REPORT OF:
HEAD OF LEISURE SERVICES
AUTHOR:
GILL WILSON
TELEPHONE:
01737 276126
E-MAIL:
gill.wilson@reigate-banstead.gov.uk
TO:
EXECUTIVE
DATE:
8 DECEMBER 2004
EXECUTIVE MEMBER:
COUNCILLOR A.J. KAY
AGENDA ITEM NO:
WARD(S) AFFECTED:
6
KEY DECISION REQUIRED:
YES
ALL
SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT - DIAL-A-RIDE REVIEW
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT:
INFORM MEMBERS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE
DIAL-A-RIDE REVIEW AND SEEK DECISIONS
ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE SERVICE.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the Executive determine which of the three viable options, C, D (1 or 2) or
E outlined at paragraph 15 they wish to be pursued. If options D or E are
pursued Members are asked to note the redundancy of 3.5 FTE posts and modify
the HR plan accordingly.
2. If Horley Dial-a-Ride charity ceases to exist in 2005 that the existing 166 Horley
Dial-a-ride Members are made members of Regent Hall Day Centre Ltd to enable
them to continue to access the social provision, e.g. outings presently provided
through Horley Dial-a-Ride Charity.
3. That if a community transport service is provided, funding be sought from
Surrey County Council and the East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership to widen
the availability of disabled-accessible community transport within East Surrey.
4. That the detailed implementation of the agreed option be delegated to the
Director of Services to the Community in consultation with the Executive
Member for Community Safety and Transport
5. That the service option chosen be reviewed at appropriate intervals in line with
the County Council’s review.
Executive has authority to determine the above recommendations.
Background
1.
The Council’s Dial-a-Ride service was started as a pilot initiative some ten
years ago to provide an “on-demand” door-to-door transport for elderly and
disabled people. It predominantly serves residents aged 70 – 95, living at
home and who do not necessarily qualify for disability living allowance or
other local authority funded care. They are classed as “active elderly”
although many are frail and vulnerable. The majority do not fall under Surrey
County Council’s social services remit. Dial-a-Ride services are in place in
various forms across all of the Surrey boroughs and districts and in many
other parts of the country and is a key element in ensuring that elderly people
are able to remain independent for as long as possible.
2.
A review of the current service was a task in the revised 2003-6 Corporate
plan. Factors to be considered were: the discretionary nature of the service,
escalating service costs, the excessive age and regular failure of the bus fleet,
and increasing numbers of disabled-accessible minibuses provided by the
voluntary sector and the low customer numbers transported per trip.
The Policy Context
3.
The 2001 Census shows a total of 15,297 people over the age of 70 living
within the borough (see annexes 1 & 2). An analysis of 774 Dial-a-Ride
members shows that it predominantly serves people within the 70 – 95 age
range. From these figures it can be seen that Dial-a-Ride presently serves
only 5% of the people in this age range, particularly those who’s age or
disability means that they are unable to use normal public transport services.
4.
The 2001 Census shows a 30% increase in the number of people over 50.
This sector of the community has a desire to travel for both social and
educational reasons. Their demand for community transport is not restricted
to Monday to Friday 9 to 5 nor to the limits of the Dial-a-Ride provision. There
are also areas of rural isolation within the borough, predominately to the north
of the M25, where there are extremely limited, or no public transport services
at times residents wish to travel. The framework of the existing dial-a-ride
service does not meet these needs.
5.
Surrey County Council conducted a substantial best value review of
Community Transport between January & June 2003. They also conducted a
parallel policy review of community transport provision countywide (the
Halcrow Report 2004). The broad conclusions of the reviews are that:

Dial-a-Rides, while suitable in their day, are not a sustainable means of
meeting the changing demands of the aged 50+ customers; and

The community transport services across the County should move towards
the provision of one or two transport co-ordination centres within the
County which would co-ordinate a truly “on demand” transport service and
act as a transport information centre. Working in partnership with the
Borough and District Councils is critical to the success of these centres.
The combined results of the County’s Best Value Review and its Policy review
was reported to the County Executive in Oct 2004, and the County have
authorised funding for a member of staff to assess and plan the operational
viability of the transport co-ordination centre. At the time of writing there are
no dates of when the transport co-ordination centre might become
operational. In the absence of this information, Officers best guess is between
2008 and 2010.
6.
There is an argument that to maintain a community transport service will
preserve the Council’s position with County and allow it to retain an ability to
participate in the Surrey County Council transport initiative should it come to
fruition.
The Operational Context
7.
The Council’s existing dial-a-ride service comprises 4 disabled-accessible
minibuses. Two operate to the North of the M25 (managed by Epsom & Ewell
Borough Council) and two in the area to the South of the M25 excluding
Horley (managed by Horley Dial-a-Ride). The Horley service is provided by a
Charity subsidised by the Borough Council. (see map at Annex 3) The Horley
Dial-a-Ride Charity is presently considering whether it wishes to continue
providing the service independently of the Council. For the purpose of this
report it has been assumed that the Council will take over service provision
and the estimated £60,000 cost of providing a dial-a-ride service for the
residents of Horley.
8.
The existing service, by its “on demand” nature, does not operate efficiently in
terms of bus capacity. Customers are picked up from their door at a time of
their choice and transported to their preferred destination. Routes are
planned for the most effective pick up times for the demand for each
destination, however, if only one or two people wish to travel to a destination
at any given time, the buses will inevitably be transporting low numbers of
people per trip. Tables 1 and 2 show the statistics. On average, customers
travel a total of 4.45 miles per trip, and there are only 0.95 people being
transported per trip. This means that some trips (from location to collect a
passenger) have no one on board. Given that the buses have the ability to
seat 16 people, this is inefficient. Should Dial-a-Ride be continued, Epsom &
Ewell’s route mapping and management information software should be used
to improve the efficiency of the runs and introduce better organised trips to
popular destination such as Supermarkets.
9.
It should be noted that when the buses are transporting customers who are in
electric wheelchairs, or those using mobility scooters, the carrying capacity of
the 16-seater bus is reduced because of the size of these pieces of
equipment. At least 41 (5.3%) of the existing customer base of 774 use this
type of equipment.
Reigate & Banstead
Dial A Ride Activity Summary
2003/04
North
Central
Combined
Average annual membership
408
193
601
Membership received
Fares received
Total income
£2,600
£15,062
£17,662
£1,707
£8,600
£10,307
£4,307
£23,662
£27,969
Mileage
Fuel drawn
Fuel cost
39,086
7,665
£6,022
31,114
6,323
£4,928
70,200
13,988
£10,950
Total trips
Total passengers
10,240
11,285
5,529
3,662
15,769
14,947
of which:
escorts
wheelchair users
1,045
544
0
152
1,045
696
unmet demand
56
80
136
NB Horley Dial-a-Ride has current membership of 166 people. Comparative
statistics are not collected by the Horley Dial-a-Ride Charity.
Table 1
North = North of M25
Central = (Redhill, Reigate, Salfords, Sidlow)
Horley = (Horley, Smallfield) delivered via Horley Dial-a-Ride Charity
2003/4
Dial-a-ride North
Dial-a Ride Central
Dial-a-Ride Horley
£ Budget
66,600
67,800
60,000*
Population
46,280
59,011
21,232
£ Subsidy/head of pop
£1.44
£1.15
£2.83*
* NOTE: Horley dial-a-ride only costs borough council £3,900 in grant. The cost of £60,000 is an estimate of the
running costs for the Charity during 2004/5.
Table 2
10.
Paragraph 7 onwards points to operational inefficiency through the present
design of the on-demand and house-to-house pick-up service offered to the
dial-a-ride customers.
11.
There is no dial-a-ride service available in the evenings or at weekends.
Staffing cost has been the primary reason for limiting the service provision to
Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
Taxi Voucher Pilot
12.
A pilot scheme operating to the North of the M25, has identified some service
issues with the operation of the taxi voucher scheme from a dial-a-ride
customer perspective. The taxi voucher pilot was open to a wide variety of
residents and at the time of writing only 33 dial-a-ride customers had taken up
the offer. The resistance to take-up was partly due to existing dial-a-ride
users fears that the dial-a-ride service would be withdrawn if the taxi voucher
scheme proved popular – as it has with other residents. Some customers
who had initially joined the scheme subsequently returned their books. One
reason given was the additional expense of using taxis (see table 3); the other
issue was less customer care from the taxi drivers.
A Customer Comparison
Taxi Vouchers
£154 of voucher allows flexibility to
travel at any time including evenings
and weekends. Bookings at any time
and generally pick-up within half an
hour of booking.
A 10 mile trip costs £17.20
A 4 mile trip costs £9.20
Therefore for £154 the Council
subsidises 9 ten-mile trips or 17 fourmile trips.
Table 3
13.
Dial a Ride
Service operates Monday to Friday,
9am – 5pm. Booking to guarantee a
trip is normally one week ahead
between 09.00 and 13.00 to facilitate
route planning.
Cost £10 per annum membership
plus £5.20 for a 10 mile round trip
dependent whether in borough or out
of it
A 4 mile trip costs £3.15
Therefore £154 buys dial-a-ride
membership plus 27 ten-mile trips or
46 four-mile trips.
Table 3 shows that there is a cost/benefit balance to be considered. The
benefits of the taxi voucher service with the service infrastructure (taxi’s and
drivers) provided by the private sector, quick booking, and unlimited hours of
operation, however, this comes at a higher cost for the customer. Or, the
higher levels of customer care and personalised service provided at a
cheaper cost to the customer by dial-a-ride. This however, has to be offset
against the inefficiency of the present dial-a-ride service infrastructure.
Options
14.
The operational review of the Council’s Dial-a-Ride service considered the
following service options:
Option Description
A
Refurbish the existing buses and continue the service until the Surrey
County Council initiative is operational.
B
Investigate the possibility of an East Surrey transport hub Pilot in advance
of the Surrey Council initiative.
C
Replace the dial-a-ride buses and continue the existing service and
streamline providers until the Surrey County Council initiative is operational
in (say) 2008.
D1
Stop the dial-a-ride service, and use the money to provide a “safety-net” of
alternative provision by introducing taxi vouchers for all qualifying dial-aride users and provide/arrange a disabled-accessible community transport
service for those 67 dial-a-ride members who are physically unable to use
the taxi voucher system.
D2
Stop the dial-a-ride service, and use the money to provide a “safety-net” of
alternative provision by introducing taxi vouchers for qualifying frequent
use* dial-a-ride users and provide/arrange a disabled-accessible
community transport service for those 67 dial-a-ride members who are
physically unable to use the taxi voucher system.
E
Stop the dial-a-ride service completely without making alternative provision.
* Frequent users are the 356 customers who use dial-a-ride weekly, fortnightly or monthly.
15.
Each of the options above has been assessed considering both the
practicality of the solution and the cost, the results of the assessment are
summarised in the sections overleaf.
16.
In order to prevent service duplication, where taxi voucher provision has been
suggested, the scheme is designed to mirror the services provided by
Tandridge DC. Should Members choose to modify the detail of the taxi
voucher scheme, that is likely to mean that the Council would have to
administer and manage the revised scheme internally, thereby increasing the
overheads and hence cost.
Factors for Consideration
17.
Dial-a-Ride, and Community Transport, is a completely discretionary service.
The Council has no legal duty to provide it.
18.
The service benefits the elderly (predominantly aged 70 – 95) and disabled
members of the community who are unable to travel on conventional public
transport services.
Withdrawing the service completely without some
underpinning with an alternative would significantly disadvantage some of the
most elderly and vulnerable people in the borough.
Options
Option A. Refurbish the existing buses and continue the service.
19.
The dial-a-ride buses, which are leased, are now seven years old and
regularly break down. The Council was due to replace the lease on the buses
in 2002, however the service was kept going pending the outcome of the
County’s Community Transport review. In 2003 as a result of the increasing
frequency of bus breakdown the leasing company gave notice of its
withdrawal from its full maintenance and replacement minibus contract. This
left the Council with a resultant increase in bus costs. A second opinion on
the condition of the Council’s dial-a-ride buses has been sought and it has
confirmed that the buses are beyond the age of economic repair. Following
their recent MOT inspections all four buses had to be removed from service
and replacements hired while repairs were carried out. The buses remain in
imminent danger of breakdown with consequential unplanned expenditure
and/or service failure as a result.
20.
The conclusion is that the current buses are unlikely to be able to continue
beyond the end of the 2004/5 financial year, and may experience significant
breakdown prior to that time. It is not economically or operationally sound to
refurbish the existing buses.
Option B. An East Surrey transport hub pilot scheme.
21.
Approaches were made to East Surrey Ambulance Trust to investigate the
opportunities for an East Surrey community transport pilot scheme following
their own Best Value Review of non-emergency patient transport.
The
purpose of the approach was to see whether there was scope to use the
Ambulance centre in Banstead as a call centre and mechanism to route plan
for all the transport services around the area. The scheme, quite rightly, did
not include any emergency ambulance services.
22.
The Ambulance centre is able to act as a call centre/routing hub and already
has the necessary software and infrastructure in place. However, the service
would be reliant on the Council and other voluntary transport services to
provide the community transport vehicles and an additional source of drivers.
23.
There were three major stumbling blocks to this approach that could not be
resolved within the scope of this review. Firstly, there are presently
insurmountable difficulties in obtaining insurance cover for buses owned by
one organisation to be driven and used by a series of unknown third parties,
Secondly there is general reluctance on behalf of the voluntary sector to
release their vehicles, for which they had often spent many years fundraising,
into a general use pool. Thirdly the existing drivers at the community centres
and within other services are utilised in other capacities when they are not
driving, so there would be an increase in resource requirements and hence
cost should these staff and volunteers be required to drive more.
24.
There was a further issue with the boundary of the East Surrey Pilot. While
there is a degree of congruence between the dial-a-ride boundaries within
Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge, there is no congruence between the local
government boundaries and the Health Authority boundaries. The pilot would
have meant the respective borough and district council’s operating a service
outside of the borough and also outside of the present “natural community”
geographical boundaries within which the dial-a ride services operate.
25.
The conclusion was that with the exception of the Council there was
insufficient interest from other bus owners, to create the required pool of
vehicles, and with the geographical coverage required to match Health
Authority boundaries rather than local authority boundaries, creating a
functioning pilot was not practicable.
Option C. Replace the dial-a-ride buses and continue the existing service.
26.
Replacement buses have been considered and a variety of bus sizes and
types have been costed. The buses have to be specially adapted for
disabled-access and are not available off the shelf. This is reflected in the
prices of the vehicles when compared with regular mini-bus purchase prices.
27.
Given the likelihood of a significant change in Community Transport
requirements when (if) the County Council implements its transport centre, it
seems prudent to cost new lease buses for a cost effective 5-year term. If this
option were pursued a further detailed review of buy or lease would be carried
out.
28.
Table 4 shows the indicative additional costs of leasing new buses and shows
growth above the existing lease costs. Financial models have been produced
for two, five and seven year lease periods, and a selection of buses. The diala-ride drivers have indicated a strong preference for large mini-buses, or a
mix of large and small buses. However the numbers of passengers being
transported indicate that the Renault Traffic people carrier option would have
sufficient capacity, although it would not be capable of carrying a wheelchair
passenger and an electric scooter passenger together. Members are asked
to note that due to the specialist nature of the minibuses, a two-year lease is
the minimum lease period available in the marketplace.
BUS LEASING
Type of Bus
LDV accessible
minibus
Mercedes
Sprinter
accessible
minibus
Renault Traffic
accessible
Passenger
Capacity
13 or 8 if w/chair
loaded
13 or 8 if w/chair
loaded
8 or 5 if w/chair
loaded
Annual leasing cost per bus for
different contract periods
2 yr. hire 5 yr. hire 7 yr. hire
£26,234 £41,676 £52,770
Revenue
Growth per
annum above
existing lease
costs
£9,676
£23,392 N/A
£45,270
N/A
£22,154
£34,826
-£4,285
£27,715
Table 4
29.
If the Council decides to keep the service, the most economic lease term is
the five-year option. In the case of the LDV this gives an annual cost of
£41,676 compared with the present bus lease cost of £32,100. Hence the
annual growth figure of £9,676. Members are asked to note that the costs
quoted are for the bus only. Maintenance and a replacement vehicle should
the bus be off the road will cost an additional £7,000 per annum.
Option D. Stop the dial-a-ride service, but underpin with a “safety-net” of taxi
vouchers and alternative public/voluntary sector provision.
Option D1
30.
A 100 person Taxi Voucher Pilot funded jointly by Reigate & Banstead
Borough Council and Surrey County Council has been operating in the North
of the Borough since June 2004. It has been successful, and within three
months of operation reached full capacity. A similar scheme has been
operating successfully in Tandridge District Council for the past seven years.
The Tandridge scheme operates in addition to their Dial-a-Ride service.
31.
The taxi voucher scheme involves first recruiting local licensed taxi companies
onto the scheme, then offering customers who are unable to use conventional
forms of transport the opportunity to apply for a book of taxi vouchers
presently worth £154. The vouchers are in £2 denominations and for security
reasons are watermarked, bar coded and holographed to prevent forgery.
Successful applicants can use the vouchers to travel with the taxi companies
signed up to the Taxi Voucher scheme. There are providers with disabled
accessible taxis as well are regular cabs. The journey’s can be paid for in
any combination of cash and vouchers. One book of vouchers is issued to
any one individual per year. The vouchers will need to be supplemented by
customer fare contributions.
32.
Used taxi vouchers are collected by the taxi drivers and redeemed.
Redemption presently takes place at the Leisure Centres, however it may be
possible to make other arrangements or use electronic payment if the scheme
is implemented on a borough-wide basis.
33.
Approaches made to voluntary sector minibus providers have resulted in a
clear picture of disabled-accessible mini-bus availability throughout the
borough (see Annex 4). Further discussion with the voluntary sector mini-bus
providers had indicated that there willingness to provide an on-demand
service for the 67 people unable to transfer to taxi vouchers is very patchy.
34.
Age Concern Redhill, Reigate & Merstham was the only service willing to
consider it, and they have placed a restriction that only customers aged over
50 years can access that service. Dial-a-Ride Central, which covers Redhill,
Reigate, Salfords, and Sidlow, has three members below the age of 50 of
whom one currently appears unable to transfer to taxi vouchers.
35.
No alternative voluntary sector provision has been forthcoming for the North
of the Borough or the Horley area, although membership of Banstead Day
Centre Ltd. and Regent Hall Day Centre Ltd. may allow some customers
access to a disabled accessible minibus service for transporting them to and
from the Day Centre. At present the Day Centre relies on Dial-a-Ride to
transport their more rural customers to them. The Day Centre service does
not offer supermarket trips - the most popular use of Dial-a-Ride.
36.
Officer’s projections for the worst case cost scenario for the 67 people that
cannot transfer to the taxi voucher scheme is in the order of £51,000 per year.
That equates to a subsidy of £761 per head. Members are asked to note that
at the time of writing the detail of how this service might be achieved has not
been agreed with the voluntary sector.
37.
The indicative costs of a taxi voucher service is shown at Annexes 5 & 6.
These costs have been calculated for price sensitivities of £154 per book and
an anticipated price increase to £156 per book. The prices include provision
for the 166 members of the existing Horley Dial-a-Ride. With 67 people
unable to transfer to the scheme, the costs of providing taxi vouchers for the
remaining 707 members of Dial-a-Ride is in the region of £147,100 at a
voucher book price of £154 and £148,900 at a voucher book price of £156.
38.
Taxi vouchers for all the existing dial-a-ride members plus a service for those
unable to transfer to taxi vouchers represents an increase of £88,600 on the
existing budget provision. Members are asked to note that these costs
include the Horley Dial-a-Ride customer base which is not presently provided
by, or budgeted for by the Council.
Option D2
39.
Were the Executive to consider providing taxi vouchers to the frequent users
of dial-a-ride plus a service for the 67 people that cannot transfer to taxi
vouchers, then the growth could be reduced to £20,600 over existing budget.
However, some 418 people who pay £10 to be members of dial-a-ride yet
seldom use the service, would not be provided for. See Table 5.
40.
Frequent describes those customers who use dial-a-ride weekly, fortnightly
and monthly.
Option E. Stop the dial-a-ride without making alternative provision.
41.
Stopping the existing dial-a ride service without providing an alternative
service would in cash terms provide a saving of £109,400. However
redundancy costs and proportions of annual membership refunds would have
to be deducted from this sum in 2005/6 only. These will be in the range of
£9,000 - £ 12,000.
Resource Implications
42.
Table 5 below shows the full costs of the existing dial-a-ride Central and North
service. Based on the Charity’s accounts, the Council taking on Horley dial-aride adds c£60,000 of cost per annum. This is the majority of the growth
shown in the table. Table 2 at paragraph 8 shows the operational subsidy per
head of population for each of the three dial-a-ride services during the 2003/4
financial year. The figure for Horley shown in Table 2 is indicative only.
Financial Evaluation of Options
Option
TABLE 5
£ Growth from
Budget £ 2004/5
B
Assumed 2005/06 Budget including
Horley Dial-a-Ride
Continue the service with refurbished buses Not viable Not viable
Develop East Surrey Pilot with Ambulance
Trust and Voluntary Sector
Not viable Not viable
C
Replace Dial-a-Ride buses and continue
existing service, including taking over Horley
Dial-a-Ride.
£188,300
£79,100
D1
Close Dial-a-Ride and introduce taxi voucher
scheme plus top-up service for the most
disabled customers
£198,000
£88,600
A
D2
E
Close Dial-a-Ride and introduce taxi voucher
scheme for frequent users plus top-up
service for the most disabled customers
£130,000
Stop Dial-a-Ride with no replacement
provision
£109,400
£20,600
-£109,400
43.
New Bus leases, dependent on the duration of lease and the type of vehicle
chosen will range from a saving of £4,285 over existing lease costs to growth
of £9,676 per annum for the 5 year lease period. The cost of leasing new
buses and extending the service to include a bus for Horley results in growth
of £72,100 over the existing budget provision.
44.
Surrey County Council are due to receive a substantial sum of money from
the government for their success in meeting their 2000 to 2004 Public Service
Agreement (PSA) Community Transport targets.
Reigate & Banstead
Borough Council was a partner in delivering that PSA.
Officers have
approached Surrey to determine whether this government funding could be
used to purchase new buses. The County have informed us that they are still
negotiating with ODPM over the final settlement and anticipate receiving the
funds sometime in the new year. They are conducting a Policy and
Productivity review and will not commit to spending that money until both the
amount and the outcome of the review is known in the new year.
45.
Should the dial-a-ride service be stopped or significantly altered there will be
redundancy costs in the region of £8200 for the 3.5 FTE drivers. Efforts will
be made to redeploy these staff where possible in accordance with current
policies. See paragraph 49.
Risk Implications
46.
Members are asked to note that there is a possibility of fraud risk inherent in
the taxi voucher system. Were this risk to be completely eliminated, the
additional bureaucracy would make the system overly burdensome to the taxi
drivers and the elderly customers. In effect the scheme would become
unworkable.
Systems are in place to minimise this risk, for example,
watermarks, holograms, and bar codes on the vouchers and the Tandridge
scheme has operated successfully for the past seven years without this risk
materialising.
Legal Implications
47.
The Council has the power to operate a community transport service through
the Wellbeing powers of the Local Government Act 2000.
48.
The Council has two contractual obligations linked to the provision of Dial-aRide, and two variation letters pertaining to management services. The
agreements with Horley Dial-a-Ride and Epsom & Ewell Borough council both
require six months notice of change and three months notice in writing if the
borough council dial-a-ride services are withdrawn. Both contractors were
informed of the dial-a-ride review and therefore, the possibility of withdrawal,
in September 2004. In order for any service changes to take effect from 1
April 2005, letters informing the incumbent contractors of any decision to
withdraw the service need to be dispatched in December 2004.
49.
The current bus provider gave 3 months contractual notice that they were
cancelling their bus contract with the Council in 2004. The buses are presently
provided on an on going monthly basis via a letter of agreement. Atkins, the
bus provider, legally requires one-month formal notice however to minimise
any risk of challenge, three months notice is recommended as per their
original contract terms.
50.
Union, staff and contractor consultation began in September 2004. Should
members choose an option that has significant staff implications, this will be
taken to the Local Joint Forum on the 15th of December and the Employment
Committee thereafter.
Consultation
51.
Service consultation at the time of writing has been limited to Surrey County
Council, the voluntary sector, providers, operators, and staff due to the
complex nature of the options being investigated. All consultation to date has
given a clear preference for retaining the service and providing new buses. It
would not be unreasonable to infer that current service users would also
support this option. From previous consultation on the Community plan,
services for the elderly ranked third within the communities priorities.
52.
The Overview & Scrutiny Committee commissioned a panel to scrutinise the
Community Transport strategy. At the time of writing a panel meeting is due
to be scheduled for the 30th of November 2004 to allow Members of the
Overview & Scrutiny Panel to understand the County Council’s Community
Transport strategic position and the operational difficulties that places on the
borough. The Overview and Scrutiny panel’s initial comments should be
available to this committee prior to its meeting in December.
Policy Framework
53.
The Reigate & Banstead Community plan, section 3 identifies the need to
“implement a taxi voucher scheme” and “introduce demand responsive
transport (allowing passengers to pre-book a journey at only half an hour’s
notice).
54.
The Borough Council 2003-6 Corporate Plan Principle Objective 3 identifies
the need to provide a dial-a-ride service for approximately 16,000 trips around
the borough each year.
Conclusions
55.
The County Council has reviewed the countywide needs for community
transport and appears to be moving towards a transport hub and information
centre approach. This option, if endorsed by the County, appears unlikely to
be implemented in the near future.
56.
The Council’s community transport service, Dial-a Ride, is a discretionary
function. The Council has no duty to provide it.
57.
Continuing the dial-a-ride service with the existing buses is not feasible. The
review has confirmed from two different sources that the fleet of buses are
elderly, in imminent danger of substantial breakdown and beyond reasonable
economic repair.
58.
Commissioning an East Surrey Pilot with the ambulance service does not
appear feasible due to the limited number of organisations willing to
participate, insurance difficulties and service boundary conflicts.
59.
Replacing the dial-a-ride bus fleet and continuing the service is a viable
option, particularly if some 8-seat disabled-accessible people carriers are
used rather than the existing 13 passenger minibuses. Providing new buses
and taking over service provision for Horley customers will require a growth
bid of £79,100 over the existing budget provision.
60.
Withdrawing the existing dial-a-ride service and putting a “safety net”
combination of taxi vouchers, voluntary sector and public sector provision in
place appears a viable option; although there are still gaps in the exact
formulation of this revised service. The cost of providing such a service to
every existing dial-a-ride member would require budget growth of £88,600. If
this level of provision is only offered to the frequent dial-a-ride users, the
service could be provided for growth of £20,600 including Horley, however
418 existing dial-a-ride customers would be left without provision. Members
are asked to note that the alternative provision for the 67 customer who
cannot transfer to taxi vouchers is not yet in place and there remains risk that
this provision may not be forthcoming.
61.
Were the Council to stop the dial-a-ride service completely as of 31 March
2005, without making any alternative provision for the elderly and disabled
customer base, a saving of £93,400 could be achieved in 2005/6 (£109,400,
minus £8200 redundancy costs and a maximum of £7,800 in membership
refunds), and £109,400 in the years thereafter.
Background Papers:
(i)
Various Surrey County Council studies of Community
Transport
(ii)
Horley Dial-a-Ride Accounts and correspondence