Join 'Going Green' and East Suffolk Line Community Rail Partnership

The next meeting of the Going Green Transport Project (GGTP) and the North Line Group (NLG) of the East Suffolk Lines Community Rail Partnership (ESLCRP) is scheduled for April 7th 2015 and their members are hoping more local bodies will join them.

The Project and the Group are two separate and active bodies focusing on transport development in the Waveney market towns and the communities connected to them which work cooperatively by scheduling meetings together and share some overlapping membership.

The Project is constituted to enable cooperation between communities, operators and user groups and supports transport development for all forms of sustainable transport by being an information exchange and by administrating funds. For example; members of the Project produced a leaflet 'Discover the Blyth Valley' promoting rail and bus ridership between Halesworth and Southwold (now in its second edition) and through the Project they raised the funding and coordinated distribution. Members of the Project frequently advocate for local transport at high-level meetings with operators and local government such as the Suffolk Sustainable Transport Forum and report back to the Project. By holding open meetings six times per year it enables networking and discussion on transport issues focused on a specific area and links them with bodies with a wider remit. The Project also holds funding ring-fenced for the North Line Group of the East Suffolk Lines Community Rail Partnership.

Membership of the GGTP costs £3 per year to cover its incidental expenses and is due each February.

The next meeting of the Project is very important as all members need to renew their membership before the AGM later this year. New members are always welcome and prospects are invited to attend.

The ESLCRP is an unincorporated association of local government, public transport operators and community groups. The Partnership aims to bring together representatives of the local transport authority, local planning authorities, the train operating company, infrastructure operator and a wide range of local community groups with the objective of securing the future of the East Suffolk Line (Lowestoft to Ipswich) and Felixstowe Line (Ipswich to Felixstowe) railways through increased patronage and revenue. Representation of communities is through the three separate line groups; North (Lowestoft, Oulton Broad, Beccles, Brampton, Halesworth), South (Darsham, Saxmundham, Wickham Market, Melton, Woodbridge) and East (Felixstowe, Trimley, Derby Road, Westerfield).

The line groups are intended to bring together user groups, station adopters, station friends groups, local public and private sector organisations and the voluntary and community sector. Each of the locations where a railway station is situated within the CRP has their own views about how they would like their railway to develop in the future. These groups enable local people to be involved in putting the ESLCRP Action Plan into effect in their locality and each line group elects a representative who sits on the main ESLCRP board.

Membership of the line groups is open to any organisation willing to uphold the aims of the ESLCRP. The North Line Group membership presently includes Halesworth Town Council, Beccles and District Regeneration, Bungay Town Council transport representative, East Suffolk Travellers Association and individual volunteers in Abellio Greater Anglia's 'station adopter' scheme. More members are always welcome and may apply to join any line group at any time. www.eastsuffolkline.com

Some items for the agenda of the next meeting are likely of interest to both GGTP and NLG members. Please contact the chair/s below by Friday 3rd April with other items for the agenda.

• Update on Rail in the City Day. ESLCRP members will be on Liverpool Street Station from 7am to 7pm on May 20th to promote visiting Suffolk and its attractions by rail. (Why not bring your leaflets to the meeting)

• Update on the Bus Hub at Halesworth Angel Link.

• School transport: Sir John Leman (Beccles) has withdrawn free transport impacting on Halesworth and Lowestoft parents faced with a cost of £540 p.a. per child regardless of age.

• Designated Community Rail status: what does that really mean? (A lot actually)

• Update on Beccles station developments.

• Update on the consultation on the long rail franchise award in 2016.

• Distribution of the Discover Blyth Valley leaflet; who, where, when.

• Halesworth station ticket machine launch

• Introducing the new CRP support officer.

• Appointment of chair for GGTP.

• Update on Lowestoft Vision and Waveney District Council redevelopment scoping study of Lowestoft station. 

• Promotion of the Sunday rail service improvement on May 17th

• Update on Darsham Car Park.

• NLG support for the Anglia in Bloom entries of Halesworth and Beccles

• And as always; round table reports on any local issues from each town/parish and the opportunity for advice and support from the members in attendance.

There are many projects and ambitions around with a transport dimension that the NLG / GGTP would be glad to have information about or support. It hopes by this that people will bring them to their attention.

Date:   Tuesday April 7th 2015

Location: Council Chamber*, Halesworth Town Council, London Road, IP19 8LW

Time:  GGTP: 10:30 to 11:30

Time:  NLG: 11:30 to 12:30

Contact:

Nat Bocking 

chair NLG, chair GGTP

nat (at) pixlink (dot) co (dot) uk 


*only accessible by stairs

New buses boost but old rules dog community transport

Halesworth - The Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin MP stopped by this small Suffolk market town today on his way to open a new road in Lowestoft to announce that Halesworth Area Community Transport (HACT) had been successful in its application to the £25 million Community Transport Vehicle Fund for a new 16 seat minibus.

HACT had applied in January 2015 for funding for a 16 seat coach-built
disabled accessible vehicle to replace their only one available for hire to schools and
community groups which can be driven on a Category B (normal car) license. The new vehicle will also be used to train drivers to achieve their MiDAS certification. HACT's other vehicles are over the weight limit for a 

HACT very successfully operates a scheduled Section 22 service (the 511  Halesworth Hoppa) which is a lifeline to people in Halesworth and Holton. It  also provides Section 19 services to many local groups. 

For over four years, HACT has lobbied the Secretary of State and other officials about the challenge to community  transport operators of a dwindling supply of volunteers who can drive 16  passenger minibuses over the MAM limit on a car license ( D1 entitlement). Otherwise the operators need to invest at least £2000 (which is unsecurable from a volunteer) in  training for each volunteer to pass a PSV. 

The DfT has responded to suggestions to make the PSV test free of charge to CTOs that it gives them an unfair advantage over commercial operators.

In April 2013 Sue Jay, the chair of Suffolk Community Transport, took the  opportunity of a visit to Suffolk by the Department for Transport's chief  civil servant Graham Pendlebury to advise him that this licensing burden is  hampering the recruitment of volunteer drivers. The Community Transport Association has also advised its members that faced with this challenge, they should switch to using smaller and lighter minibuses for  their fleets - advice HACT has evidently heeded.

The CTA told the DfT that "D1 (issue) must be the top of  the heap for policy change" when the DfT was consulting on how the European  Union helps or hampers transport in the UK. The DfT then put the question to the CTA, given that D1 is EU  legislation, "what room does the DfT have to create a solution?" 

HACT  considers the simplest solution is to make an exception to raise the MAM  weight limit for community buses with volunteer drivers operating a section  22 route because the drivers (with MiDAS certification) would be familiar  with their vehicles and the regular scheduled routes and this was a very  different safety scenario to a school or community group using a minibus on  a one-off trip. HACT considers the UK members of the European Parliament  must present that proposal to the EU. 

Though they need lightweight vehicles for Section 19 services; a fleet of them would greatly limit  HACT's service flexibility and would also negatively impact its revenue opportunities. With an average of 60 passengers per day in Halesworth, community  transport operators like HACT could not meet passenger demand with 8  passenger minibuses without a huge decrease in hard-won efficiency. HACT  must use 16 passenger vehicles to meet present demand on a 50 mile daily  route (4 to 5 cycles) within its resources of vehicles and volunteer  staffing. Heavier vehicles are essential as a 16 passenger  coach-built vehicle is a much more accessible, efficient, versatile and comfortable vehicle than a smaller (and so lighter) van conversion. HACT's passenger cost per mile is still a  place where no commercial operator dares to tread without some form of  subsidy.

Study finds "contracting" in voluntary services is killing them

http://www.independentaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Volunteering-final.pdf

A study has concluded that the roles of volunteers are increasingly becoming marginalised as they are treated as employees and overburdened by bureaucracy as more voluntary and charitable organisations take on contracts to provide statutory and social services. This diminishes the value to volunteers of freely giving their time.

It found that there has been an exodus from large ‘corporate' agencies as they professionalised
their services and replace volunteer managers with paid staff in order to be confident of meeting their contractual requirements.

"Volunteer managers no longer welcome all comers or see it as a key part of their role to find ways in which those who come forward can be helped to find ways in which they can contribute to the work of the organisation. Instead they use formal methods modelled on the processes used to appoint paid members of staff and using tools very similar to job descriptions, person specifications and the taking up of references to try to ensure that the volunteer is equipped – often after a period of training - to carry out a specific and pre-determined function within the agency."

"Nearly half (49%) of those who were not current volunteers but wanted to get involved
said they had been put off by the degree of bureaucracy involved."

Bike racks approved for UK buses

In 2009 I investigated why UK buses don't have the sort of bike racks they do in the USA and Canada. I found there was a UK pressure group that was trying to do this but apparently bike racks were not allowed under EU legislation. I banged my head on it for a bit and then gave up. Now somebody at the DfT had another look at the issue and on October 17th the IVS unit informed Bikes On Buses UK that buses CAN have a bike rack on the front or back as long as the vehicle remains within its maximum permitted length. This could have a real impact on the use of rural buses as it will extend their range and ridership. Moral of story: never take no for an answer.

http://www.bikesonbuses.com/recent-news/

MP backs blue badge regulation change

Repost from  http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk published: 14th October 2014

A Suffolk MP has put further pressure on the Department for Transport to change the regulations regarding the issuing of blue badge parking permits to community transport providers.

Earlier this year, Suffolk Community Transport (SCT) called on the Government to review its policy after some of its members were refused a permit despite the vital role they play providing transport to the elderly and disabled.

The issue hit the headlines in May when Halesworth Area Community Transport (HACT) where refused a permit despite holding one for several years, with Suffolk County Council stating:

“Under the Government Blue Badge eligibility criteria that we are required to work within, the Regulations state that an organisation will only be issued with a Blue Badge if they both care for and transport disabled people who would themselves be eligible for an individual Blue Badge. Unfortunately as your organisation only transports and does not care for disabled people, I regret I am unable to authorise a badge for you.”

The HACT decision was overturned following a second appeal, however other community transport operators have faced similar difficulties when apply for the permit - which allows parking in restricted areas.

As a result SCT, which champions the role of the community transport sector in Suffolk, called on the Government to change its policy.

Now, SCT has received the support of Waveney MP Peter Aldous, who has written a letter directly to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Transport Robert Goodwill MP. In the letter Mr Aldous says:

“I believe SCT has put together a strong case and therefore I would be most grateful if the DfT  could  review the eligibility rules around organisational blue badges, amending the rules to state – ‘Community Transport Operators offering services predominately to disabled people should automatically be given  an organisational blue badge’.”

SCT represents Suffolk’s 14 community transport operators including those in Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Newmarket, Hadleigh, Stowmarket, Haverhill, Sudbury, Beccles and Halesworth.  Its Chief Executive, Susannah Waters, said: “We are delighted to have received such strong support from Mr Aldous in our pursuit for a regulation change and we hope the DfT gives serious consideration to our request. It seems a very strange decision to prevent services providing transport for people with disabilities from parking is spaces reserved for people with disabilities. Our view is that the guidelines for local authorities, issued by the DfT, require fundamental change.”

Letter to Richard Drax MP

Richard Drax MP - Member of Parliament for South Dorset

Dear Mr Drax,

I have viewed on the BBC website your speech in parliament yesterday 29th April 2014 on rural bus services and I thank you for speaking so clearly and eloquently to raise those issues with your fellow MPs.

(I cannot embed the BBC video but it is available here or read the Hansard here.)

I am a town councillor for Halesworth in Suffolk and a volunteer with Halesworth Area Community Transport, one of the many community bus operators of which you spoke, as well as chair of my local community rail partnership. So I feel I am* dealing directly at the coal face of the rural transport problems you highlighted.

In terms of localism: I find great difficulty in enabling passenger participation in rural (or urban) route design. 

A contributor to a recent House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report on transport and accessibility to public services said:

"Too many authorities choose to ‘do things’ to communities rather than spend the time finding out what they actually need and want first ... local people should be correctly liaised with prior to any changes being made, it is them that have to live with any consequences and they should be listened to correctly about how they will be impacted but also so they properly shape services..."

Independently I had proposed a solution to this very problem at the following link which I kindly ask you to consider.

timetable-design

I posit that what passengers and communities need is free access to a software application that displays all the current bus, train and other public transport schedules and actual ground-covered routes in a given area on a simulator to visualise service and modal connections. On this they could enter proposed timetables and route variations so service alterations can be modelled and compared.

Another challenge facing the Community Transport Operator which you did not raise is the licensing of drivers and the cost of training volunteers to meet the EU driving standards (which incidentally were designed with countries which have no community transport systems of their own). The Community Transport Association has made many representations to ministers on this issue and there are informative papers in the House of Commons library.

I cannot find any statistics that support that volunteers in community transport that are D1 entitled (without PSV licenses) are any more dangerous than drivers who have had to take the PSV test. I recently took my PSV and it cost the taxpayer something in the region of £2500 for just one individual. This was the test fees and the travel and the subsistence for the three days of training I had. Yet we offer our own volunteers very much the same standard of training in-house through the MIDAS scheme, a good scheme for skilling our volunteers but which has no bearing on operating a minibus legally on the road.

(It appears to be the view of my local MP Dr. Therese Coffey that more funding for this PSV training is the way forward - to which I disagree).

Again, I outline the problem in detail at the link below. I have proposed a legislative work-around the EU barriers by adjustment of weight limits for a certain kind of transport service and I urge you to consider this issue and share it with those in parliament who are responsible for making the decisions that will solve the problems that you have thankfully raised.

weight-rules

With kind regards

Nat Bocking

*I should have also acknowledged local bodies like ESTA, The Going Green Partnership, Sustrans etc. who are very active locally.

P.S. I shall have to write again to Stephen Hammond The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport to address a few points. He obviously isn't getting it. The innovation he wishes for isn't coming from our councils and in my experience, they haven't been very supportive of innovation such as the Handy Bus model when it is presented to them.

ADDENDUM

Below is the latest response from my MP Dr. Therese Coffey who I copied in into this letter and who I have written to before.

You can write to your MP and most other politicians from here www.writetothem.com

Richard Drax MP responded by email on the 7th May:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding my adjournment debate on rural bus services. May I also thank you for your kind words regarding my speech.

Your idea is interesting; however I would encourage you to write to your own MP, Dr Thérèse Coffey, to see if it has practical application for your local area."

In turn I replied to Dr. Coffey:

I understand from our prior correspondence that the present government will not seek to amend the weight rules as I propose. However, our correspondence has not elucidated how this government will solve the problem of the declining numbers of volunteer drivers in community transport. I am open to discussing other ways forward. It would be useful to have an indication that this government recognises our concerns on this issue, even if considers just one proposed solution is not viable.

Also, in the debate Mr Drax talked of enabling the ‘localism’ agenda. I think my suggestion for route modelling is a viable contribution to delivering on this government’s policy in public transport so I would be glad to know if you or Mr Drax had passed that information to the relevant minister.

Suffolk cuts subsidy to community car schemes

Suffolk County Council have informed local Community Transport Operators that the 2014-15 Budgets & Service Level Agreements have now been finalised.

"A review of mileage between 2010-11 and 2013-14 has highlighted that hospital appointments are not within the service specification of supported Community Car Services. The majority of these journeys are high mileage, moving services away from local service provision.  Therefore from 1^st April 2014 the mileage subsidy will no longer be supported. Subject to operator’s volunteer availability, passengers may continue to access car services for hospital appointment journeys at 45p per mile.  The council will continue to support the operator’s admin support for each passenger journey covered. In line with these changes, the 2014-15 car service budgets have been adjusted in relation to the current year end hospital appointment mileage forecast..."

What this means is that for hospital journeys, the county council will no longer pay the 10 pence per mile subsidy, thus that will have to be collected from the passenger or borne by the non-profit operator of community car schemes. County have confirmed that "car service operators will not be subject to a reduction in budget as such, as it is the passenger who will be supporting the drivers mileage rate." SCC have not announced what this will save them per year.

Many CCS work using volunteers drivers in their own cars and they reimburse the volunteer at 45 pence per mile. The passenger is charged 35 pence per mile and the 10 pence of council subsidy makes up the difference. The schemes also get 40 pence per journey taken to cover  the administration of claiming back mileage. 

So now CCS might have to offer passengers two different charging scales: 35 pence for local journeys which are subsidized and 45 pence for hospital journeys which aren't.

Figures from the AA and RAC show that the real cost of car ownership per mile can be over 50 pence per mile. Many volunteers don't mind shouldering this cost, in the same way they don't mind travelling to volunteer somewhere, but on taking long journeys to hospitals, that can be significant.

This action will certainly reduce the number of options that patients have to get to hospital appointments and increase the difficulties many have of attending them, especially when changes to commissioning of services have moved them to ever more distant hospitals, such as the proposal to close the liver resection department in Norwich and move it to Addenbrookes. In that case it may be a small number of cancer patients but it could be a death sentence to some of them.

According to the Department for Transport; 21.1 % of people in rural Suffolk live more than 60 minutes by public transport from hospital compared to 9.9% of rural England overall. Source: OCSI 2011 Department for Transport (DfT) 2009.

There are 35 LSOAs (each averages a population of 5000 people) in Suffolk more than two hours travel time from a hospital by public transport.

Between 2009 - 2012 there were 184,947 missed NHS appointments in Suffolk, costing£17.6 million. There is no hard data on the reasons why people miss appointments but local anecdotal evidence shows that poor transport, particularly in rural areas, is one reason. The West Suffolk Hospital says the cost of each 'DNA' to them varies according to whether it is a first or follow up appointment and for which speciality but the estimated loss is about £110 per appointment.

I feel the voluntary and community sector is not being served by the arbitrary fixed rate the HMRC sets for mileage reimbursement they will accept without question of employees making profit, which is also applied to volunteers using their cars in community car schemes.

Since 45p per mile (for the first 10,000 miles) is now below the RAC /AA rate of car operation, as fuel and insurance costs rise, volunteers using their own cars in CCS will continue to subsidise these schemes, leading to increasing difficulty in recruiting volunteer drivers into schemes or forcing schemes to be capitalised in a way they provide their own vehicles. This is a huge barrier to establishing schemes and has many attendant costs beyond the vehicle. For a start it is quite a complicated five-step calculation for volunteers to work out if they might be making a profit or not. 

I have brought this up with Dan Poulter MP but I did not get a satisfactory response as he didn’t see the difference between employee use and volunteer use and the legislation is framed around the taxable benefit of using a car for work. The Chartered Institute of Taxation had suggested in 2011 that 50 pence was fairer when the rate of 40p then "was below the cost of running a car".  After a comprehensive consultation in 2008, the Community Transport Association concluded that low tax-free mileage allowances combined with rising fuel prices was deterring potential voluntary drivers. It asked the Government to increase the tax-free rate to 45p per mile which was realised in the 2011 budget.

Raising the allowable rate again to 50p or 55p per mile for volunteers using their own cars will have no impact on the costs of SCC and community transport schemes yet the schemes might be able to operate and charge lower rates or offer sliding scale on longer journeys but fixing it at 45p per mile does not allow any flexibility because it is for many volunteers and schemes less that their true cost, especially for short journeys.