The Department for Transport (DfT) White Paper ‘The Future of Transport – a network for 2030’ set out the government’s vision to deliver an environmentally sustainable, reliable and safe transport system for the country.
For rural communities, the White Paper called for better bus services and pilot projects to reduce car use by 2-6% in rural and smaller urban areas. More recently, the Local Transport Act 2008 recognised how there may not be sufficient demand for a conventional bus service in rural areas prompting a need to find other ways of helping people to get around, including community transport schemes run by local charities, non-profit organisations (eg. dial-a-ride schemes) and taxi-buses.
Although connecting rural residents with key services such as education, health, leisure, retail and employment is vital, many members of the Rural Services Network have documented ongoing challenges around accessing transport to do so – from villages served by three buses a day to villages that receive one bus a week, and from viewing car ownership as essential (with the increased fuel and maintenance costs that accompany this) to what it feels like to be dependent on other people with cars to "go anywhere".
This is why ‘safe, reliable and affordable transport solutions’ is one of the ten key themes contained in the Rural Services Manifesto. The manifesto signals the need to find public transport solutions that address these challenges and calls for an improvement in the safety of rural roads. I suggest three key elements must be addressed.
First, in terms of the policy framework, despite the DfT’s recognition that conventional bus services are not always appropriate to rural communities, the Department continues to focus upon the Bus Service Operator Grants (BSOG) scheme and ‘kickstart’ funding for new or improved bus services. Further, the DfT’s document ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System’ (2008) seeks to support economic competitiveness and growth, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and promote equality of opportunity for transport users through ‘buses’ playing their full part in helping meet these goals. Indeed, the government set itself a target of increasing by one-third the number of households in rural areas who live within walking distance of at least an hourly bus service by the end of this year. In practice, this leads to (bus) solutions being introduced, withdrawn and (re)introduced due to a dependency on grants and subsidies. Further, while the Government’s overall approach is encapsulated through the DfT, what is often overlooked is the mosaic of transport solutions (focused on more than mainstream bus services), institutions (eg. local authorities, passenger transport executives), local, sub-regional and regional policies (eg. health strategies) and funding mechanisms (eg. European Regional Development Fund).
Secondly, public, private, voluntary and community sectors will need to work together to develop micro-level community transport in rural areas. RSN members have documented successful transport schemes, including walking and cycling paths, taxi-buses, Wheels to Work (W2W) and park and ride schemes. The success of these schemes has been driven, in part, by their integration (e.g. bus and rail timetables dovetailing), by their operation across geographic boundaries and because they are demand led and responsive. Many of these solutions also provide a more sustainable and less carbon intensive alternative to cars and buses. However, all of these schemes require capital and revenue support costs and presently – and in the life of the next Parliament - I doubt additional funding will be made available. While the RSN has tried to avoid calling for a direct increase in central government funding wherever possible, the RSN sees no solution other than calling on government to increase the level of funding for public transport solutions.
Thirdly, infrastructure and the degeneration of rural roads. Micro-level community transport schemes will necessarily overlap with car ownership. For many rural residents car ownership is essential for accessing services or commuting to work. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), more deaths occur on rural roads than urban ones. In 2005, over 2,000 people were killed on rural roads compared to just over 1,000 people on urban roads. Moreover, research carried out by the Road Safety Foundation has found two-thirds of single carriageway trunk roads are unsafe at the posted speed limit. RSN members have described how some local authorities are reducing expenditure on roads and/or falling behind with routine repair work, how vehicles regularly exceed the speed limit and lorries using rural roads as a ‘short cut’. Road safety is, therefore, a crucial issue affecting rural communities and the RSN has called on the Government to take action to curb speed limits and improve road quality.
Many of the journeys we make are local – it is estimated around two-thirds of all trips we make are shorter than 5 miles – but in rural areas while you may be less than 5 miles from a public service if the road to get there is a track not a main road it presents real spatial challenges. What this briefing illuminates, therefore, is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to transport in rural areas. Rural residents, businesses and visitors will have different transport requirements, public transport provision needs to encompass more than buses and be reconciled with car ownership, sustainable funding streams need to be found, and it needs to be recognised that travel choices have environmental impacts within rural and urban areas.
Jessica Sellick is a rural consultant at Rose Regeneration. She can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .