KCC Bus Review – consultation summary, conclusions and next steps
Introduction
Over the past five years Council budgets have come under increasing pressure as Central Government has reduced its funding year on year. Kent County Council (KCC) has already had to reduce its revenue expenditure by £433m since the start of 2011-12 and the budget for 2016-17 requires a further £80.8m of savings.
Savings made to date have focussed on how we work and on reducing spending across services provided by KCC. We have reduced these budgets as much as we can in many instances. As a consequence, to meet our further savings targets, we can no longer fully protect our bus subsidy budget.
We have already made over £1m of savings by working with bus operators to re-plan routes and through a greater use of Community Transport operators. We have made these changes without any noticeable impact on bus passengers. Also, we have recently identified a further £250k worth of savings but we still need to reduce our spending by around £500k in the next financial year.
To align the supported bus budget with the 16/17 budget level a package of service proposals, which would see supported bus services transfer to commercial operation, has been identified. As in some instances these include some changes and reduction to service, the Council took the decision to complete a full public consultation on the changes proposed and this ran from the 21st of March 2016 to the 15th of May 2016.
Following the closure of the consultation, the responses were analysed and used to update the Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs) that had been carried out. KCC officers then used all of this information to make recommendations to KCC’s Environment and Transport Cabinet meeting on 8th July.
This report provides an executive summary of the consultation, the recommendations made and approved and what happens next. It should be read in conjunction with the full consultation documents which include more detail about the consultation, the results and the service impacts.
Services / journeys included in the consultation were:
2 / Stagecoach / Ashford to Rolvenden / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday89 / Arriva / Maidstone to Coxheath / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
5 / Arriva / Maidstone to Hawkhurst / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
89 / Stagecoach / Dover to Folkestone / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
102 / Stagecoach / Dover to Lydd / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
123 / Nu-Venture / Kings Hill to West Malling Station / All journeys Monday to Friday
203 / Autocar / Benover to Paddock Wood / Monday and Wednesday Shopper Bus
204 / Autocar / Tonbridge to Underriver / Two round trips on Monday to Friday
205 / Arriva / Tonbridge to Paddock Wood / Saturday service
402 / Arriva / Tonbridge to Hildenborough / The 17:03 journey on a Saturday.
217 / Arriva / Trench Wood to Ramslye via Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
477 / Arriva / Swanley to Dartford / Early morning and evening journeys Monday to Saturday
12RL / Clarkes / Tenterden to Headcorn Railway Station / Monday to Friday commuter service
14A / Stagecoach / Canterbury to Deal / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
15 / 15A / Stagecoach / Dover to Sandown / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
3 / 3B / Stagecoach / Canterbury to Faversham / Evening journeys Monday to Saturday
541 / 542 / 544 / Regents Coaches / Elvington to Dover, Walmer to Sandwich, Walmer to Canterbury / Off peak shoppers services on Monday to Saturdays
Consultation response summary
During the consultation period, a total of 424 responses were received. There were 276 responses specific to the service proposals in the consultation document and 63% of respondents used the services affected. Of the 276, 175 of the respondents identified themselves as being one of the potentially negatively impacted protected characteristic groups (e.g. older people, people with disabilities and people with caring responsibilities) as identified in the EqIAs.
A full analysis report was completed and is available to view online at www.kent.gov.uk/busreview and in hard copy on request.
The public consultation identified the following key messages;
· There appears to be a reasonable level of general agreement with the scoring method.
· To some extent, concerns may reflect a lack of full understanding of exactly what changes may look like i.e. in some instances full timetables for alternative services were not available.
· Respondents do generally seem to recognise the need for change and that some mechanism is needed to try to make a fair decision. However, not all agree with the weighting given (or not given) to particular groups.
· A proportion of users do appear to have alternative means of travel either using the remaining bus services or private transport but in some more limited instances some the revised service timetables will cause a genuine problem and will be looked at in detail.
The consultation response levels, themes, affected groups and the impact scores have all been reviewed. Overall the service proposals, taking account of mitigations, have not drawn significant opposition during the consultation, except in respect of three services.
These were;
· Service123
· Service 12RL
· Service 541/2/4
The number of responses in each case was;
Service 12RL = 51
Service 123 = 44
Service 541/542/544 = 30
This compares with an average response rate of 10.79 for the other service proposals and these services are therefore worthy of specific mention.
Service 123
This service is to be replaced with a new service X1 / X2, which will be funded by the developer of the Kings Hill estate. Although the consultation referred to the replacement, full details of the timetable were not available and therefore it is considered that a lack of awareness as to the mitigation has contributed to the concern in this instance.
The service X1 will provide a new express bus service between Kings Hill and Maidstone, which will also replace the current service between Kings Hill and West Malling Station. Based on the consultation responses officers are reviewing the proposed timetable of the proposed X1 to ensure that the rail connection element provides the level of service as provided today by service 123.
Concerns were also raised over the reliability of the service as it will be linked with through journeys to Maidstone. To deliver the timetable there will be a mixture of through journeys to Maidstone but also short journeys between Kings Hill and West Malling Station. We therefore believe that the service will be reliable. The journey time between Kings Hill and Maidstone has also been designed to be reliable, operating via the M20.
Service 12RL
The concerns raised about service 12RL mirror those of service 123 users. In the consultation a detailed alternative timetable for service 12 was not provided. Therefore the current users of service 12RL were not in a position to comment on the level of provision and the concern is understandable. Officers working with Arriva, the bus company providing service 12, have developed proposals, which would see service 12 provide the same bus provision that the 12RL currently provides. The alternative provision should provide similar levels of journey options as provided by the 12RL.
The concerns expressed by respondents over service reliability have been noted and officers will work closely with Arriva during the implementation work to ensure that journeys operate reliably and address any concerns raised by rail users.
Service 541/2/4
The consultation identified strong concern over the proposed changes to services 541/542/544. Although the proposal is to reduce the overall level of service rather than withdraw it completely, it is acknowledged that these services represent the only public transport to many of the rural communities that they serve. Concern was raised regarding the impact of service reductions on levels of social isolation to a largely elderly user group and these have been specifically considered.
Conclusions
The consultation responses have been used together with information gathered on each of the services (surveys, data etc.) to update the Equality Impact Assessments completed for each of the affected services and the overall project. These include Impact Scores, which take account of whether passengers with certain protected characteristics (as identified with equalities legislation), such as, older people, people with disabilities or with caring responsibilities use the service and of the Council’s criteria for the support of socially necessary bus services.
The summary table attached as an appendix to this report identifies the updated Impact Scores as well as some information regarding the user profiles. The Impact Scores in isolation do not identify particular services where the changes proposed have significantly greater implications for older or disabled service users because there is evidence that all of the services are used by customers with these protected characteristics.
Focus has been given to considering the particular implications of service and timetable changes caused by the revisions proposed and where possible we will work with the bus operators to see if the new services can be changed to help negate the impact of these changes as indicated in the summary table.
The public consultation did not evidence any significant opposition to the proposed service proposals, except for concern with respect to the three individual services; 123, 12RL and 541/2/4.
In respect of two of the services, 12RL & 123, it was clear from the consultation that most of the concern was driven by the fact that those responding did not have the opportunity to review the proposed timetable, which would have allayed a majority of concerns. To ensure that these concerns are addressed, the timetables have been reviewed again and in the case of X1, revised, to ensure the level of service is maintained. In both of these instances, officers are satisfied that the replacement services proposed adequately mitigate the impact of the changes and that the revised network will continue to provide similar levels of service for bus passengers.
In respect of service, 541/542/544, the concerns raised in respect of the reduction in service cannot be lessened and further development of this proposal is required. Noting the concerns raised and the fact that service provision will reduce, officers wish to defer this proposal at this stage. Further options for providing the current level of service but at reduced cost and with potential integration with other supported services in the Dover area are to be reviewed and revised proposals will be brought forward at a future date.
Outcomes and next steps
A report by officers was taken to the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 8th July, which made recommendations following the closure and analysis of the public consultation. Officers recommended that all of the measures proposed within the consultation be progressed with the exception of the changes to services 541/2/4 in Dover, which are to be deferred pending the development of some other transport solutions.
Although the changes proposed to services 12RL and 123 attracted a high number of responses, officers are content that the replacement services offer a suitable level of alternative service and that greater information regarding these will resolve the majority of concerns. In respect of either service, no specific journey implications were highlighted that could not be completed using remaining, changed or new services.
The response rates for all other services were far more limited but the individual responses have been considered. In some instances, it has been identified that there may be scope to review the detail of the revised timetables in order to accommodate particular issues and journeys that are currently being made.
Members of the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee approved the officers’ recommendations and a decision was made by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to implement these changes subject to the revisions identified with this paper.
Officers will now liaise with bus operators with a view to amending contracts and services from early October. Specific advice regarding new timetables and the date of changes will be provided to passengers, primarily through on bus notices.
1
Appendix A - Summary of services for review
Service No. / Route / Response Themes / Mitigation and Actions / Initial Impact Score / Updated Impact Score / Estimated journeys per annum / Responses / Elderly (%) / Disabled (%) / Carer (%) /12RL / Tenterden to Headcorn Railway Station / · Loss of Commuter Links
· Adequacy and Reliability of replacement service / · Increased awareness of revised service 12 timetable
· Review of timetable with Arriva with respect to reliability and ability to adjust / 14 / 17 / 15,435 / 51 / 27% / 6% / 6%
2 / Ashford to Rolvenden
(Evening Journeys on Monday to Saturday) / · Loss of service for commuters and shift workers
· Loss of service for leisure activities
· Increased travel costs / · There are no mitigating measure other than further discussion with Stagecoach to look at the potential for later commercial journeys / 14 / 18 / 8,075 / 20 / 45% / 15% / 5%
89 / Maidstone to Coxheath / · Loss of service for commuters and shift workers
· Impact on caring responsibilities
· Driving/Taxis an option for some but concern about congestion / · Increase awareness of proposed Arriva service 5 route and timetable, which will partially replace journeys on the 89 / 15 / 17 / 14,519 / 13 / 31% / 8% / 23%
5 / Maidstone to Hawkhurst / · Changes to service 5 may result in passengers deciding to use their car instead due to the increase in journey time to cover Coxheath. This may increase pollution and congestion on local roads.
· Concern over service 5 connections with trains. / · Increased awareness of revised Arriva 5 route and timetable.
· Review of revised operation with Arriva to understand the effects of changing the route and timetable will have on train connections at Staplehurst. / 16 / 17 / 14,567 / 5 / 60% / 0% / 20%
89 / Dover to Folkestone / · Loss of service for commuters and shift workers
· Impact on caring responsibilities
· Feeling that the change will have a negative impact on all aspects of life