Transport

aeroplane

Ready for take-off? How significant are regional airports for rural communities?

Since the Wright Brothers (Orville and Wilbur) invented, built and flew the world’s first successful motor-operated airplane in 1903, aviation has played a defining role in connecting people and global trade. And while PPE,  pharmaceuticals and vaccines have all long been carried by air, COVID-19 has seen unprecedented demand for transporting these critical goods. At the same time the pandemic has led to travel restrictions and a sharp fall in passenger numbers – affecting airports and the entire air transport system. As part of its Levelling Up agenda the Government wants to improve connectivity between all corners of the UK, making it easier for more people to get to more places more quickly. What role can regional airports play, not only in bringing us closer together, but in boosting jobs, prosperity and growth? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is a regional airport? 

While there is no statutory or legislative definition the term has been commonly applied to UK airports.  The label ‘regional airport’ can be traced back to a White Paper on Airports Policy published in 1978. This distinguished between four categories of airports: gateway international airports (Category A); regional airports (Category B); local airports (Category C); and general aviation airports (Category D).  Section 5 of the Airports Policy described regional airports as those airports not in or near London. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee carried out an Inquiry into regional air services back in 1997. Again, the Committee defined regional airports as those UK airports other than the five London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and London City); as well as the airports on Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. The Airport Commission’s work in 2013 categorised the following airports as ‘regional’: Southampton, Norwich, Southend, Bristol, Cardiff, Bournemouth, Birmingham, East Midlands, Coventry, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds Bradford, Durham Tees Valley, Doncaster-Sheffield, Humberside, Blackpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Prestwick, Inverness, Belfast International and Belfast City. The Civil Aviation Authority publishes data on 42 regional airports – this omits 6 London airports (Heathrow, Stanstead, Gatwick, Luton, London City and Southend), and 4 non-UK reporting airports (Alderney, Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey). In summary, the term ‘regional airport’ has been commonly applied in policy and practice to a range of UK airports not in or surrounding London. 

Who owns regional airports? 

The British Airports Authority (BAA) was established by the Airport Authority Act 1965 to take responsibility for four state owned airports from the Ministry of Aviation: Heathrow, Gatwick, Prestwick and Stanstead. In proceeding years, BAA acquired Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The Airports Act 1986 mandated the creation of BAA Plc which sought funds from the stock market and led to the sale of Prestwick. In 2006 BAA Plc was purchased by a consortium led by Ferrovial. Since then, the consortium has expanded into international operations – including signing contracts with Boston Logan, Baltimore-Washington and Indianapolis. Following an Inquiry by the Competition Commission in 2008-2009, BAA Plc was required to sell three of the seven UK airports it owned at the time within 2-years. Subsequently, Gatwick, Edinburgh and Stanstead were sold. 

In June 1985 the Government published a White Paper which, as per BAA Plc, proposed moving Local Authority airports onto a private footing. The Airports Act 1986 enabled airports to access private capital by becoming arms-length companies. This resulted in airports with a turnover of more than £1 million that were owned by Local Authorities to be privatised, including: Birmingham, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bristol, Cardiff, East Midlands, Exeter, Humberside, Leeds Bradford, Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Teesside. However, some Local Authorities retained a ‘public interest stake’ in the sales. For example: 7 West Midlands district councils retained a 49% stake in Birmingham airport; Durham, Darlington, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland Councils retained a 25% stake in Durham Tees Valley airport; and Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland Councils retained a 51% stake in Newcastle airport. Cornwall Newquay Airport is a former RAF based which began operations as a fully civilian airfield in 2009. It is wholly owned by Cornwall Council and operated by Cornwall Airport Ltd. More recently, in 2019 Durham Tees Valley was brought back into public ownership to save it from closure and renamed Teesside International Airport. 

Since the 1990s it has been possible to ring-fence a regional air service to a national hub through a Public Service Obligation (PSO). A PSO is a form of ‘state aid’ and allows for socially and economically necessary air services to be subsidised by national Government or Local Authorities to protect lifeline routes to peripheral or development regions. PSOs are currently used on routes in Northern Scotland, and routes from Cornwall to London. While PSOs date back to our membership of the European Union, the Government has indicated that these regulations will be retained. 

Why are regional airports important?  

While there are no official figures for the overall economic contribution of regional airports, some airports have commissioned studies to estimate their economic impact including the number of direct and indirect jobs they support and/or their contributions through the supply chain. Other commissions have sought to draw together data on the importance of regional airports to other sectors and their wider impacts on GVA. 

From a public policy perspective, the contribution of airports (and the aviation sector more widely) to pandemic recovery, levelling up, net zero, and global Britain have taken on increased importance in recent times.   

Levelling Up: in January 2020 the Government announced that the Department for Transport (DfT) would be carrying out a review of regional air connectivity. The aim of the Review was ‘to ensure that all nations and regions of the UK have the domestic transport connections local communities rely on – including regional services from local airports’. The Review was suspended during COVID-19 and is now being taken up as part of the Aviation Recovery Plan (ARP).  Also in 2020, the Government commissioned Sir Peter Hendy CBE to work on a Union Connectivity Review. His final report, published in November 2021, recommended the creation of UKNET – a strategic transport network for the whole UK. To support UKNET, the Review identified a series of transport infrastructure enhancements to improve the capacity, reliability, journey times and sustainability on key strategic links across the UK. This included improving connectivity to and from Northern Ireland via the three airports and seaports. Where journeys are too long to be reasonably taken by road or rail, the Review recommended the Government assess existing subsidy rules for domestic aviation to allow support for routes between different regions of the UK rather than just to and from London; reduce the rate of domestic aviation tax; and intervene in the assignment of slots at London airports to provide more slots for domestic routes. 

Air Passenger Duty (APD) is a duty chargeable per passenger flying from UK airports to domestic and international destinations. APD follows a band structure, with the rate varying according to destination and class of travel. Receipts are collected by the operator of the aircraft and payable to HMRC within one calendar month. Airlines, airports and industry bodies have consistently campaigned for a reduction in APD.  In 2021, the Government consulted on reducing APD. The consultation sought views on reducing the rate of APD on domestic flights to support the Union and domestic connectivity whilst increasing the international rates to reflect the Government’s environmental objectives. At the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021, under the subheading ‘a better-connected UK’, the chancellor announced a package of APD reforms including a 50% cut in domestic APD and the addition of a new ultra-long-haul distance band. The new domestic band for APD has been set at £6.50 and will apply to all flights between airports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (excluding private jets). As a result, the Treasury estimates around 9 million passengers will pay less APD in 2023-2024, benefitting connectivity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

In Spring 2021, the DfT published a General Aviation Roadmap which described the network of national airfields as a national asset, providing crucial connectivity for business, emergency services leisure and sporting flying. In recognising their local and regional impacts, airports are viewed as vital to levelling up. The Levelling Up White Paper published in February 2022 contained several references to airports – including plans to connect Birmingham Airport, Solihull and Walsall to Birmingham city centre via a light rail system; and the establishment of a freeport at East Midlands Airport. 

Achieving net zero: The Hendy final report recommended that the UK Government should drive the uptake of sustainable fuels and zero emission technologies on domestic aviation; and support the development of sustainable aviation fuel plants in part of the UK that are particularly reliant on aviation for domestic connectivity. 

The DfT published its plan to decarbonise the entire transport system in the UK in July 2021. This highlights the lead role the UK plays in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) and the role of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. Alongside the plan the DfT published Jet Zero, a consultation on how to reach net zero aviation by 2050. The plan references ZeroAvia, the world’s first hydrogen fuel cell powered flight and contained commitments to consult on a target for UK domestic aviation to reach net zero by 2040, and to consult on a target for decarbonising emissions from airport operations in England by 2040. The plan sets out how the Government will fund a zero emission flight infrastructure R&D at UK airports; and kick-start commercialisation of UK sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).  

Manchester and Gatwick airports have already achieved carbon neutrality and Bristol airport is aiming for net zero emissions by 2030. Many regional airports have joined an Airport Carbon Accreditation programme (ACAP). Whilst these developments are welcome, it is worth noting that Airport ground-based activities account for approximately 2% of the aviation sector’s total carbon emissions. Indeed, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) queries the extent to which passenger growth is compatible with net zero, and what this might mean for airport expansions. North Somerset Council, for example, rejected a planning application to expand Bristol Airport which is owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. This decision was overturned by The Planning Inspectorate on the grounds that the benefits would outweigh the harm to greenbelt land.  

Global Britain: for Government, our departure from the European Union has been viewed as an opportunity to reach out to the rest of the world to forge new trade links, to connect and compete. CEBR research to quantify the economic impact associated with Heathrow Airport, for example, considers which countries will potentially provide the greatest opportunity for the UK economy through free trade agreements and their reliance on routes through Heathrow. As part of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Flight Challenge, the results sets out a vision for the aviation system in 2030. This references ‘regional air mobility’ with electric, hydrogen or hybrid aircraft providing short-medium range hops between fixed locations; calling for demonstration pilot projects across selected airfields by 2024 with passenger carrying regional flights by 2030.    

More recently, policy attention has focused on domestic flights and regional connectivity – which can be seen as a move towards reducing spatial inequalities, and boosting productivity, jobs and growth. At the same time, this has also opened debates around spatial inequalities (London/South East airports versus other airfields), sustainability and the environment (airport capacity for growth versus climate change).  

What support have they received during COVID-19? 

The Government estimates it has spent some £12 billion supporting the aviation industry through the pandemic. Some of these measures have been economy-wide such as the Covid Job Retention Scheme [furlough] and Covid Corporate Finance Facility (CCFF); while others have been sector specific including the Airport and Ground Operators Support Scheme (AGOSS) and temporary waiver of the ‘80:20’ rule requiring 80% of flights have to be made from/to UK airports for airlines to maintain their slots. The Government also provided business rates relief, capped at £8 million per airport which was taken up by 22 of 25 eligible airports. The AGOSS is available until the end of March 2022. 

According to research by the Local Government Chronicle, many Local Authority owned airports – intended to boost economic growth and generate a commercial income – have become a drain on resources during the pandemic. Manchester Airports Group, for example, had provided an annual dividend of approximately £65 million a year to Manchester City Council – which has a 35.5% stake in the airport. Any future dividend income unlikely to be received until at least 2023-2024.   

Since March 2020, the EU has ensured Member States can implement State Aid schemes from which regional airports can benefit. During the pandemic, the EU has supported airports through its Recovery and Resilience Facility which aims to make Europe better prepared for green and digital transitions. At the same time a greater focus on tackling climate change is driving various projects to make airports more sustainable. In addition, some Member States have provided greater financial support to their aviation industry and/or taken equity stakes in their national carriers, often with environmental conditions attached (e.g. ending domestic flights where there are viable train options). 

On the one hand, the dramatic drop in passenger numbers due to COVID-19 triggered a range of financial support – loans, loan guarantees, wage subsidies, equity injections etc. On the other hand, many airports have faced increased operating costs to meet additional health and safety requirements. For me the pandemic has highlighted the importance of regional airports and the connectivity role that they play [particularly for islands]. Some Local Authorities are content to continue subsidising airports because of the boost they have – and will – provide to their local economies and communities.     

How important are regional airports for rural communities? 

In Europe, 50% of people live within a 30-minute drive of a regional airport, compared with only 41% for commercial airports. In February 2021, the European Parliament published a briefing on the future of regional airports. This highlighted their role in improving accessibility in remote locations or those not well served by other forms of transportation; stimulating employment and tourism and facilitating access to essential services. 

A report for the Australian Airports Association describes how regional airports bridge the gap between cities and rural communities, supporting the economic and social vibrancy of rural communities, enhancing their liveability, social connectedness and prosperity. Here regional airports deliver essential and emergency services to rural areas (e.g. protecting people and property from bushfires and/or The Royal Flying Doctor Service which brings medical services to rural and remote Australia). 

In the United States, ‘general aviation airports’ or ‘public airports’ located in suburban and rural areas are seen as a leveraging tool for recruiting and retaining businesses. For example, there are 72 public airports in North Carolina, only 10 of which are commercial airports (that offer regularly scheduled commercial flights). More than 90% of North Carolinians live within a 30-minute drive of a public airport. North Carolina’s general aviation airports provide some 25,000 jobs and produce nearly $5 billion in economic output. They also provide a salary that is approximately $20,000 higher than the median annual per capita income. 

In 2021, the International Transport Forum (ITF) published a roundtable report on connecting remote communities. Drawing together examples from Australia, Canada, Chile, Greece, Finland, Japan, Norway and the United States; the report highlights how many smaller airports struggle with both higher costs per passenger and lower commercial revenues compared to bigger airport sites. This is often due to the seasonality of traffic, smaller catchment areas, and a less well-off customer base. According to the Airports Council International (ACI), 71% of airports handling less than 1 million passengers make loses annually in Europe. Indeed, regional airports have been impacted by COVID-19 as passenger traffic dropped. For example, more than 6,000 routes served from Europe’s airports in 2019 were not fully restored 9 months into the pandemic. Regional airports recording the highest declines in direct connectivity include: -96% Linz (Austria), -95% in Treviso (Italy), -93% in Groningen Eelde (the Netherlands) and -91% in Vaasa (Finland). 

In considering airport and air travel, it is worth noting how some countries have an index to distinguish between accessible and less accessible rural areas (e.g. Australia, Chile, Greece, Scotland). Some of this work considers connectivity (access to services digitally and physically rather than drive time to an urban centre) and mobility (physical movements between locations) – and some account for whether rural areas are well served by other forms of transportation in addition to air travel.   

In England, in evidence to the Transport Select Committee’s review of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the aviation sector, witnesses highlighted how some form of Government incentives would continue to be necessary to encourage airlines to invest in regional routes which often have tight margins. Yet we have very little data on the influence and impacts of regional airports (individually and collectively) on rural communities. What are their usage levels, what economic and social contribution do they make, what are their environmental impacts, and importantly what are the emerging and future issues that they face? How do they link to other modes of transportation and digital connectivity?  

The Government is due to publish its Strategic Framework for Aviation – what will this say about regional airports and rural communities? Watch this space…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Driverless cars in rural areas in the UK

Autonomous driving is here, but what does it mean for rural communities?

The average driver in England spends 235 hours driving every year – equivalent to six working weeks – and must concentrate on driving 100% of the time. Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) are changing this, enabling the driver to choose whether they want to be in control or handover the task of driving to the vehicle itself. While many people take driving for granted, others do not have a driving licence, access to a vehicle or have to give up driving due to ill-health. For these people automated vehicles opens up access to cars. So where do rural dwellers fit in the design, development and deployment of CAVs? Jessica Sellick investigates.

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), a fully autonomous vehicle is ‘capable of completing journeys safely and efficiently, without a driver, in all normally encountered traffic, road and weather conditions’. Connected means the vehicle can link to other devices and while it can operate in driverless mode, there must by a qualified person in the driving seat who is able to take manual control as and when required. Vehicles are being developed with a range of connected capabilities – from technologies that send and receive information vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), vehicle-to-device (V2D), vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) and vehicle-to-the-cloud (V2C). Automation ranges from ‘driver assistance’, ‘lane assist’ and ‘park assist’; through to full self-driving automation. Back in January 2014 the Society of Automotive Engineers produced a report which identified six levels of driving automation: from no automation (Level 0) to full automation (Level 5). Some vehicles are autonomous and connected whereas others are connected only or autonomous only.

Government has been supporting the research, development, demonstration and deployment of CAVs for some time. According to Government, the UK is uniquely positioned to bring CAV technologies to the market – having some of the most challenging and diverse road and weather conditions in Europe. Under the Coalition Government (2010-2015)) Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) was identified as one of ‘eight great technologies’. In July 2015 the Government established the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV). A joint unit of the Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the Centre works across Government to support the early market for CAVs – enabling Government to develop policy at the pace that this rapidly advancing technology requires. CCVA is providing over £250 million in funding, matched by industry, to position the UK at the forefront of CAV research, development and use. The establishment of the CCVA followed the publication of a regulatory review by the DfT (which found existing frameworks did not pose a barrier to testing autonomous vehicles on public roads) and a Code of Practice for AV testing.

In February 2017 the Government published its Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill – setting out how automated vehicles involved in road traffic accidents would be treated for insurance purposes. Most recently, the Industrial Strategy, released in November 2017, outlines the establishment of a flexible regulatory framework for transportation to boost ride-sharing, autonomous vehicles and the blurring of distinctions between public and private transport. This includes plans for an Automotive Sector Deal.

Since 2015/2016 CCVA, BEIS and Innovate UK have been supporting three CAV trials in the UK: the GATEway Project in Greenwich (London), VENTURER in Bristol and south Gloucestershire and the UK Autodrive Project in Milton Keynes and Coventry.

In September 2016 the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the future uses of driverless vehicles in the UK. Their report (published in March 2017) – while setting out the potential benefits of CAV and recognising the work undertaken on regulation and standards to date – made four main recommendations: (1) Government is too focused on driverless cars when the early benefits of this highly automated technology are more likely to appear in other sectors such as marine and agriculture; (2) the Government needs to establish a Robotics and Autonomous Systems Leadership Council to play a key role in developing a strategy for CAV; (3) there is a clear need for Government to commission research to weigh the potential human and financial implications of CAV; and (4) Government should sit alongside industry and other partners to position the UK so that it can take full advantage of the opportunities that CAV will bring to different sectors. The report sets out the business case for investing in these technologies (and work being undertaken by existing manufacturers and new entrants) to suggest Government should not invest or take the lead in this area rather ensure if makes a ‘comprehensive testing offer for CAV’ to attract manufacturers and academics to the UK. Crucially, the report states ‘this should include one or more large scale testing environments covering real world urban and rural environments’ (page 4).

What are the implications of this policy context for rural areas? I offer three points.

Firstly, what are some of the benefits of CAVs for rural areas? Proponents often identify safety as a key benefit of CAVs: they don’t get drunk, drive whilst talking on the phone or texting, go through red lights, have blind spots, get distracted or wonder who has the right of way. Accident statistics compiled by the DfT shows that in 2016 1,792 people died on Britain’s road, with a further 24,101 seriously injured. Previous data has shown that while rural roads carry 40% of road traffic, they accounted for 62% of road fatalities. Speed limits combined with blind twists and turns, mixed road users and other distractions are often cited as increasing the risk of a driver losing control if they are not driving with due care and attention. Those in favour of CAVs not only point to the possible reduction in fatalities but also to the prevention of collisions – between vehicles and with livestock/large animals.

Proponents also see CAVs as having the potential to overcome some of the mobility related difficulties rural dwellers face. The International Association of Public Transport (UTIP), for example, points towards the affordability, sustainability and convenience that CAVs might bring to rural areas. On the one hand, CAVs may address the reduction of bus/public transport in rural areas; on the other hand, CAVs could be viewed as part of a diversified public transport system (i.e., with car sharing vehicles or autonomous mini-buses feeding into transport hubs). In October 2017 the German transport company Deutsche Bahn began a trial using a self-driving vehicle on the roads of a rural town in Bavaria to residents from the train station to the town centre.

For me, CAVs offer potential to improve people’s quality of life so they can more easily grow up, live, work and age in a rural place.

But for CAVs to be adopted in rural areas, the ‘offer’ and ‘benefits’ need to be made clearer – who will use them and for what purpose?

Secondly, what are some of the barriers to uptake in rural areas? Not everyone finds the prospect of CAVs appealing. For every accident a driver may cause they will have avoided thousands of others. Some worry about separating people from the driving process – while planes fly on autopilot, pilots are trained to take over should the computer fail. While media reports document CAVs involved in crashes or collisions – often the technology on board the self-driving vehicle has responded correctly but the other ‘human’ road user has not stopped or responded: how will CAVs and non-CAVs ‘share’ the roads? Opponents are also concerned that CAVs could bring an end to the jobs of those who drive for a living (e.g. lorry drivers, taxi drivers) and/or those that regulate road users (e.g. traffic police, parking wardens). Indeed some believe the take up of CAVs will mean fewer parking spaces will be needed thus reducing revenue for Local Authorities.

For me, Government policy appears to be focusing on ‘smart vehicles’ and ‘regulation’, and what is missing are more of an emphasis on ‘smart roads’. The RAC Foundation has considered the readiness of the road network for CAVs. Such vehicles are likely to require road surfaces, markings, signs and signals to be well maintained. Some CAVs need sensors to guide them, computers to steer them and digital maps to follow. Indeed, the Select Committee recommended Highways England and Local Transport Authorities engage with motor manufacturers to ‘future proof’ new infrastructure and minimise the likelihood of expensive retrofitting. How are we going to make sure we have the infrastructure to support CAVs in rural areas?

Similarly, much of the existing research focuses on technical aspects of CAVs (vehicles themselves) rather than the human and financial factors which will affect their adoption in rural areas. What will the pattern of uptake be in rural areas? Is rural road infrastructure being taken into account in the design, development and use of CAVs? And will there be a ‘rural premium’ in the development and deployment of CAVs in the countryside?

Thirdly, how then can rural areas capitalise on Government commitment and investments in CAVs? If CAVs are going to be transformational, how can we encourage Government and companies to see rural areas as testbeds for the future of mobility and smarter transport solutions? Rural areas offer a mix of road and driving conditions not experienced in towns and cities. According to engineers at Glyndwr University, driverless vehicles have the potential to be used most effectively on “steep, narrow, slow and sinuous” roads and where there are mixed transport users (cars, agricultural vehicles, livestock, wildlife). For if Government continues to position the UK as an environment to build automotive technologies of the future – and expects driverless vehicles to bring deliver economic, social and environmental benefits – rural areas can and should be at the forefront of this commitment, providing real word testing to bring these vehicles to market. And if the applications are not only in road transport, but also in agriculture, marine and energy sectors, rural can and should be at the forefront of this move towards automation. Will we see driverless cars on the UK’s rural roads in the near-future? Watch this space…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce issues and evaluating a financial capability project. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/

Can we make rural transport work?

TRANSPORT is essential in providing people with access to work, learning, health care, food shops and leisure activities. Amid falling budgets in public services and investment in key infrastructure projects – from HS2 to growth schemes on motorways – how can we balance the demand for economic growth with tight budgets to make strides in transport provision in the countryside? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Back in 2011, the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) published six reports to raise the profile of rural transport issues. These considered how rural people might be travelling in 2030 and how understanding behaviour could provide demand responsive solutions. Although the reports were wide-ranging, all showed that while efficiencies and savings needed to be made, there was scope for ensuring the viability of transport in rural areas.

Two years on, these findings remain pertinent, with one respondent to the Rural Insight Survey describing how: “we don’t have much to hand, our nearest services are 6 miles away…there’s no public transport in our valley at all…the nearest petrol station is 5 miles away (expensive)…or 12 miles away (better priced). It’s not easy living out here and getting more expensive all the time”. Similarly, the State of Rural Services reports, compiled annually by the RSN, found people living in villages and dispersed settlements to be travelling 10,000 miles per year on average (42% higher than the average figure for England) and that they were more likely to make these journeys by car – even if they were living on low incomes. Taken as a collective, this work raises issues around accessibility, affordability and availability. How, then, can we make sure rural transport is within reach? I offer three points.

First, a joined-up strategic policy setting out how transport should be provided for rural communities is lacking. At the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) annual lecture in November 2012, the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, highlighted the need for good transport in rural areas: “the further you are from towns, services, jobs and friends, the more important transport becomes. That’s why rural Britain needs good transport just as much as urban Britain. In fact it always has…So if you accept that we need good transport to live our lives and expand our economy then two questions come to mind. How do you provide it so that rural people can benefit too? And how can you make sure the beauty of Britain doesn’t suffer?” The Minister answered these questions with reference to ‘quiet lanes’ in Derbyshire, keeping the Concessionary Travel Scheme, supporting community transport, a £600 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund, revising Traffic Signs Regulations and looking at ways of giving Councils a greater say over speed limits (e.g. creating 40mph zones in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

Yet the DfT’s own figures on ‘households with good transport access to key services or work in urban and rural areas’ show decline between 2007 and 2011. For town/fringe areas the figure declined from 86% of households in 2007 to 83% in 2011; over the same period the figures for villages decreased markedly (from 52% to 27%) and for hamlet/isolated dwellings (from 41% to 29%). The DfT will be updating these figures in July 2013. The DfT’s ‘Transport for Everyone‘ Plan sets out how operators, local councils and the Department can help to make it easier for people using public transport – particularly those with disabilities – to get to where they need to go. For rural residents the Plan states that the DfT is working with local authorities and the Community Transport Association (CTA) ‘to examine the scope for more flexible services’ by increasing awareness of community transport services and promoting taxi and car sharing. Unlike other sections in the Plan where timescales are provided, this rural component remains ‘under consideration’.

In addition to the DfT, the Rural Statement (published in September 2012 by Defra) sets out a range of policy initiatives – from funding a national Wheels to Work coordinator for 2012/13 to enable young people in rural areas without sufficient public transport to travel to work by motorbike, to investing £10 million in both 2011/12 and 2012/13 in a Community Transport Fund to help Local Authorities develop locally responsive transport solutions. Transport further forms part of the Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) analysis and monitoring of rural conditions (Evidence Plan).

If good transport is needed in rural areas to ‘live our lives and expand our economy’, will these policy initiatives from the DfT and Defra achieve this? The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE), report for Defra and BIS last year on community learning in rural areas found the default position was one of public transport being so poor that it was impossible to plan educational opportunities around it. Whilst providers did time provision in market towns and larger settlements to fit with available transport (e.g. avoiding early morning starts, finishing to allow children to be collected from school), essentially the use of a car was viewed as a prerequisite for taking part in education.

Secondly, funding and the arrangements that underpin rural transport provision are in a state of flux which may cause the DfT’s figures to plummet further. The prospect of further spending reductions and the devolution of transport funding without ring-fencing fails to recognise how rural areas tend to have a higher proportion of supported bus services. On the one hand, the Better Bus Areas fund will allow local councils to take control of some of the funding that bus operators get through the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) with some additional cash from the Department for Transport (DfT). In return, Councils will have to show that they are working in partnership with bus companies in their area. On the other hand, with operators needing to rely upon Councils now to reimburse their costs (from a capped grant which may or may not increase in the future to cover rising fuel and running costs), will we see bus services become less frequent, full price fare increases, and a reduction in routes? Although the impact of these changes will be felt in urban places as well – with a study on Buses and Economic Growth by the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds revealing 70% of rural dwellers rarely or never used the bus (compared to just 20% of their urban counterparts) – the financially marginal nature of much rural service provision makes it much more vulnerable.

For those RSN readers that do have a car you face higher costs for fuel. Statistics produced by Defra on diesel and petrol prices in rural areas found people living in settlements with populations of less than 10,000 paid 1.9 pence per litre or 1.4% more at the pump compared to urban areas. With a weak pound and rising price of oil on the international market influencing petrol prices, the amount you pay at the pumps is predicted to continue to rise in 2013.

Thirdly, there are practical examples of how rural transport challenges are being tackled at a local level that respond to the CRC’s call in 2008. In Herefordshire, the Network St Albans partnership is introducing affordable tickets that can be used on different operators, while the DfT is supporting a smart ticketing pilot project across Norfolk. Although some of this fits with the Competition Commission’s call for multi-operator ticketing, it is thought the DfT will stop short of legislating on this. The Dales Integrated Transport Alliance (DITA) is comprised of eight community ‘hubs’ in the Yorkshire Dales that provide advice on all forms of transport. In adult and community learning services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council has a Single Equality Scheme, South Northants runs Move-In4ward and Staffordshire Council facilitates community learning groups which all seek to address car dependency identified by the NIACE. It is worth remembering that many of these examples are supported by Town and Parish Councils, Rural Community Councils, local groups and residents. To keep updated, the Community Transport Association (CTA) and Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) publish a ‘State of the Sector‘ report and the Plunkett Foundation documents enterprising approaches to community transport.

Going forward, these practical examples should not be seen as an alternative solution to large-scale cuts in rural transport, nor are many of them likely to have the capacity to respond to these if they occur in significant quantity. If we do not monitor and respond to these changing circumstances the countryside may be inaccessible, expensive and unavailable to some people. The Transport Secretary’s concluded his lecture by telling delegates “don’t be afraid. Don’t just oppose. Consider what’s needed. And work with us to get it right.” To find ways of getting it right, the RSN is holding an event on transport on 20 March 2013 in the Business & Technology Centre at Stevenage Borough Council. The event will include presentations from John Birtwistle (First Group), Colin Walker (East Riding of Yorkshire Council), Rob Crowder (Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire), Elizabeth Hanger (Lincolnshire County Council) and Mike Ward (University of Lincoln). For more information and to book your place at this free event please contact Wendy Cooper by email wendy.cooper@sparse.gov.uk or telephone 01822 813693.

Jessica is a rural practitioner at Rose Regeneration which has particular empathy and enthusiasm for rural and coastal issues. Work currently being undertaken includes: supporting a Rural Growth Network (RGN) pilot area, researching farmer networks (for the Royal Agricultural Society of England), undertaking two pieces of work for Defra (a review of the Leader Programme & alternative models of service delivery) and developing detailed pictures of the socio-economic conditions of landscape scale areas.

Rose Regeneration previously supported Pennine Prospects with its application for the South Pennines to become a Local Nature Partnership (which received Government approval) and has completed Local Level Rural Proofing resources for Defra. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk