Transition Evesham Vale

The Future of

BUS SERVICES

in and around

EVESHAM

Public Meeting

Monday March 21st 2011

Transition Evesham Vale & The Vale of Evesham Civic Society

Notes of Bus Services Public Meeting, Town Hall Evesham, Monday 21 March 2011

The largest part of the meeting was a question and answer session. Some 40 questions were asked by an audience of about 70 local people and answered (very fairly!) by Peter Blake of Worcestershire County Council.

As could be expected the questions related to a number of themes and concerns that were no doubt common to all public meetings on this topic. Related themes have been brought together below, with an indication of the specific matters asked about.

1. Concessionary Fares Scheme

Q. Why has the financing of the Scheme been transferred to WCC from the districts?

A. This decision was taken 2 years ago. It should ensure consistency in future. Some districts - e.g. Wychavon – currently allow pre-0930 travel. Others - e.g. Worcester City – don’t.

Q. Did Wychavon’s money for the Scheme get transferred to WCC?

A. No. The DfT controls the national ‘pot’ and makes the financial allocations.

Q. Could pass-holders pay a small fee (say 50p) to cover a pre-0930 journey?

A. No. It would not be legal. Under current legislation the pass is free and cannot be charged for.

2. Pre - 0930 travel on ‘infrequent’ services

Q. Will ‘infrequent’ services include such as 540 ex-Evesham? For example a current service departs 0900 for Tewkesbury (change for Cheltenham). Concessionary passes would not be valid on it. Next departure is 1107 (through service to Cheltenham but no use for a morning hospital appointment there). Is this ‘infrequent’?

A. Not yet decided.

3. Services, fares & frequencies in general

Q. Many services, particularly to outlying villages, are already ‘thin’ & infrequent at present. Will they deteriorate further and leave the elderly, disabled and others without own transport completely isolated?

A. It has to be accepted that of necessity most people in villages have their own transport. The economics of public transport generally don’t fit well with peoples’ travel patterns. There is therefore a relatively small number of people who are reliant on public transport. Different options for serving those people need to be explored beyond conventional bus services. Can communities organise this type of very locally-based services themselves?

Q. As they already have the resources (vehicles & drivers) can commercial operators be encouraged to fill the gaps that may arise in currently subsidised services? Would they do some journeys as ‘commercial’ which are currently subsidised?

A. It is certainly a possibility. Subsidy can currently vary from 10p to £10 per passenger journey. It may not be cash or vehicles that are most needed but people. If it is simply not economic now, and not likely ever to be, then it might be possible to identify a non-commercial alternative – for example a school with a minibus.

Q. Can services that are designated ‘commercial’ be subsidised for non-commercial journeys (e.g. some early morning, evening or weekend journeys).

A. Yes, this is already done in many cases. Parts of journeys can also be subsidised, e.g. deviations from the main route.

Q. Where does public transport stand in terms of priority for WCC’s future expenditure in the light of the across-the-board savings that have to be made?

A. WCC has a legal obligation to set a budget it can meet. In a ‘citizens survey’ 10,000 Worcestershire people were asked what their priorities were in terms of services that must be retained. Top of the list were services for children, the elderly and the disabled. Public transport did not score highly. [See also under ‘Disability’ heading below].

Q. It was pointed out that it would cost £18.50 to travel by volunteer-organised private car to Worcester hospital from Evesham. What if an early bus was no longer available for, say, a 0930 appointment? Would that sort of charge be affordable?

A. WCC wants to encourage this sector and is planning to spend more than ever on supporting volunteer services because it is recognised that they are, where appropriate, more cost-effective than conventional services.

But would the NHS itself be more flexible in these circumstances?

Q. Will you take notice of the comments received from the current consultation?

A. Yes. Every single comment will be noted and reviewed before any final decisions are taken.

Q. Has the effect on retail trade in towns like Evesham been considered when bus services are being withdrawn or curtailed?

A. Yes this has been recognised.

4. On-bus surveys

Q. Have on-bus surveys been held and what were the results?

A. Yes. Many have been done and all the results collected, analysed and put to use.

5. Disability

Q. Some operators have vehicles which cannot be accessed by a wheelchair user [such as the questioner]. Why is this?

A. WCC cannot regulate this at present but under current legislation it is expected that by 2015 all services will have to be accessible. It has to be accepted that accessible vehicles cost more and tend to be used in the bigger towns only [which apparently does not include Evesham –

is that true?!]

Q. Did services for the disabled generally score highly in the ‘citizens survey’?

A. Yes, but specifically in relation to public transport we need to ask which services to focus upon.

6. School transport

Q. Does WCC intend to retain school transport services?

A. Yes. It has a legal duty to do so.

Q. There are many early journeys which are not specifically school services but are essential for school children and students. Will this be taken into consideration when assessing the viability of those journeys?

A. Yes. The mix of users on these journeys is recognised.

7. Technology

Q. Is WCC making full use of texting, internet and similar modern technology to keep people informed of service changes and related matters affecting bus services? [The questioner specifically mentioned existing electronic communication arrangements between the Bredon Hill villages].

A. Yes. It is recognised that many people rely on technology to keep up to date and well-informed so it makes sense to ensure that information about public transport is no exception.

Q. Looking ahead, more - and more environmentally-friendly - public transport will be needed to persuade people out of their cars. Who, for example, really knows what is going to happen to conventional fuel supplies and prices? What about electric vehicles?

A. WCC is piloting the use of electric vehicles and is very much aware of ‘green’ issues in relation to public transport.

8. Bus/rail interconnections (and interconnections generally)

Q. WCC has a stated policy of wanting to develop good bus/rail interconnection but there’s little evidence of it happening. Could for example the 559 service from Broadway [now extended to the Evesham Country Park] be timed to better connect with rail services at Evesham?

A. Possibly. A thorough investigation of specific interconnection opportunities will be needed before decisions can be made but the principle is very much alive.

9. Publicity/information

Q. Was it possible to improve publicity and the availability of easily-accessed information about bus services?
A. Yes. It is accepted that, in order to maximise usage, publicity about services could be improved and better-targeted, and more relevant and timely information provided.

10. Specific bus services

[Naturally many people attending were concerned about the future of particular services. Below is a selection of points made about those services – answers recorded where given but it is assumed the concerns were in any event noted and understood]

(i) 540 (Astons) (Mon. – Sat. Evesham – Tewkesbury + 2 through journeys to Cheltenham]

See 2. above re example of 540 as an ‘infrequent’ (?) service; Could the timings and frequency be adjusted to accommodate early morning use?; It was pointed that there are alternatives for Evesham to Cheltenham journeys (Castleways 559 + 606) or FGW train (Evesham – Worcester SH (change) – Cheltenham), but inconvenient, convoluted and expensive); There is already an on-bus petition to ‘save’ the 540 as an essential connection serving many villages which have no alternative service.

(ii) 554 (Henshaws) (Mon. – Sat. Evesham - Badsey - Honeybourne - Pebworth - Chipping Campden)

Concern about services to and from Honeybourne, especially the early morning journey: overall well-appreciated, but already ‘thin’. No decision yet taken but might have to become even less frequent to balance the budget. Much concern also about service to and from Pebworth -only 2 journeys a day (actually better served by Warwickshire service to and from Stratford!).

(iii) 552 (Henshaws) (Mon. – Sat. Evesham – Offenham – S. Littleton – Long Lartin)

Understandable concern about any changes to this service, particularly as regards access to Long Lartin.

(iv) 559 (Castleways) (Mon. – Sat. Evesham – Wickhamford – Childswickham – Broadway - Willersey)

Already the subject of public meetings in Broadway. Recently extended to Evesham Country Park – a much-appreciated ‘bonus’, long awaited. Essential as an advertised connection between Evesham rail station and Broadway;

Assurance given that no changes likely to the ‘commercial’ part of this service but there might be changes to the subsidised journeys [but when are these? – the last journeys leave Evesham at 1745 and Willersey at 1715]

See also 8. above re bus/rail interconnection.

(v) 247 (First/Diamond) (Daily. Evesham - Badsey – Cleeve Prior – Bidford - Alcester - Redditch)

Concern expressed about weekday early morning service to Alcester and Redditch, especially affects schoolchildren and students. It was recognised as an important service. Although majority of journeys are commercial, early morning, evening and Sunday services are subsidised. These were under review.

(vi) 565 (Cresswell) (Infrequent. Evesham - Hinton - Elmley Castle - Bricklehampton - Combertons - Pershore)

Although a very infrequent service, considered a vital link to these villages. Assurance given that no decision yet taken on its future but could be superseded by the long-awaited ‘Hopper’ – a proposed regular (circular?) inter-village service linking a number of the rural settlements in Wychavon currently covered only by very infrequent and poorly publicised services. Tenders for this service had been invited and unfortunately rejected as all too high, but likely that it would be retendered as the importance of this service was fully recognised