposed change could be carried out differently.

The most frequently mentioned suggestions were to:

work with public transport providers to ensure suitable options are available (30% of respondents)
improve the efficiency of the School Transport and Post-16 Transport services (28% of respondents)
improve support and infrastructure for active transport (11%)
promote organisational efficiencies at the County Council (10%), including reducing staff numbers or staff pay (5%)
target services via means testing (10%)
support or encourage lift sharing by parents in cars or taxis (4%)

These and all other additional suggestions have been passed to the Directorate for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Using public transport would require the Council to negotiate with bus operators to ensure that parents would have the option of delivering their children to suitable (safe) pick-up points where the parents can park cars whilst waiting for the bus."

"Ensure the availability of early, regular bus services for rural areas."

"Sort out the contracts you have with your providers to get better value for money, rather than cutting services. Consider taking over the service in-house to save money."

"Current taxi routes seem illogical, with children being collected from a large geographical area. We know several taxis leaving our town to go to school, all taking different routes. This could be arranged better."

"Post-16-year-olds should be encouraged to walk or cycle to places of education."

"Addressing the dangerous roads problems would…encourage active travel."

"There is such a lot of waste among the council that can be addressed first, this is not one to scrimp and save on."

"Assisted transport could be means-tested with a high threshold…so as not to affect disabled families or poorer families."

Additional comments

220 further comments mentioned attitudes, views, and experiences, such as:

22% of comments mentioning that some children are unable to use regular public transport (36% of those with Children and Young People (CYP) with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) in their household)
18% expressing views that public transport in parts of Hampshire is insufficient for School Transport or Post-16 Transport services, including 2 of the 8 respondents aged under 25 who provided a comment
17% feeling that it is right to offer bus passes where these would be appropriate, including 3 of the 5 organisations who provided a comment
15% expressing views that needs assessments should not be based on simple criteria, but individuals’ specific needs, including 2 of the 5 organisations who provided a comment
10% mentioning concerns that the level of SEN provision in Hampshire is too low
10% feeling that parents and carers should not be charged where transport is offered in a non-statutory arrangement, compared with 9% who felt that charges should be applied in these circumstances, and 6% who felt that parents and carers should be responsible for the transport of their children
6% mentioned issues with connections between public transport routes
5% who felt that the County Council should actively remove digital bus passes from lapsed users
5% who mentioned the County Council’s legal duty to deliver transport and meet the needs identified in an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) would continue, despite any changes to services
5% who mentioned concerns about the use of PTBs
5% who felt that the consultation documentation did not answer their questions

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Our son has autism and currently shares a mini bus with other autistic individuals and has passenger assistance, but it is small scale. If he would be expected to get public transport with no passenger assistants, there would be an overload and he wouldn't be able to get on the bus."

"We need dedicated and safe transport for our disabled children who cannot cope on regular transport."

"Public transport is not fit for purpose and can’t be relied upon. There were strikes for all but a few days in February. This could still leave students unable to attend education."

"Providing a season ticket won’t help in rural areas as many rural areas don’t have public transport."

"Children and young adults with SEN need to be looked at on an individual basis. What works for a child/young adult might not be suitable for another child/young adult. This should cover their safety and other transport users and their understanding of the environment they are in."

"Disabilities encompass a wide spectrum of needs, and this approach does not appear to consider children who already receive one-to-one or two-to-one support. These support requirements remain consistent and should be reflected in transport arrangements, as their needs do not simply cease during transit. It is therefore unreasonable to apply one standard of support at home and school while implementing a different one for transport."

"I cannot drive my child to school, and it certainly isn't my fault or my child's fault that nearer spaces cannot be found, as SEN schools in the Rushmoor/Hart area are severely lacking."

"To start charging or increase costs to parents would be detrimental as they are already struggling financially."

"Fully support parents contributing more, as part of decisions on where you live should be the ability to take your child to school or ensure they can get there safely."

Additional comments have been passed to the Directorate for consideration.