Comments for North Yorkshire Community Transport Blog

Comment on Have your say! by Keith Chapman

Keith Chapman — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:29:21 +0000

I never thought i would ever see so many isolated with in the Community with the transport cuts now facing many i can understand Commercial discussions made by bus companies to withdraw from providing many evening services and withdrawing services all together. What is the fact the vehicles been run are too big and too expensive and using smaller type vehicles would not have had such an impact on Costs Fuel etc
Areas that have two few passengers could be saved from having no services at all Taxi Firms that have Mini Buses could fill the gap but many seem reluctant to take on such a Commitment for their Community.
With been a member of Bus Users U.K and looking at the full picture of services in Rural Areas the idea of Running Large vehicles for smaller number of passengers seems a bit over the top and there does need for Community Transport under permit 22 to engage in a Partnership which would benefit the Community.

Comment on Have your say! by lyn costelloe

lyn costelloe — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:41:07 +0000

It is good to hear how healthy the ct sector is in North Yorkshire
In 2006 HDCT NYCC and several other ct operators developed a 10 year plan to provide CT infrstructure organisationand umbrella hubs in North Yorkshire. The aim was to assist them to be sustainable and also to help the statutory sector be more efficient and provide improved services.The model recognised that local provision by local providers was best as they understood their communities needs and by working together overheads could be shared and efficiencies made. Nearly £2million was invested and the infrastructure is in place,specialist IT software available to all CTS has been devloped, management and operating systems and integrated transport services, recognised nationally as best practice have been operated. This infrastucture,is operating well and many organisation have and do benefit. The facility is available to all cts and we would welcome anyone to come and see what is on offer. If there is to be any CT infrastructure development in this bid or any other in the county, I would like to think in the new spirit of openess,partnership and trust that all of our assets and anything we can bring to the table are made available so that we can make best use of all North Yorkshires CT resources so that the communities we aim to help get the best deal possible

Comment on Have your say! by Christine Knapp

Christine Knapp — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:28:14 +0000

We are a small community transport organisation with just one bus.
As a charity our aim is primarily to help the elderly, isolated in the Upper Esk Valley near to the East Cleveland border. Up till now we have had good advice from various sources and changes in infrastructure are not top of our agenda. We have a working arrangement with East Cleveland Brokerage in connection with driver and passenger assistant training and occasional driver help. We do not intend to expand geographically because of our location so networking is only of interest with regard to information gathering. It may be that an umbrella organisation could benefit some community transport organisations across the NYYF area but we do not see the immediate relevance to Esk Moors Active.
Christine Knapp
Chairperson Esk Moors Active

Comment on Have your say! by Dave Elders

Dave Elders — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:27:59 +0000

On behalf of Thirsk District Community Minibus Association I whole heartedly agree with Kevin Holts views. The smaller groups are operating on differing models and an umbrella organisation would need to understand this. For example our Association does not offer any dial a ride type services and are not in a position to do so. There would also be a cost impliction which we for one could not afford. Of course the sting in the tail may be that if we do not participate will we be unable to access any funding from sources
such as the County Council??

Comment on Have your say! by Phil Henderson

Phil Henderson — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:15 +0000

I agree with the comments made by Julie Banks …specifically about strengthening existing structures rather than creating a new set up …The very nature of the TLIF funding indicates a transformation…..I do not consider this would be productive or helpful within the Community Transport field, which is fundamentally done through Volunteer drivers across North Yorks. National direction can be obtained through the CTA…we do not need to create something to transform the current position, merely to develop and progress what we have. So I do not support the idea of Transport being included in the TLIF bid.

Comment on Have your say! by Claudia Clarkson

Claudia Clarkson — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:31:43 +0000

I have to agree with Julie Banks, we have the CTA for advise, do we realy need another umbrella organisation, its will create more hassle. Keep it simple, we have the CTA, Kevin at the VSA, and NYYF, how many more do we need.

Comment on Have your say! by John Atkins

John Atkins — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:22:54 +0000

Hi… speaking on behalf of the RCVS on this transport issue, with little time to reflect, I would say that we are already actively developing partnerships and closer operating aspects for community transport across the area and that we also have input into support available through NYCC and the RTAP which is still operational in our area, etc.
I must agree generally with Julie Banks views and also say that we are not in favour of trying to develop another umbrella organisation, especially if it brings nothing new in the way of tangible (financial) support, or has little clout.
If the TLIF bid is looking to be ‘that’ radical then perhaps it would have been wiser to advise and set-out how radical this would be by engaging earlier and gathering meaningful information to support the bid outcomes, especially given that it will be changing existing infrastructure.

Comment on Have your say! by Kevin Holt

Kevin Holt — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:17:48 +0000

In response to the question “Is there a legitimate need for an umbrella infrastructure organisation specifically for community transport operators?” I believe the answer is NO.

I am responding on behalf of the Community Transport schemes that we operate, the Northallerton and Bedale Community Car Schemes, the Bedale Community Minibus and Wheels 2 Work in Hambleton, Richmondshire, Craven and Harrogate and also as lead partner of the Hambleton & Richmondshire Rural Transport and Access Partnership (H&R RTAP). I should point out that we have not had time to get the views of the RTAP members on this specific question but will gladly do so if requested.

Community Transport in Hambleton & Richmondshire is provided by a large number of typically small local organisations most of which exist to meet a particular need, identified locally. Some are run entirely by volunteers at low cost and for the benefit of their local community and they wish to continue to do so. When they need support and advice they get it from a number of sources including the H&R RTAP, Hambleton & Richmondshire District Councils, the County Councils CT officer (currently on maternity leave) the CTA and other CT operators. I believe most would see an umbrella infrastructure organisation specifically for community transport operators as unnecessary, an extra layer of bureaucracy, possibly unrepresentative and a waste of precious resources.

The launch this year of the Hambleton and Richmondshire Community car scheme is a genuine and equal partnership of the Bedale, Northallerton, Richmondshire and Stokesley car schemes soon to be joined by the Easingwold scheme. The H&R RTAP was supported in the development of the scheme by the NYCC CT officer and a Hambleton District Council Assistant Director and of course by the schemes sharing good practice with each other, we also consulted the CTA on some technical and legal points.

The last meeting of the H&R RTAP concentrated on the community car schemes and was attended by all but one of the eight schemes operating in the area. Next months meeting will bring together the community minibus operators based in the two districts.

To summarise, no we do not support the proposal for the creation of an umbrella infrastructure organisation specifically for community transport operators.

Comment on Have your say! by Andrea hobbs

Andrea hobbs — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:08:49 +0000

Hi Julie – thanks for your post and comments – the tight deadline is only so that we can include anything specific that we need to in the bid (which was always running to a tight deadline) – but it’s not an afterthought I assure you. Lyn C has been attending bid meetings on behalf of ct operators so far and has raised this need as a gap – and NYYF has been aware for some time of an expressed need from some operators for better coordination and perhaps specific or specialist support services – so this Blog post is an attempt just to get a ’round robin’ view from ALL ct operators if we can in the timescale that we have.

Comment on Have your say! by julie banks

julie banks — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:47:31 +0000

I think we should be strengthening the existing community transport support structures rather than try to create another ‘umbrella organisation’. NYCC have an existing community transport strategy and CT officer in post. They seem to be pushing forward with bringing ct groups in North Yorkshire together to raise standards and support the sustainability of all sized organisations. I feel they also have the experience of the sector which a new person in post could take a significant amount of time to get to grips with.
There is also the Community Transport Association who we regularly use for advice and to keep up to date with current legislation and trends. However I do feel they have lost sight of the needs of smaller CT organisations and changed their focus over the past few years.
In a nutshell, I would be against the idea of creating another CT umbrella organisation and sadly, the short deadline does give the impression of this being a bit of an afterthought.