Future Services Consultation 2024 - Passenger Transport

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, 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 £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.

One of the options proposed was to make three changes relating to Passenger Transport, namely:

1. Withdrawing all funding from community transport services (around £900,000).
2. Withdrawing around £800,000 of County Council funding for bus services.
3. If permitted by law, withdrawing around £75,000 of additional funding for enhancements to the Concessionary Travel Scheme (older and disabled persons’ bus passes).

Who responded to the proposal?

In summary, 5,518 responses to this proposal were received via the consultation Response Form, including 5,336 responses from individuals, 102 from organisations and 42 responses from democratically Elected Representatives.

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. 2,207 respondents chose to provide comments on the Passenger Transport proposals. A further 247 comments were submitted relating to passenger transport in the ‘Further comments’ section at the end of the survey.

In addition, 112 unstructured written contributions were received about these proposals via email or letter (of these, 61 were only concerned with PT and no other proposals in the FSC). Of these responses:

• 66 were submitted by members of the public
• 41 were submitted by organisations (including businesses and public bodies)
• 5 were submitted by democratically elected members

In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.

The themes within these unstructured responses reflected those in the structured responses.

Who responded: demographics of individual responses

• Just over one third (38%) of responses from individuals were from those aged 45 to 64, with another third (34%) aged 65 or over. Just over 2% were from those aged under 25, and 16% were aged 25 to 44.
• Over half of the respondents were female (51%) compared to 36% who were male and less than 1% who were of non-binary gender.
• The majority of respondents were from non-ethnic minority groups (i.e. White British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish) with 7% of responses from an ethnic minority group.
• While the majority (54%) reported no health or disability issues, around 1 in 5 (21%) reported a health or disability issue that impacted their day-to-day activities either a little or a lot.
• Responses were received from residents of all districts in Hampshire, ranging from 137 in the borough of Gosport to 758 in the district of East Hampshire.
• 37% of respondents lived in an urban area, whereas 20% lived in a rural location.
• 5% of respondents came from households with the lowest income (up to £20,000), 27% had an income of £20,001 to £60,000 and 20% were from households with higher incomes (£60,001 or more).
• 22% of respondents lived in households where there was at least one child or young person aged 18 or less.

No demographics were captured about the individuals who provided unstructured responses to this proposal.

Please note this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.

Who responded: Types of organisation responding

Of the 102 organisations that responded via the response form:

• 52 were from charity, voluntary or local community groups
• 27 were from other local authorities (City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils)
• 12 were from local businesses or business representatives
• five were from nurseries, schools, colleges or places of education
• four were from other types of organisation

Who responded: Responses from service users

There was representation from a wide range of affected service users:

Please note that respondents were able to select all of the different modes of transport they used so these categories were not exclusive.

Levels of agreement with the proposals

There was more opposition than support for all three proposals.

Of the 2,207 respondents who commented on these proposals, 1,315 mentioned an impact, of which the most frequently mentioned were:

• isolation and poor mental health (37%)
• impact on older people (33%)
• impact on rural service users (26%)
• impact on vulnerable people (22%)
• impact on those with disabilities/ mobility issues (20%)

Proposal 1

There was strong opposition to this proposal across all respondent groups, with 73% of all respondents disagreeing with it, of which 46% strongly disagreed. In every respondent group, more than half of those who disagreed did so strongly.

Certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed funding withdrawal more strongly than others, in particular:

• Community transport users were the most likely to disagree with the proposal (93%), with 81% of these respondents strongly disagreeing: 96% of Dial-a-Ride customers; 94% of Wheels to Work customers; 92% of Call & Go users and; 92% of minibus groups hire users opposed the proposal.
• Most responding organisations also stated their opposition (87%, of which 73% strongly disagreed), regardless of type. Disagreement was particularly high amongst charity, voluntary and local community group organisations (94% disagreed with 84% doing so strongly).
• There were high levels of disagreement across all geographic areas, highest in Rushmoor (78%), Winchester and Hart (75%) and East Hants (74%).
• Rural residents (74%), especially those in the most isolated rural areas (77%), were more opposed than those living in urban areas (71%).
• In terms of age categories, the youngest and oldest respondents were most opposed (85% of 16 to 25 year-olds and 83% of over 85s).
• Female respondents (77%) were notably more likely to disagree with the proposal than males (66%).
• 85% of lower income households, especially those with an income of £10,000 or lower disagreed with the proposal.

Note: Wheels to Work customers above. The sample size for this group of respondents was lower than 50 responses, so this figure should be treated with caution.

Of the 3,772 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 1,093 provided comments about impacts of the proposal. Of these, the most frequently mentioned were:

• isolation and poor mental health (39%)
• impact on older people (35%)
• impact on rural service users (26%)

While the overall response to this proposal was negative, a minority of respondents (15%) agreed with the proposed withdrawal of funding for community transport services.

• 7% of organisations agreed with the proposal, with 36% of local businesses or business representatives agreeing.
• 24% of those aged 25-34 also agreed with the proposal, along with 20% of 35-44 year-olds and 19% of 45-54 year olds.
• Males (20%) were more likely to agree than females (12%).
• Other groups that showed some level of support for the proposal were ethnic minority groups and households with children or young people under the age of 19 (both 20%).

Note: Local businesses or business representatives above. Only 11 organisations of this type responded, so this figure should be used with caution.

58 of the 799 respondents who agreed with this proposal left a comment mentioning impacts. This suggests that, despite their agreement, they still had some outstanding reservations about the impact the proposed change could have, most notably:

• 22% were concerned about the impact on older people
• 21% with the environmental impact
• 17% with the impact on rural service users and
• 17% with isolation and poor mental health
• Only 14% believed that the proposed changes would have no impact

70 of these respondents also suggested ways to minimise the impact, such as by reducing rather than removing services altogether (24%) and using alternative models of service provision (19%), perhaps indicating that their support was conditional and they would prefer an alternative if one could be found.

Proposal 2

This proposal attracted the strongest disagreement of the three, with 76% of all respondents opposing it, of which 49% strongly disagreed. Again, in every respondent group, of those who disagreed, the majority strongly disagreed.

Certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed funding withdrawal more strongly than others, in particular:

• Strongest opposition (90%) came from users of supported bus services, with 70% of these users strongly disagreeing with the proposal.
• Users of other forms of public and community transport were also opposed: Call & Go (92%), Dial-a-Ride (91%), bus (86%); Minibus Group Hire (86%); ferry (81%); taxi (79%) and train (79%).
• 80% of organisations disagreed with the proposal (65% strongly disagreed), including 96% of responding local authorities (of which 62% strongly disagreed) and 90% of charity, voluntary or local community group organisations (of which 68% strongly disagreed).
• The age groups most likely to disagree with the proposals were the 16-24 year-olds (87%) who were concerned about the impact on younger people (33%) and the 75-84 year-olds (80%) who were concerned about isolation and mental health (26%) and the impact on older people (25%). At the Youth Forum, it was suggested that the money saved by the age threshold for older people’s bus passes being raised should be spent on providing free bus passes for children, young people or anyone else going to a place of education.

• Respondents with disabilities also disagreed with the proposal (81%), raising concerns about isolation and poor mental health (29%), impact on older people (23%) and the impact on disabled people (20%).
• 89% of respondents from lower income groups with a household income up to £10,000 (89%) disagreed, raising concerns about isolation and mental health (31%) and the impact on older people (25%) and those with disabilities or mobility issues (24%).
• There was greater opposition from residents in rural areas (78%), and especially rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (84%), than urban areas (75%) who were both concerned about isolation and mental health.

Despite the majority of respondents disagreeing with this proposal, there were a minority of respondents (15%) who agreed. These were notably:

• households with an income over £60,000, who were most supportive (23%)
• males (20%)
• people of working age (19% of 24 to 44 year-olds and 17% of 45 to 64 year-olds)
• residents of Fareham (20%) and Test Valley (19%)

47 of the 765 respondents who agreed with the proposal chose to provide comments via an open-ended question which mentioned impacts.

19% of these respondents believed there would be no impact from the proposal, due, in part, to declining use of buses, less need for services with more people working from home, increased levels of car ownership, and the current bus service not being fit for purpose.

However, many recognised that there would still be impacts on vulnerable people (36%), older people (30%), rural service users (17%) and isolation and poor mental health (17%) despite agreeing that funding for services should be reduced.

Therefore, a number (64 respondents) made alternative suggestions that they hoped could keep services running, whilst still making some savings. Of these:

• 22% suggested using alternative models of service provision including using volunteers to provide a public transport service
• 16% suggested reducing rather than removing services
• 14% suggested using smaller buses or only providing services to those who really need them
• 13% suggested making bus passes means tested or making all services means tested

Proposal 3

This proposal was slightly less negatively received by the public, although it was still opposed by the majority of respondents (68%), with over half of those who disagreed, strongly disagreeing (46%). Some groups who had higher disagreement included:

• those on a lower household income of up to £10,000, who were the most strongly opposed (89% disagreed, of which 68% strongly disagreed)
• community transport users (82% with 62% strongly disagreeing)
• those whose daily activities are limited a little or a lot by a long-term health issue or disability (75%, of which 55% strongly disagreed)
• 71% of organisations disagreed with the proposal (of which 49% strongly disagreed), with local businesses or business representatives having the strongest opposition at 82% (63% strongly disagreeing)
• 74% of bus users and 76% of supported bus services users disagreed with the proposal (55%/58% strongly disagreed)
• significantly more females (71%) disagreed with the proposal than males (64%) with both groups sharing concerns about isolation, mental health and the impact on older people
• respondents aged 65 or over were the most likely age group to disagree with the proposal (74%), of which 54% strongly disagreed
• sentiment for this proposal was similar regardless of whether respondents lived in urban or rural areas, although disagreement was higher in Rushmoor (76%) than other Hampshire districts

Of the 3,565 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 1,010 provided a comment mentioning an impact of the proposal, of which:

• 41% were concerned with isolation and poor mental health
• 36% mentioned the impact on older people
• 26% had concerns about the impact on rural service users
• 25% mentioned the impact on vulnerable people

Overall, agreement with this proposal was higher than the other proposals at 21%, although this was still significantly lower than the level of disagreement. Notable groups who showed some support for the proposal included:

• those with a household income over £60,000 (34%)
• those aged 35 to 44 (31%)
• males and ethnic minority groups (both 25%)
• respondents resident in Gosport (27%)

Of the 1,091 respondents who supported the proposal, 130 mentioned potential impacts of the proposal, with particular concerns for rural service users (27%), about potential increases in isolation and poor mental health (25%), the environmental impact of people seeking alternatives (22%), and the impact on older people (22%); only 5% thought that there would be no impact.

To help counteract these impacts, 145 respondents provided an alternative solution:

• 19% thought the Council should charge extra for existing services
• 16% suggested using an alternative model of service provision
• 12% suggested reducing services rather than removing them, making bus passes means tested or encouraging increased service use

Alternative transport arrangements

When respondents who used bus or community transport services to get around Hampshire were asked what alternative transport they would use if the proposals went ahead, 43% said that they would use a private vehicle, with 23% relying on lifts from others. 27% of respondents said they would not make the journey.

Those most likely to use private vehicles were those with a higher household income over £60,000 (59%).

Young people (16 and under) were most likely to rely on lifts from others (50%).

Those most likely to not make the journey were those on a household income below £10,000 (57%), those with a health issue or disability that impacts their day-to-day activities a lot (55%), and elderly people aged 85 or over (49%).

50% of community transport users would not make the journey if services were stopped, including 72% of those using Wheels to Work, 58% of Call & Go and Minibus Group hire users, 56% of Dial-a-Ride customers and 40% of Taxishare customers.

Prioritisation of services

When asked which services should be prioritised if funding could be secured from government, there was split opinion amongst respondents. 34% of respondents thought it should be spent on both services in rural areas and services for vulnerable people, whilst 25% thought it should be spent on services that are used by the most people.

Community transport users (59%) and organisations (54%) were most in favour of prioritising services for vulnerable people, especially charity, voluntary and local community group organisations (65%).

Elected representatives (59%), rural respondents (54%), and younger people aged under 25 (53%) thought services in rural areas should be prioritised.

Impacts on protected characteristics

Those who commented were asked whether their comments related to any protected characteristics. They were most likely to indicate that the withdrawal of funding would impact people because of:

• age - 66% (concerns about the impact on older people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing)
• disability - 61% (concerns about isolation)
• rurality - 57% (concerns around the impact on rural areas)
• poverty - 42% (with the impact on lower income people/ families being highlighted)
• the environment - 42% (concerns around extra cars on the road and the associated environmental impact)

Other characteristics were also mentioned but at much lower levels.

Suggested alternatives to the proposal

628 of the 1,310 respondents who chose to provide comments on this proposal gave an alternative suggestion for how the savings could be delivered. The most frequently mentioned were:

• encourage increased service use (to increase income), mentioned by 23% of respondents giving an alternative suggestion, as well as the Youth Forum. To support this, the Youth Forum suggested making bus operators and drivers accountable to ensure that no stops on a route/ areas of a route are missed out and that buses run to their timetable, they also requested improved reliability and regularity of buses and better integration of public transport systems
• charge extra for existing services, (18% of all respondents, 59% of community transport users)
• use alternative models of service provision (14% of all respondents and 35% of organisations providing an alternative suggestion). Suggestions included:
• a scheme where volunteer drivers could drive people, claiming a small fee to cover fuel and vehicle maintenance
• supporting organisations to take over community services
• allowing Town and Parish councils to operate a dial-up small bus service
• implementing a county-wide demand responsive travel service
• contracting a different bus operator
• encouraging sponsorship of services
• re-nationalisation of bus services
• making greater use of smaller and community operators
• adopting a transport system similar to London (suggested by the Youth Forum)
• encourage reduced car usage (10%)
• use smaller buses (10%)
• reduce rather than remove services and make cuts/ reductions elsewhere (both 9%)

There was a wide range of additional and detailed suggestions which have been passed to the Department for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.

Additional responses

Please note, an additional 69 paper responses to the Passenger Transport proposals were returned to us by Rushmoor Voluntary Services more than a week after the consultation closing date. Of these responses, 68 were from Community Transport users and one was blank. The delayed arrival of these forms has meant that their data has not been included as part of the consultation analysis. However, given the expectation of those respondents that their forms would be passed on in good time, we have read & considered these separately.

Sentiment within these responses was similar to sentiment from other community transport users, with strongest feelings of disagreement to proposal one, as well as disagreement with proposals 2 and 3. The impacts reported in these responses were the same as were seen elsewhere, namely isolation and impacts on mental health. There were only a few respondents who provided alternative solutions to the proposals and they all suggested charging more for services.

Comments on the consultation

Some concerns were expressed about the consultation, including:

• additional information that would be useful to help respondents provide an informed response to this proposal
• for the 67 service it would have been helpful if we knew the amount without the school budget figure rather than just the gross amount
• statistics needed to make harsh choices
• additional response options that could be added to specific questions:
• include NeighbourCare as an example of accessible community transport
• the need for more data to inform decisions:
• a study should be undertaken to determine needs and then apply services accordingly
• accurate surveys monitoring bus routes -v- passengers should prove where cuts could be made