The Community Transport Association hosted a round table event which assessed how an enhanced understanding of community-led transport with public transport could achieve sustainable and inclusive transport for all?

Session host Caroline Whitney, Director for England for the Community Transport Association (CTA) set the scene by outlining what community transport is and the role of the CTA in supporting and advocating for the sector. The role of community transport was discussed, as both a service that improves access to public transport networks and provides an alternative to public transport for those who cannot access the network due to age, disability, or other reasons.

The importance of community transport as a genuinely accessible mode for passengers in both rural and urban setting was emphasised through the discussion. However, the difficulty of integrating community transport into wider transport networks was highlighted, both in terms of providing information for stakeholders and visibility and information for passengers.

Throughout the discussion, there were clarifications on how the sector comprises different types of community transport providers (many grass roots organisations up to organisations with multi-million pound turnovers) providing many different types of services. The difference between section 19 (not for non-member transportation) and section 22 (community bus routes) permits was discussed, as was the role of community transport in relation to demand responsive transport (DRT). The CTA is currently working on research to highlight and explain the many different types of services currently offered.

Specific points covered in the discussion included:

Demand Responsive Transport

Noted that DRT has an uncertain future, but that community transport could support these services.
Further discussion highlighted that community transport providers have been operating a form of service for a long time, as Dial a Ride.
Community transport providers’ commitment to their local area has meant that they are frequently providing DRT or Dial a Ride services long after a commercial provider would have withdrawn. This is often detrimental as community transport providers can receive less funding than an equivalent commercial provider.
Despite a common misconception, DRT can be delivered with a section 19 permit.

Social value

A wider discussion of how a reliance on commercial criteria for services can mean that important but non-profitable services can be neglected.
The development of Ealing Community Transport’s Social Value toolkit (which is currently being updated) was raised as an example of how additional value of Community Transport can quantified.
The value of providing affordable group hire for VCS groups was highlighted.

Engagement

In some cases, it can be difficult to for stakeholders to locate or engage with community transport providers in local areas, so often they are not involved in initial discussions, but must fit in around wider transport structures and timetables.
There are opportunities for engagement in planning housing, sheltered housing, public services and other planning projects. Schedule 17 consent highlighted as a possible vehicle for this.
Engagement with local authorities is uneven with some very good practice and some less engaged. It was accepted that it is a very difficult funding environment, but some budgetary cutbacks are contradictory (e.g. one part of a budget noting the social value of a service, another part cutting the service). It is increasingly difficult for LA’s to link up internally, so necessary for community transport organisations to navigate different departments in some cases.

Data

Some booking and CRM systems are too expensive for community transport organisations to afford, can be difficult for the wide variety of services to fit into PT systems. Clarity on the data required from operators is needed to enable them to contribute to MAAS platforms, journey planning software etc.
Data only shows what people do, not what they want to do, so misses where services don’t exist. Community transport services exist because of an identified need or exclusion from public transport, not existing behaviour.

Final suggestions

Are there opportunities for the private sector to support Community Transport operations (e.g. through shared premises, leasing vehicles or mechanics services)?
Can fundraising be improved through donations to investment-ready Community Transport project?
How can Community Transport be better included in future bus franchising? What are the lessons from Greater Manchester?
How can community transport data be better included in transport data (e.g. noting 10-minute access buffers to services)?