VALUE FOR MONEY
AND POLICY REVIEW OF THE
RURAL TRANSPORT PROGRAMME
JUNE 2011
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, TOURISM AND SPORT
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER 2 THE POLICY CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMME
7
CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE RURAL
TRANSPORT PROGRAMME
15
CHAPTER 4 PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND CONTINUED
RELEVANCE
25
CHAPTER 5 COST AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME
36
CHAPTER 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME
62
CHAPTER 7 CONSIDERATION OF POLICY AND ORGANISATIONAL
OPTIONS
80
CHAPTER 8 KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
96
CHAPTER 9 REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
111
i
List of Abbreviations
ACTS
ADM
AP
BE
CART
CASP
CAT
CCMA
CDB
CEB
CIB
CSES
CSO
CSP
CTTC
CTR
D/CR&GA
D/EH&LG
D/JE&LR
DPTAC
DoT
DRD
DSP
ED
EO
FÁS
FTE
FTP
GDA
GIS
HEO
HSE
IPA
IT
LCDP
LDSIP
LEADER
LITS
MiDAS
MoU
NDA
NDP
NHS
NSS
NSTO
NTA
Accessible Community Transport Southside
Area Development Management Ltd.
Assistant Principal Officer
Bus Éireann
Cavan Area Rural Transport
Cork Area Strategic Plan
Clare Accessible Transport
County and City Managers Association
County Development Board
County Enterprise Board
Citizen Information Board
Clare Supporting Employment Services
Central Statistics Office
Community Services Programme
Coach Tourism and Transport Council
Commission for Taxi Regulation
Department of Rural, Community & Gaeltacht Affairs
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government
Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (UK)
Department of Transport
Demand Responsive Driven
Department of Social Protection
Electoral Districts
Executive Officer
Irish National Training and Employment Authority
Full-Time Equivalent
Free Travel Pass
Greater Dublin Area
Geographic Information System
Higher Executive Officer
Health Services Executive
Institute of Public Administration
Information Technology
Local Community Development Programme
Local Development Social Inclusion Programme
Liaisons Entre de Development de l'Economie Rurale
Local Integrated Transport Systems
MInibus Driver Awareness Scheme
Memorandum of Understanding
National Disability Authority
National Development Plan
National Health Service
National Spatial Strategy
National Sustainable Travel Office
National Transport Authority
ii
OPLURD
PATS
PI
PMS
PMS1
PO
POA
PSC
PSV
RPTOL
RSA
RSS
RTI
RTN
RTNS
RTP
SILC
SIM
SPSV
VFM
Operational Programme for Local, Urban and Rural Development
Passenger Assistance Training Scheme
Performance Indicator
Performance Monitoring System (Paper Based)
Performance Monitoring System (Computerised System)
Principal Officer
Programme of Activities
Public Service Contract
Public Service Vehicle
Road Passenger journey Transport Operators Licence
Road Safety Authority
Rural Social Scheme
Rural Transport Initiative (Pilot Scheme)
Rural Transport Network
Rural Transport Night Scheme
Rural Transport Programme
Survey on Incomes and Living Conditions
Social Inclusion Measures
Small Public Service Vehicle
Value for Money
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: The Programme Logic Model as applied to the Rural Transport Programme
Table 3.1: Policy options for progressing rural public transport policy (Fitzpatrick
Associates, 2006)
Table 4.1: Percentage of households expressing difficulty accessing basic services
Table 5.1 Breakdown of funding for RTP
Table 5.2 Proportion of the overall spend on RTP that was contributed by Department
of Transport
Table 5.3 Analysis of Department of Transport funding
Table 5.4 Total RTP group (gross) receipts
Table 5.5- Surplus/(deficit) of RTP groups 2007-2009
Table 5.6- Department of Transport Funding to RTP groups – receipts vs expenditure
Table 5.7 Services and passenger journey numbers on the RTP 2004-2009
Table 5.8- Breakdown of RTP Passenger journeys by Payment Type
Table 5.9- Income per passenger journey
Table 5.10- Income per fare paying passenger journey
Table 5.11 Average cost to Department of Transport per service and per passenger
journey
Table 5.12-Subvention per passenger journey on RTP, Bus Éireann and Regional
Airports
Table 5.13- Cost per FTP passenger journey - Department of Transport vs.
Department of Social Protection
Table 5.14 Breakdown of RTP group costs
Table 5.15 Breakdown of RTP group costs from Department of Transport funding
Table 5.16 Increase in operational costs, RTP groups vs BE
Table 5.17- Administration costs of the Programme
Table 5.18 Proposed total administration costs of RTP by 2013
Table 5.19- RTP group comparison
Table 6.1: Framework for analysis of Programme effectiveness
Table 6.2: Indicative estimates for impact on unmet needs 2005-2016
Table 6.3: Projected passenger journeys in 2011 based on estimated actual travel
frequencies and high-level target travel frequency
Table 6.4: Estimates of RTP users in 2009 based on actual 2009 passenger journey
numbers and estimated actual travel frequencies and high-level target frequency
Table 6.5: Numbers and proportion of RTP passenger journeys by women 2005-2009
Table 6.6: Number and % of total RTP passenger journeys for FTP passenger
journeys 2004-2009
Table 6.7: Number and percentage of younger people <25 among RTP passenger
journeys
Table 6.8: Trend in the number of RTP passenger journeys and services 2004-2009
Table 6.9: Age profile of RTP passenger journeys
Table 6.10: proportion of passenger journeys by age-cohort in 2010 on Bus Éireann
local/rural/commuter scheduled services
Table 6.11: Reasons for using Bus Éireann (scheduled services) – proportion of
local/rural/commuter services in 2010
Table 7.1: Policy options
Table 7.2: Organisational Options for continuation of the Programme
iv
Table 8.1: Key findings of the Programme effectiveness in achieving the expected
intermediate outcome
Table 8.2: Summary of findings concerning costs and efficiency of the Programme
Table 9.1: Recommendation for continuation of the Programme under a social
inclusion objective involving continued Programme delivery by Pobal and the RTP
groups
Table 9.2: Recommendations for Programme costs, efficiency and effectiveness
Table 9.3: Estimated savings
Table 9.4: Key measures of Programme inputs
Table 9.5: Key measures of output and efficiency
Table 9.6: Key measures of effectiveness
v
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Programme organisational map
Figure 4.1: Policy path linking high-level objectives with the Programme
Figure 5.1 Income per passenger journey RTP vs. BE
Figure 5.2 Ratio of passenger journey Numbers Vs. Department of Transport funding
of RTP
Figure 5.3 Increase in RTP group wages and salaries (gross) costs 2007-2009
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix O
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
Appendix S
Appendix T
Appendix U
Appendix V
Bibliography
Terms of Reference of the Review
Membership of the Review Steering Committee
Membership of the Working Group for the Review
Schedule of meetings of the Review Steering Committee and Working
Group
Letter to RTP groups and Board of Management and attached Survey
Questionnaire
Schedule of interviews with stakeholders
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transport
and Pobal 2010 – reporting schedule
Description of changes to the number and organisation of RTP groups
2002-2009
List of Rural Transport Programme groups (position at end 2009)
Costs by RTP group in 2009, per service, per passenger journey and
administration as a percentage of Department of Transport funding
RTP group (gross) costs - operational cost breakdown 2007-2009
RTP group (gross) costs - administration cost breakdown 2007-2009
Map showing RTP groups and operational areas and list of LDCs
operating RTP
Comparative analysis of Irish and UK bus passenger transport regimes
RTP performance monitoring and mapping system
Excerpt concerning the difficulties and complexities around a
definition for Rural, taken from Rural Poverty and Social Exclusion on
the Island of Ireland – Context, Policies and Challenges, Scoping
Paper prepared for the Pobal All-Island Conference “New Ideas, New
Directions” on 21st October 2010 in the Boyne Valley Hotel,
Drogheda, (Dr. Kathy Walsh, KW Research & Associates Ltd, 2010)
Analysis of the data
Table showing the interface between RTP groups , Local Authority
and other County-based bodies.
Extract from submission by Pobal to the CSO in September 2008
concerning census questions.
Suggested data and indicators to support annual assessments
concerning transport provision and unmet transport needs in rural
Glossary of Terms
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Subject and scope of the Review
This Review of the Rural Transport Programme was carried out in the context of the
Government-wide framework of evaluation of public expenditure programmes under
the „Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative‟. The scope of this Review
encompasses the period 2002-2009 from the Programme inception as the Pilot Rural
Transport Initiative (RTI), with a specific focus on the period after 2007, when the
Programme was mainstreamed. The public expenditure on the Programme, involving
funding streams from three Government Departments, totalled €13.8 million in 2009,
including €11 million funding from the (lead) Department of Transport. The
Programme supported a level of 1.29 million passenger journeys in 2009.
This Review addresses the questions arising from the terms of reference regarding
value for money and policy to,
-
identify Programme objectives;
-
examine the continuing validity of those objectives and their compatibility
with Government policy;
-
define the outputs associated with the Programme services and identify the
level, unit cost and trend of those outputs;
-
examine the extent that the Programme‟s objectives have been achieved,
and review the effectiveness with which they have been achieved;
-
quantify the level and trend of costs, staffing resources and income supporting the
Programme (including grant assistance from all State sources and revenue from
user charges) and review the efficiency with which the Programme has achieved
its objectives;
-
evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of public
funding on a continuing basis, examine the scope for alternative policy or
organisational approaches to achieving these objectives on a more efficient and/or
effective basis (e.g. through international comparison) and examine the scope (if
any) for making the Programme more self-financing; and
-
specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to better
monitor the performance of the Programme.
The policy context and the Programme
The Review considered the Programme within the wider policy context including
economic policy, rural and community development policy, public transport and
sustainable transport policy, and relevant social inclusion, welfare and health policies.
The background to the Programme, as well as the structures, roles and relationships
viii
involved in the governance, administration and delivery of the Programme are also
considered.
The Rural Transport Programme aims to address social exclusion caused by unmet
transport needs of people and target groups in rural areas through the communitybased delivery of transport services currently carried out by 36 RTP groups. Pobal
(formerly ADM Ltd.) which is charged with the delivery of a range of community
development programmes, administers this Programme on behalf of the Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport.
Objective of the Programme
The Review found that the objectives (and principles for RTP groups) for
implementation of the Programme, which build on those of the preceding RTI, are
aligned to the high-level policy objective of social inclusion.
A rationale for policy intervention to address unmet transport needs in rural areas for
identified target groups under a social inclusion policy objective is supported by the
acknowledged market failure of public transport provision in rural areas generally. In
addition, the conclusion of the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) makes the
connection between unmet transport need and the underlying problem of social
exclusion in rural areas. Rural transport is a key consideration in a number of public
policies for social inclusion, community and rural development, health and transport
accessibility, etc. There is available evidence which suggests that there is a persistent
problem of transport and access in rural areas for rural dwellers generally and in
particular for older people.
However, the estimates provided in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006)
underpinning this Programme are based on 2002 data. The extent of the policy
problem of socially excluded people and target groups in rural areas with unmet
transport needs has not been assessed subsequently. In the absence of more up-to-date
data a well founded conclusion cannot be reached concerning the extent to which this
Programme, or indeed alternative policy measures, can adequately address the
identified policy problem.
Cost and efficiency of the Programme - key findings and conclusions
Overall the findings of this Review raise serious concerns over the value for money of
the Programme.
Programme funding and passenger journeys 2004-2009
1
Total Funding (thousands)
Passenger journeys (thousands)
RTP services
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
3,500
5,250
6,775 11,813 12,755 13,808
514
651
791
998
1,200
1,289
65
75
93
121
147
157
Source: Pobal
1
Including Department of Transport - Rural Transport Programme, and Department of Social
Protection - Free Travel Pass Scheme, Community Support Programme and Rural Social Scheme.
ix
As illustrated in the above table, there is a trend of increase in both funding and
passenger journey numbers over the six years of the Programme up to 2009, however,
the rate of increase in Programme funding in the period 2004-2009 has not seen an
equivalent increase in passenger journeys or services. Comparison with the Regional
Airports, in terms of subvention per passenger journey and percentage total
subvention, indicates that relative value for money is not being achieved by this
Programme. The current organisational structure for Programme delivery (consisting
of 36 RTP groups) has been identified as a key factor in the lack of cost efficiencies
being achieved for Programme delivery in terms of both administration and
operations. This is despite the contribution of volunteerism at all levels of Programme
activity.
High administration costs have been identified as an issue with this Programme since
the RTI was reviewed in 2004 by Fitzpatrick Associates (2006). Pobal has made
reductions in its administration costs in recent years however there is scope for further
work to be carried out in this regard. The costs of administration of the RTP groups
has been, and remains, very high as a proportion of total RTP group expenditure, to
22% in 2009. Over the six years up to 2009 the rise in RTP group administration
expenditure was by 69% with the sharpest rise in these costs occurring over the period
2006-2007, by a 51% increase over the two year period. Increases in wages and
salaries are of particular concern.
There was also a wide variance across the RTP groups in the administration costs as a
proportion of total RTP group expenditure in 2009. While the average administration
cost for the RTP groups in 2009 was 22%, for some RTP groups the proportion of
administration costs reported in 2009 were considerably higher. In 2009, 24 of the
RTP groups had a proportion administration costs over the 22% RTP group average
and in some newer RTP groups the proportion administration costs were over 40%.
There is also a lack of transparency concerning the allocation of costs within the
financial reporting of the RTP groups that needs to be addressed.
Operating costs have increased by 272% over the period 2004-2009, a much sharper
rise than for administration costs over the same period. In particular, the increase in
operational costs over the period 2007-2009 was particularly significant with an
increase of 49% over the three year period. By comparison the increase in operational
costs of this Programme far outweigh increases in operational expenditure by Bus
Éireann over the 2007-2009 period. Over this three year period between 2007-2009
wages and salaries for the RTP groups have doubled as a consequence not only of
increased staffing numbers associated with RTP operations, but also of increased
salary levels. The cost of sub-contracting services have also increased between 2007
and 2009, by 38%. There is little scope under the current RTP group organisational
structure for savings through joint procurement.
On a unit costs basis there is a wide variance in costs per passenger journey and per
service across the RTP groups and these costs are extreme for some of the RTP
groups. While there is a range of factors that affect unit costs variance there is scope
for incorporating limits to address the extreme cases where service costs are unusually
high or passenger journeys are very low. Putting in place thresholds for maximum
x
cost per service and for a minimum number of passengers per service would have the
effect of reducing the overall service costs per passenger journey. There is also a need
to match capacity and demand so as to improve load factors for individual services.
The RTP groups receive income from a number of sources including, State funding
under a range of programmes, fare income from individuals or from contracted
activities or income from other community and voluntary activities. There is,
however, no reporting by the RTP groups to Pobal with regard to the full range of
income streams and the levels of finance arising from them. This was also an
impediment to the full analysis of unit costs within this Review. In addition, capital
expenditure, which is not funded by the Department of Transport, is not reported on
by the RTP groups to Pobal.
It is necessary that full financial reporting is made by the RTP groups to Pobal
concerning the rural transport services and activities under this Programme. Complete
income reporting will give a clearer account of the size of the Programme and will
also facilitate monitoring for the risk of cross-subsidisation of contracted RTP
services. This is discussed further in Chapter 6, „Effectiveness of the Programme‟,
with regard to the risk of potential displacement of other transport operations by the
RTP services. Similarly, reporting of capital expenditure will provide information
concerning the level of transport assets held by the RTP groups.
With regard to income from fares, while there has been an increase in passenger
journey numbers over the 2002-2009 period, the trend in the number of fare paying
passenger journeys has shown a decreased, particularly over the period 2004-2009. In
the absence of an overall fares policy for the Programme there is a wide disparity in
fare structures and levels across the RTP groups, e.g. fare levels ranging from €2-€5
for a single journey (based on 2007 data).
Over half of RTP journeys each year during the 2004-2009 period have been taken by
Free Travel Pass holders. The cost to the Department of Social Protection for Free
Travel Pass passenger journeys on the RTP has been significantly lower than the cost
to the Department of Transport over the 2004-2009 period. The numbers of passenger
journeys provided under discretionary free travel, reported under „other free‟, have
also increased year-on-year over the period 2004-2009.
Effectiveness of the Programme - key findings and conclusions
There is an acknowledged difficulty, not specific to this Programme, in the
quantification of social inclusion impacts. However, there is some available
qualitative evidence suggesting social inclusion benefits for RTP Passengers under
this Programme, in particular, among older people and people with a disability. This
evidence includes perceptions of individuals among the stakeholders from the RTP
groups and the beneficiary representative groups gathered for the purpose of this
Review, as well as, testimonials of passengers given in the Programme Performance
Monitoring Reports and some other qualitative research on rural transport and older
people.
xi
The key finding with regard to the effectiveness of the Programme is that there is a
lack of data by which to measure the benefits of the Programme in terms of an
expected intermediate outcome, i.e. addressing the unmet transport needs of people in
identified target groups living in rural areas who are „at risk‟ in terms of social
exclusion. The view taken by the Review Steering Committee on consideration of the
extent of the information deficit was that the level of research required in generating
the necessary updated data to assess Programme impact was beyond the scope and
timeframe of this Review. However, this identified data gap is a key finding of this
Review and forms the basis for a recommendation concerning future recording and
reporting of data for policy and programme evaluation.
There is also a lack of available data as to whether there are any unintended
consequences, which have been created by the Programme, e.g. deadweight loss
attributable to the Programme or the extent of any displacement of other public
transport services by the RTP services.
There are weaknesses and data gaps in the Programme‟s framework for performance
monitoring and for the purpose of evaluation. This indicates a failure within the
context of the agreed MoU between the Department of Transport and Pobal to address
the need for a clear Programme evaluation framework over the period 2002-2009.
There is a lack of Programme performance targets that relate to the high-level social
inclusion objective. There are gaps in the framework for monitoring and evaluation
under key performance indicators, as well as, gaps in the related data and data sources
supporting these indicators.
Continued relevance of the Programme and the preferred policy option
The significant findings of this Review concerning inefficiencies and the lack of
evidence as to whether the Programme is effective raise serious value for money
concerns.
Findings of inefficiency in administration and operations relate to the funding of a
large number of RTP groups and the lack of scope for efficiency gains through shared
services under the current organisational arrangements for Programme delivery. The
evidence contained in the Review also suggests that the issue of persistently high
administration costs for the Programme has not been adequately addressed over the
period 2002-2009. The lack of reported financial data on the range and level of
income sources by the RTP groups is also a matter of concern.
With regard to the effectiveness of the Programme a key information deficit identified
in this Review concerns the extent of State funded and commercial local transport
provision as against the levels of unmet transport needs in rural areas. For example, it
is acknowledged that car ownership rates nationally have been rising in recent years,
i.e. rural households in the State that did not have a car reduced from 13.8% in 2002
to 11.4% in 2006, and that there are a range of other publicly funded transport
providers operating in local areas. Also, if there was greater integration of local
transport services it could reduce the need for State provision of rural transport
without necessarily reducing the current levels of services.
xii
The rationale in favour of continuation of the Programme is based on some evidence
suggesting social inclusion benefits to Programme beneficiaries, particularly older
people and people with a disability, and there is available up-to-date evidence, e.g.
EU SILC data in 2007 and 2009 and qualitative research specific to rural transport
which suggests a persistent trend in transport and access problems in rural areas
generally and for older people in particular. Also supporting the policy for the
Programme is the connection between unmet transport need and underlying problems
of social exclusion made in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006). This is echoed
in a range of public policies including social inclusion, rural and community
development, health, transport accessibility, etc., which place transport as a key factor
in policy intervention for rural dwellers who are „at risk‟ in terms of social exclusion.
There is also a lack of data to support a case for any alternative Programme delivery
mechanism.
Therefore, consideration of the continued relevance of the Programme based on the
available evidence in the Review is finely balanced. The conclusion is to continue the
Programme subject to performance information being collated in the short-term to
support an assessment of Programme effectiveness. In addition, any organisational
option for delivery of the Programme recommended by this Review would be based
on the achievement in the short-term of a minimum level of efficiency savings with
regard to the specific findings and recommendations on costs and efficiency contained
in this Review.
Should the Programme continue, and within the context of the system of public
transport regulation in Ireland, the status of the public transport services provided
under the Programme needs to be addressed.
There is no available information base upon which to provide a detailed cost appraisal
concerning any of the alternative organisational options for Programme delivery
considered in this Review. However, with regard to the consideration by the Review
Steering Committee of the potential opportunities or obstacles under each of the
options, the preferred option is to continue Programme delivery by Pobal and the RTP
groups. This approach also involves a greater role for Local Authorities with the
Programme through their alignment with the RTP in terms of the County-based
transport and social inclusion needs assessment for the Programme.
The involvement of the NTA is also envisaged as part of this approach, particularly
with regard to building a cooperative involvement with the Programme, especially in
the development of locally integrated transport provision. In the medium-term the
potential for bringing the Programme within the remit of the NTA should be
considered further. This consideration would have regard to the regulatory role of the
NTA, the potential for achievement of further Programme administrative efficiencies
and the potential for creating added-value in terms of the nationwide integration and
coordination of public passenger transport.
Recommendations
The recommendation for continuation of Programme delivery by Pobal and the RTP
groups is subject to the following,
xiii
1. Clear evidence of Programme effectiveness, by end-Q3 of 2011, based on the
recommended performance indicators set out in Table 9.6 of this Review, and,
2. The evidenced achievement of minimum efficiencies and reduction in
Programme costs, by end-2011, as identified in Table 9.2 involving the
removal of discretionary „free‟ travel on RTP services and the achievement of
a 5% reduction of RTP group administration costs as a % of their total spend,
by means of the performance indicators framework suggested at Table 9.4 and
9.5.
It is also envisaged under this organisational option that, in the event that the
Programme continues, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport consider a
detailed cost appraisal and implementation plan to be submitted by Pobal, by end-Q3
of 2011 concerning the proposed organisational restructuring of the Programme on a
sub-regional basis, to be implemented by the end-Q1 of 2012. The appraisal will set
out the details of the potential for achievement of greater Programme efficiency
through a restructuring of the RTP groups funded under this Programme, greater use
of shared services and greater standardisation of salaries, practices and activities,
while maintaining the quality of the targeting of services under the social inclusion
objective.
This Review acknowledges the need, within a reasonable timeframe, to address the
status of the transport services provided under the Programme within the context of
the system of public transport regulation in Ireland.
The recommended immediate reduction in overall Programme costs required
involves,
-
the discretionary free travel provided by RTP groups to be removed immediately,
with a saving equivalent to €450,000 based on 2009 figures, and as part of a
Programme-wide fares policy that discounted child travel would be in line with
other public transport operators in the State; and,
-
a reduction of RTP group administration costs from 22% to 17% of total RTP
group costs to be applied as a maximum threshold across the RTP groups, with a
saving equivalent to €700,000 based on 2009 figures.
A further staged reduction of overall Programme administration costs to 13% of total
Programme funding (comparable with the School Transport Programme) is
recommended by 2013, should the Programme continue. This proportional cost
reduction would correspond to a further equivalent saving based on 2009 figures of
€800,000 in total administration costs of the RTP groups and Pobal combined.
Other recommendations with regard to the achievement of Programme efficiency and
effectiveness include:-
A Programme-wide fares policy that will standardise fare levels across the RTP
groups as first step towards the possibility of increasing fare levels. This will have
xiv
regard to the variance in unit costs across the RTP groups and pricing of other
transport provision, and the potential for passenger numbers and fare revenue
increases through greater promotion by the RTP groups of their services, thereby
reducing the net cost to the Exchequer.
-
The balance of Exchequer financial support for FTP passenger journeys on RTP to
be reviewed by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the
Department of Social Protection.
-
Greater transparency around the financial reporting by the RTP groups,
specifically with regard to the allocation of administration and operational costs,
capital costs and all sources of income.
-
Greater cost control mechanisms and performance targets and incentives to be
incorporated within the contractual arrangements of Pobal and the RTP groups. As
a first step, a maximum cost per service and minimum number of passengers to be
applied across the different transport modes and models. Services identified as
having extreme levels of service cost per passenger journey being cut
immediately.
-
Within the context of the MOU, Pobal and the Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport to agree and implement a Programme monitoring framework based on
the recommendations of this Review, in particular a restatement of the Programme
objectives and targets.
-
Within the first year of the online GIS and PMS IT systems the needs assessment
for funding for the RTP services to be reviewed by Pobal. This review is to
include greater validation of needs assessments, examination of route efficiencies
and checking adherence to Programme guidelines.
-
A recording and reporting framework to be established that will provide an up-todate measure of transport provision and unmet transport needs in rural areas.
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the background to the value for money and policy review
process, including this Review of the Rural Transport Programme. It sets out the
framework for this Review including the objective, scope and research methodology.
In addition, it sets out the context for the Review in terms of policy for rural
development administered at national and local level and the wider public transport
policy context.
1.2 Background and overview of the review process
Formerly known as the „Expenditure Review Initiative‟, commenced in 1997, the
„Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative‟ is a Government-wide framework to
achieve value for money in public expenditure, which was established in 2006.
At the launch of the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) in 2007, a commitment was
made to carry out a Value for Money and Policy Review of the Programme in 2010.
The RTP was included among the programmes submitted by the Department to the
Department of Finance in 2008 for inclusion in the round of Value for Money and
Policy Reviews to be undertaken over the years 2009 to 2011. The RTP was selected
for review in 2010.
The Department of Finance guidelines recommend that a Steering Committee be
established to direct each review. It has responsibility to oversee the Review and the
drafting of the final report. Comprising of a wide representation of interested bodies,
the Committee is seen as an important element in assuring objectivity. The Review
Steering Committee agreed the terms of reference for this Review in July 2010, which
was also approved by the Secretary General of the Department of Transport and the
Department of Finance. The Terms of Reference for the Review are set out at
Appendix B. The membership of the Steering Committee for this Review of the Rural
Transport Programme is at Appendix C.
A working group was established for this Review comprising of representatives from
the Department of Transport and Pobal, who administer the Rural Transport
Programme on behalf of the Department. The lead reviewer and chairperson of the
working group was selected from within the Department of Transport pool of
graduates of the IPA Masters in Policy Analysis, an initiative of the Department of
Finance to increase the analytical capacity within the Civil Service. The membership
of the working group is attached at Appendix D. The first task of the working group
was to review the terms of reference and to establish the work programme for review.
A schedule of the meetings of the working groups and Steering Committee for this
Review is attached at Appendix E.
1
1.3 Objective and scope of the Review
The objective of this Review is to systematically address the specific questions arising
from the Terms of Reference regarding value for money and policy. Furthermore,
within the context of the Review of the RTP, to make comments concerning the
structure of funding arrangements for the Programme, i.e. from the Department of
Transport, Tourism and Sport, the then Department of Community, Rural and
Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Social Protection and to examine and
comment on the organisational arrangements relating to the administrative structures
of the RTP at national and local level.
A programme level evaluation cannot fully reflect the diversity of all the individual
Rural Transport Programme Groups and their activities. The emphasis of this Review
is, therefore, focused on the typical and what is broadly representative, while
acknowledging the diverse nature of the individual rural transport services.
Furthermore, this is not a review of the performance of individual RTP groups and
this programme-level review does not substitute for any individual reviews or
evaluations which the RTP groups or Pobal might want to undertake.
The scope of this Review will cover the period from 2002 to 2009 inclusive, which
includes the period of the former pilot Rural Transport Initiative from 2002 to 2006.
In February 2007 the pilot initiative was mainstreamed as the Rural Transport
Programme.
1.4 Research methodology
The Department of Finance Guidelines on Value for Money and Policy Review
recommends that the methodological framework for the Review follow the
Programme Logic Model. Within the advised framework, the research methodology
for this Review describes the structure by which to address each of the questions
arising from the terms of reference. Other considerations with regard to the
methodology of this Review in addressing the research question are also set out in this
section.
1.4.1 The Programme Logic Model and research methodology of this Review
Sometimes referred to as the „input-output‟ model, the Programme Logic Model
divides the Programme into a logical sequence of linked elements, i.e. inputs,
activities, outputs and outcomes (results and impacts), which can be analysed
separately and in relationship to one another in terms of meeting the overall
Programme objectives. Through the development and measurement of programme
and contextual indicators the Model can assist in the identification of a sequence of
causes and effects concerning the intended (or unintended) benefits that can be
attributed to the Programme. An application of the programme logic model to the
Rural Transport Programme is set out in Table 1.1, below.
Measurement of the final outcome of the Programme in terms of social inclusion
benefits presents difficulty in terms of the depth and breadth of data and information
2
required and, not least, in terms of attributing causality to the Programme. As it is not
possible to measure the extent to which the final outcome of the Programme has been
achieved, the theory underpinning the Programme contains the assumption that
achievement of the intermediate outcome will contribute towards the achievement of
the final outcome.
3
Inputs
Table 1.1: The programme logic model as applied to the Rural Transport Programme
Activities (inputs Outputs
Theory – how and Expected
into outputs)
why outputs
intermediate
contribute to
outcomes
outcomes
Input indicators
Level of state
funding streams
Level of fare revenue
and other income
Department of
Transport
oversight of
Programme.
Pobal
administration,
monitoring,
reporting and
technical support
for the
Programme.
RTP group
Programme
administration,
assessment of
needs, service
development,
tendering for
services and
co-ordinating
local services
Output indicators
No. of passenger
journeys
Age profile of
passengers
No. of services
Profile of services by
service model, i.e.
demand responsive,
fixed scheduled, etc.
Accessibilty of
services
Services with
passenger assistants
No. of RTP groups
Passenger Km
Number of passenger
journeys by purpose
of journey
Providing
transport services
to people living in
rural areas to
address the unmet
transport needs
identified as a
cause of social
exclusion of rural
dwellers and those
in specific target
groups such as
older people and
people with
mobility
difficulties.
4
Greater transport
provision targeted at
people living in
rural areas who are
socially excluded as
a result of unmet
transport needs.
Intermediate
outcome indicators
Increase in target
group coverage
Increase in
national coverage
Greater
diversification of
RTP services
Theory – how and
why intermediate
outcomes
contribute to final
outcome
Connecting
previously isolated
rural dwellers with
their local
communities
through transport
results in social
inclusion benefits
for those
individuals.
Final outcome
Greater social
inclusion of
rural dwellers
within their
communities
and to access
public and
commercial
services through
transport
connectivity,
thereby
contributing to
individual,
social and
economic
benefits.
1.4.2 Data sources
Primary data sources used in the Review include responses from a survey
questionnaire developed as part of the Review, as well as interviews with key
stakeholders and interested parties. On advice from Pobal, it was agreed that
consultation with the RTP groups could be achieved efficiently and inclusively
through a questionnaire survey targeting the 36 Coordinator/Transport Managers. A
copy of the questionnaire and cover letter to the RTP groups and associated Board of
Management are attached at Appendix F. The schedule of interviews carried out for
this Review is attached at Appendix G together with question topics used in
discussion during the interviews, which took place in person or by telephone. In
addition, one stakeholder was contacted for a written submission.
While there was available secondary data on inputs and outputs over the Review
period 2002-2009 held by Pobal, the data did not fully support performance indicators
for Programme evaluation. In discussions with Pobal data gaps in terms of inputs and
outputs were identified, e.g. financial data on income (fare) revenue generated by the
RTP groups, the categorisation of accessibility of RTP services and breakdown of
vehicles used whether under or over 8 seats, i.e. whether they are large or small public
service vehicles. These are commented on further among the findings under Chapters
5, „Cost and efficiency of the Programme‟, and Chapter 6, „Effectiveness of the
Programme‟. Other funding Departments also provided secondary data on their
funding schemes, in the case of the former Department of Community, Rural and
Gaeltacht Affairs this data was verified by Pobal who administer the funds on their
behalf.
Tertiary data included the Pobal Performance Monitoring Reports for 2008 and 2009.
Other reports which provided a source of data included CSO Reports, a Value for
Money Review of the Rural Nights Service carried out by the former Department of
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, some independent reports of the RTP and
on individual RTP groups as well as case studies.
A description of the analysis of data used in this Review is set out at Appendix R.
1.4.3 Measurement of outcome/impact and attributing causality to the
Programme
Programmes with qualitative outcomes and impacts tend to present difficulty for
measurement in quantitative terms and may require qualitative analysis that is
complex and resource demanding. There was not sufficient time or resources within
this Review to carry out user/beneficiary research of the RTP programme. In addition
the diversity of the RTP at local level and issues over the selection of sample groups
could give rise to questions concerning whether the findings of such research would
be representative or could be extrapolated to generalisations concerning the RTP as a
whole. However, some of the survey questions concerning the benefits of the
Programme to users, as well as, interview responses from the representative bodies for
the Programme beneficiary target groups are used to support other findings in the
Review, where relevant. Where Pobal and some of the individual RTP groups have
had independent research carried out, the findings of outcomes and impacts in these
5
case studies and user/beneficiary research have also been used as tertiary data in this
Review.
1.4.4 Format of the Review report
The Chapters 2-8 of the Review report address the terms of reference, as follows,
Chapter 2, „The policy context for the Programme‟, provides an overview of the
policy context for the programme.
Chapter 3, „Background to the Rural Transport Programme‟, provides a background
description of the development of the Programme and an overview of the key
structures, roles and relationships involved in the Programme governance,
administration and delivery.
Chapter 4, „Programme objectives and continued relevance‟, examines the objectives
the Programme and its alignment with the high-level policy objective and the
continued relevance of the policy objective.
Chapter 5, „Costs and efficiency of the Programme‟, examines the level and trend of
costs of the Programme and evaluate the efficiency with which the available resources
have been used to achieve the objectives of the Programme.
Chapter 6, „Effectiveness of the Programme‟, evaluates the effectiveness of the
Programme in achieving its objectives by means of an examination of quantitative and
qualitative measures of output, outcome and impact, where these are available.
Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy and organisational options‟, contains a discussion
of a range of policy options and measures and with regard to the continued relevance
of the programme proposes the preferred policy option.
Chapter 8, „Key findings and conclusion‟, sets out the main findings of the Review
with regard to the degree to which the Programme is efficient and effective in the
achievement of the Programme objectives as examined in the preceding Chapters 4, 5
and 6. The Chapter also sets out the Review conclusion following the discussion in
Chapter 7 concerning the preferred policy and organisational option for public policy
intervention.
Chapter 9, „Review recommendations‟, sets out recommendations arising from the
findings identified in Chapter 8, as well as, the key performance indicators to monitor
and evaluate future public expenditure.
6
CHAPTER 2
THE POLICY CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMME
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the policy backdrop to the Programme. The
Programme fits within the context of wider public policy and, specifically, policies for
rural and community development, transport, social welfare and health. This Chapter
illustrates how the Programme is relevant within each of these policy contexts in turn.
2.2 Rural and community development policy context
The Rural Transport Programme operates within a wider policy context and
associated administrative structures for rural and community development.
In general the rural and community development Programmes, particularly under a
social inclusion objective involve community development from the bottom-up. The
administrative structures for Programme delivery were established using the concept
of partnership at local level and involving stakeholders outside the public sector (i.e.
private, community and voluntary sectors), as well as, the involvement of
intermediary „independent‟ bodies, such as Area Development Management Ltd.
(ADM, now Pobal), from outside the conventional mainstream public administration.
The rural and community development programmes are funded in the main by the
former Department of Community, Equality and the Gaeltacht Affairs. Notably under
the 1994-99 Operational Programme for Local, Urban and Rural Development
(OPLURD) some 10-12 local transport projects were funded and in 1999 Pobal
decided to capture the learning from these projects in a report entitled, “Rural
Transport: A National Study from a Community Perspective”. It is also significant
that as of 2010, 14 of the RTP groups are (Integrated) Local Development Companies
(LDC). LDCs arose during a cohesion process, which commenced in 2004, to
rationalise structures for community programme delivery. Please find a list of the
LDCs involved in the RTP at Appendix N.
The Department of Social Protection funding through the Rural Social Scheme (RSS)
and the Community Services Programme (CSP) also benefits some RTP groups
directly. The RSS provides income support for farmers and fisherpersons involved in
community work. The CSP provides funding to groups that supply services to their
local communities. In addition, the former department of Community, Rural and
Gaeltacht Affairs also provided funding directly to 7 RTP groups for evening and
night-time rural transport services under the Rural Development Fund with an
objective to provide seed funding for rural development initiatives. This funding
stream ended in 2009 following a review, which found that it no longer fulfilled the
„pilot‟ characteristic of projects under the Fund.
7
The 1999 White Paper on Rural Transport represents a policy milestone in terms of
national rural development policy. It recognised the social aspects of transport
provision as follows,
“… the provision of transport is a major priority for those living in rural areas
especially in the context of a tendency towards service concentration in larger
centres.” and “… the absence of an adequate public transport service in all areas
is a major contributing factor to marginalisation. Its availability plays an
increasingly important role in accessing services such as healthcare and in the
social integration of people living away from service areas.”
The 1999 White Paper acknowledged the work carried out by the Area Partnerships
and Community Groups funded via ADM under the OPLURD and the National
Development Plan (NDP) 1994-1999, in operating pilot schemes for the provision of
local transport services and in identifying community based responses to the provision
of a transport service where public transport is not available. In addition, it proposed
that each County Development Board, established in 2000 would carry out an audit
and identify the most appropriate coordination and delivery mechanism for local
transport provision in its area. It also recommended that funding under NDP 20002006 to up-grade public transport would reflect its “rural proofing” principles.
The County Development Boards (CDB) were established under the Local
Government Act 2001, to improve co-ordination of publicly funded services at local
level, combat social exclusion and provide an integrated planning framework for
economic, social and cultural development. In 2008, 59% of RTP groups participated
in the CDB sub-committees.
2.3 Public transport policy context
The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) 2002-2020 sets out the key transport
infrastructure requirements for Ireland‟s future spatial strategy. This includes the
development of strong towns and villages that will enhance the viability of rural
transport options such as local bus networks. The NSS also acknowledges the role that
the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport together with the support of the other
Departments and the Public Transport Partnership Forum plays in the development of
rural transport policy. The development of rural transport policy is an ongoing process
supported by two key reports by Fitzpatrick Associates Consultants in 2002 and 2006,
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 – „Background and overview of the Rural
Transport Programme‟
The continuing development of the Rural Transport Programme is one of the elements
of the Department of Transport Strategy (2008-2010) falling under the objective of
better public transport. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has
commenced the process of consultation for its next Statement of Strategy 2011-2013.
The strategic goals for land transport are now supported by a policy framework for the
delivery of more sustainable transport in „Smarter Travel - A Sustainable Transport
Future 2009 – 2020‟, and for the delivery of an integrated accessible public transport
8
service, as set out in the Transport Sectoral Plan – Transport Access for All
(Reviewed in 2008).
The regulation of public (land) transport under the Public Transport Regulation Act
2009 provides the institutional framework for public transport delivery in Ireland
under the responsibility of the National Transport Authority. At a local level Local
Authorities, being road, traffic and planning Authorities, have a transport role in their
areas. Policy initiatives are ongoing, lead by the Department of Transport Tourism
and Sport, to assess the potential for local synergies, bringing together the transport
capabilities of a range of local - state, private and community transport operators and
bodies.
2.3.1 Sustainable transport – „Smarter Travel‟
Smarter Travel (A sustainable transport future: a new transport policy for Ireland
2009-2020), reflects the commitment by Ireland to meet the targets set by the Kyoto
Protocol and the National Climate Change Strategy (D/EH&LG, 2007) for the
reduction of Carbon emissions to 13% below 1990 levels by the first committed
period 2008-2012. Following on from the strategic actions for transport set out in the
1997 Sustainable Development – A Strategy for Ireland, the Smarter Travel strategy
provides a framework of targeted actions to ensure sustainable development of the
transport sector in terms of environmental (modal shift from private car), social
(access to transport in urban and rural areas) and economic (efficient public transport)
sustainability. These objectives are also reflected in the range of responses from the
public consultation, which formed a large part of the development of Smarter Travel.
The Smarter Travel policy framework sets out five key goals and associated key
targets under the vision for sustainable transport. These are to improve accessibility to
transport, reducing travel demand, to maximise efficiency of the transport network,
reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce transport emissions. The Smarter Travel
policy framework deals with the whole transport network, including both rural and
urban areas and its goals and targets, when taken collectively, encompass both.
Among the 49 individual actions in Smarter Travel, two sub-actions under Action 14,
aimed at improving access to transport, relate to rural transport, i.e. for regular 7-day
week transport service for rural communities and those in smaller urban areas, as well
as, building on the good work at local level in developing the Rural Transport
Programme to expand the network in other ways, such as demand responsive services.
Other relevant actions are for a more integrated local public transport network, i.e. to
expanded use of school and other publicly funded buses as a „local transport bus‟ to
bring people to a range of services.
The long-term policy trajectory of policy under Smarter Travel (2009) and as set out
in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) is for rural public transport provision
under a sustainable transport objective. However, policy development is ongoing with
regard to the potential for achievement of savings and efficiencies through synergies
in the organisation and delivery of integrated local transport services as set out in
Section 2.3.5 below.
9
2.3.2 Transport Sectoral Plan – Transport Access for All
Under the Disability Act 2005, the Department of Transport Sectoral Plan – Transport
Access for All was established in 2006 and reviewed in 2008. It sets out key targets
for improvements to accessibility of transport services across all the transport sectors
and providers including public transport, with the exception of specialist transport
services that are outside the remit of the Department of Transport. The Sectoral Plan
acknowledges the social inclusion role of the RTP in providing demand responsive,
door-to-door, transport services and transport connectivity for older people and people
with mobility, sensory and cognitive impairments as well as involving people with
disability in RTP management structures and user fora.
The development of accessibility specifications for small buses, a typical vehicle used
for RTP services, had a target date of end 2009 as set out in the 2008 Sectoral Plan.
The current position of the development of these specifications is that a draft
specification has been finalised for consideration by the Road Safety Authority
(RSA). The 2008 Review of the Sectoral Plan suggests that the lack of available
capital funding is a barrier to improved vehicle accessibility of the owner operated
RTP services and for the private operators who operate the majority of RTP services
on a sub-contract basis. The target for accessible vehicles providing public transport
among the private licensed bus operator fleet is a matter for consideration by the
National Transport Authority, with regard to its responsibility for bus route licensing.
Targets have been set under the Plan for the State bus companies to provide 100%
accessible bus/coach vehicles by 2015.
A range of other targets for accessible integrated public transport provision in the
Sectoral Plan, which are also relevant to the RTP in terms of its interface with the
public transport network, include accessible bus stops, disabled parking, accessible
bus and train stations, ports and airports, accessibility awareness and skills training
and accessible SPSV services.
2.3.3 Public Transport Regulation – National Transport Authority
2.3.3.1 Market regulation
The Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 and the earlier Dublin Transport Authority
Act 2008 provide the basis for the current public transport regulatory regime. The
responsibilities of the previous Dublin Transport Authority have been extended with
regard to some transport provision to the whole country under the responsibility of the
National Transport Authority under the 2009 Act. In addition, the 2009 Act provides
that the National Transport Authority is the national body with responsibility for
administering public service contracts (PSC) on behalf of the Minister for Transport
who is the competent authority in the State for the purposes of EC Regulation
1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and road. This European
Communities Regulation facilitates the principle of a „level playing-pitch‟ for
competition in the passenger transport market in Ireland with regard to the transport
services on routes that are compensated by means of State funding as a consequence
10
of a public service obligation. The EC Regulation provides for public service contract
to be awarded, to the transport operators providing services on these PSO routes, by
means of a process of competitive tendering or in specified cases through direct award
for a limited duration.
The competitive part of the bus passenger market in Ireland is regulated by means of
bus passenger route licensing (for domestic routes), under Licensing Guidelines
published by the NTA under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009. A small
number of RTP services are licensed under the bus passenger route licensing regime,
including some owner operated services, where the RTP group holds the licence,
while there are some RTP services, which are sub-contracted to private operators who
hold the licence.
There is a question to be addressed concerning the status of RTP services, operated by
buses or by smaller vehicles, within the context of the system of public transport
regulation in Ireland. The Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 does not make
specific provision for the transport services under this Programme. Regulation of
passenger transport under the 2009 Act is by means of either the licensing transport
operators to provide services on specified routes or for PSO routes by means of public
service contract.
Finally, there is a range of specialist transport services targeted at specific groups,
such as bus services by State organisations which are not open to the general
travelling public, i.e. HSE and School Transport, as well as, bus services by voluntary
groups and organisations (with or without state financial support), e.g. Irish
Wheelchair Association, Enable Ireland, and local Centres for Independent Living
(CIB, 2009), as well as Vantastic and ACTS. As these specialised transport services
do not cater for transport of the general travelling public in terms of „hail and ride‟
they do not fall directly within the remit of the 2009 Act.
2.3.3.2 Regulation of the public transport network
The NTA has oversight for the network planning and the management of public
transport bus services carried out by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus for their services
under PSC. Planning of the competitive bus market network is by means of route
licensing, with network considerations taken into account in terms of competition on
specific routes where there is a new licence application under the licensing guidelines
established under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009.
RTP services are planned so that they complement and do not compete with either
PSC bus routes or other commercial and licensed routes. However, there is no
regulation of this and there is an on-going risk of displacement of other transport
services by RTP, a risk that potentially increases through greater involvement of RTP
in any contracted School Transport or HSE transport services. Pobal have recently
developing an IT system (GIS) that will enable RTP groups, and in time other
transport operators, to geographically plot the areas that their bus services cover.
11
2.3.3.3 Regulation of safety and standards
The NTA has responsibility for regulation of standards and specifications of small
public service vehicles (SPSVs) and also for bus passenger transport provided under
PSC or route licensing.
With regard to passenger safety, the regulation of vehicle standards for public bus and
SPSV services, including RTP services which are public hire vehicles, is under the
Public Service Vehicle licensing system administered by An Garda Síochána as
provided for under the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended.
With regard to accessibility standards in particular, accessibility specifications have
not yet been adopted in Ireland for larger public service vehicles, including many
vehicles used on many RTP services. SPSV standards which include accessibility
specifications were introduced for all new applications for wheelchair accessible taxis
and hackneys vehicle licences in 2010. Notwithstanding the above, many RTP and
some other specialist transport providers currently operate accessible vehicles and
provide for the transport needs of disabled people.
2.3.4 Local Authority responsibility for public transport
The role of the Local Authorities in local public transport provision is largely
concerned with public transport infrastructure. The development plans and local area
plans by the local authorities can contain a range of transport provisions for road and
other transport infrastructure. Consultation concerning the contents of the
development plans and local area plans is provided for in Planning and Development
Act 2000. The involvement of Local Authorities with public transport regulation is
provided for under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 which provides for
consultation by the NTA with the relevant Local Authority and/or Local Authority
Plan on consideration of a licence application or of a proposed public service contract
for passenger transport services operating in that Local Authority‟s area of
jurisdiction.
In particular in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), under the Dublin Transport Authority
Act 2009 the Dublin Transport Authority (now the NTA) was given responsibility for
the development of a transport strategy for the GDA, which must be consistent with
the regional planning guidelines for the Dublin and Mid-East Region, as provided for
under the Planning and Development Act 2000. The transport strategy for the GDA
taking account of the period up to 2030 is currently being developed. The
responsibility of the NTA for transport planning has not been extended outside the
GDA.
2.3.5 Local Integrated Transport Services (LITS)
Smarter Travel policy for sustainable transport provision nationally provides a policy
context for exploration of options for greater integrated transport provision locally.
The potential efficiencies savings as a result of locally integrated transport services
among State funded transport providers, e.g. HSE, School Transport and RTP services
12
is a key driver for policy in this regard. The Deloitte Cost and Efficiency Review of
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann (2008) suggests that, in light of the deteriorating
financial situation facing the company, Bus Éireann would need to assess a number of
strategic opportunities. That Bus Éireann should further explore opportunities to
combine dedicated services from multiple organisations (schools, Rural Transport
Programme, conventional bus services, HSE services etc.).
A joint initiative was undertaken in 2009 to pilot a number of projects in the North
West and North East of the country to assess the potential for local synergies and
greater efficiencies through the integration of existing public and private transport
services. Key participants involved in the pilots were RTP groups, the Irish
Wheelchair Association, the Department of Transport, Pobal, Bus Éireann,
Department of Education and Skills and the Health Service Executive.
The pilot projects were evaluated by MVA Consultancy in 2010 with a view to
assessing the benefits and the potential for rolling out the pilots or elements of them
on a national basis. The relevance of policy development for local integrated transport
with regard to this Programme is referred to in Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy
and organisational options‟.
2.4. Free Travel Scheme
The Free Travel Scheme is available for scheduled public bus services that have fixed
routes and stops; this includes bus services by Bus Éireann and by Private Licensed
Operators. It is acknowledged that the majority of rural transport bus services are nonscheduled and are demand-responsive. The objective of the Free Travel Scheme is to
provide for the public transport needs of the elderly, i.e. 66 and over and for carers
and certain other categories of people, such as people with a disability. The Scheme is
intended as an incentive to encourage older people to use public transport services in
off-peak periods thereby achieving greater and more efficient capacity utilisation.
The procedure for establishing the level of free travel pass funding is by means of an
assessment carried out by the Department of Social Protection. This is done by
reviewing 3-6 months of records on the service use over that period as well as an
assessment of the value of the service. This is then followed up by spot checks. In
general, the Free Travel Scheme payment covers 70% of the actual fare on scheduled
services.
The rural transport services cater for a large proportion of the categories of the
intended beneficiaries of the Free Travel Scheme. An agreement was reached in 2003
between the Department of Social Protection, the then Department of Transport and
Area Development Management Ltd. (now Pobal) that Free Travel Scheme funding
would be made available for the Rural Transport services on an agreed fixed annual
basis in line with the standard calculation of funding levels, and administered by
Pobal to the RTP groups.
13
2.5 Health policy – community care for older people
Since the 1990s there has been an emphasis on community care for older people. The
Department of Health strategy document, Shaping a Healthier Future, suggested a
target, that not less than 90 per cent of those over 75 years of age should live at home
and proposed a strengthening of community healthcare professional services dealing
with older people and their carers in this regard.
The National Council on Ageing and Older People2, established by the Minister for
Health in 1997, advised on all aspects of ageing and the welfare of older people to
assist in the development of national and regional policy and strategy in that regard.
Findings of research contained in its report „Care and Case Management for Older
People in Ireland‟ (2001) identifies the availability of transport (particularly in rural
areas) as a key weakness of services in terms of community care for the elderly and
posits improvements to transport as a potential opportunity for service development.
2.6 Economic context
2.6.1 Recommendation of the Report of the Special Group on Public Service
Numbers and Expenditure Programmes
The economic policy context within which this Value for Money Review is being
carried out is reflected in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers
and Expenditure Programmes (2009) prepared for the Department of Finance. This
Report provides a review of the scope for reducing or discontinuing Expenditure
Programmes, across all the public services sectors, with a view to eliminating the
current budget deficit by 2011.
The 2009 Report recommends ceasing the funding of the RTP on the basis that, the
availability of private sector bus alternatives, the high level of car ownership and the
underutilisation of synergies with other publicly funded local transport services
support the view that the level of direct Exchequer assistance can and should be
eliminated, and that in light of current budgetary circumstances this Programme
should be ended.
2.6.2 The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014
There is an on-going pressure for further public Programme expenditure cuts to
address the State budgetary deficit and to finance Ireland‟s loans. The National
Recovery Plan 2011-2014 aims to reduce GDP to 3% by 2014 as required to meet
agreed targets under the European Union Growth and Stability Pact. Among the
requirements of the Plan in this regard is for Governmental Expenditure Assessment
(GEA).
2
The National Council on Ageing and Older People was dissolved with effect from 1 September 2009
14
CHAPTER 3
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE RURAL TRANSPORT
PROGRAMME
3.1 Introduction
This Chapter provides a background description of the development of the
Programme along a policy trajectory, from its beginnings as the Rural Transport
Initiative (RTI) to the establishment of the Rural Transport Programme (RTP). The
Chapter also provides an overview of the Rural Transport Programme in terms of the
key structures, roles and relationships involved in the governance, administration and
delivery of the Programme.
3.2 Background – the evolution of a rural public transport policy and its
implementation - RTI to RTP
3.2.1 A rural transport policy for Ireland - Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2002)
The Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Transport, established in 2001,
commissioned a report concerning Rural Transport Ireland, called „Availability,
Access and Choice‟ (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2002). This report highlights the high
level of people living in rural Ireland in 1996, i.e. 36.7% of the population living in
centres below 500, compared to 9.2 % in Scotland (2001) or 18.8% in Sweden (2001).
The findings in the Report suggested that two factors are affecting the decline in
public transport in rural areas, 1) the increasing separation of peoples work and
residential locations and 2) the increase in car ownership in rural areas. The Report
suggests that rural transport policy should have a short- and medium-term approach.
In the short-term a targeted public transport service in rural areas and in the mediumterm greater planning with regard to settlement patterns and associated transport
requirements.
The 2002 Report sets out the components for a rural transport policy. The Report
suggested that the twin complementary objectives for a rural transport policy should
be sustainability and social inclusion. It suggested that appropriate targets for a rural
transport policy in Ireland would include at least a weekly scheduled bus service
between county towns and smaller rural towns and that all rural residents in the target
groups would have a transport option to make at least one weekly trip to their nearest
local town, county town or large market town. The Report also suggested that the
optimal model for rural transport delivery is the collect and connect model, over pure
scheduled or demand responsive models of service delivery.
„Collect and connect‟ is a public transport network model whereby conventional and
non-conventional public transport services are combined and dovetailed, using each in
the circumstances in which it is most appropriate. In this case conventional public
15
transport provided under PSC or by licensed private operators nationally
complemented by an integrated local transport network, including the community
based demand responsive services provided by the RTP in peripheral rural areas
(Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006).
3.2.2 The pilot Rural Transport Initiative
The proposal for a Rural Transport Initiative (RTI) arose from the commitment in the
National Development Plan 2000-2006 to address the issues of social exclusion in
rural Ireland caused by a lack of transport through funding pilot rural transport
projects as innovative community-based initiatives to provide transport services in
rural areas. Details of the Initiative were developed within the then Department of
Transport with the assistance of Area Development Management Ltd. (now Pobal)
and the Rural Transport Sub-committee of the Public Transport Partnership Forum.
Following a nation-wide consultation exercise on the RTI proposal early in 2001, an
application process was launched and thirty-two applicants were selected for
operational funding. By the end of 2003 thirty-four RTP groups were operational
under the Rural Transport Initiative and RTI transport services were being provided in
parts of all counties with the exception of Louth, where there was no application
made.
3.2.2.1 Evaluation of the RTI and lessons learned
In 2004, the RTI was evaluated on behalf of Pobal by consultants Fitzpatrick
Associates. Overall the evaluation concluded that the RTI provided good value for
money. The findings of the evaluation suggested that in most RTI Groups the ratio of
administrative to operational costs was within the acceptable range, though there were
some RTI Groups for whom administrative costs appeared to be high. ADM
undertook to work with those RTI Groups to address this issue. In line with the
principal recommendation of the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006), the Minister
for Transport decided to extend the pilot RTI.
With regard to findings and lessons for future rural transport services the 2004
evaluation raised a number of points as follows,
the demand responsive, door-to-door services pioneered by the RTI was
suitable for rural dwellers and target groups with mobility difficulties,
locally planned and designed transport services based on a „no one size fits all‟
principle were successful,
it provided transport to people from the key target groups, e.g. FTP holders
with transport that had not previously been available,
there were benefits in terms of the reported improvement to quality of life of
the RTI passengers, and,
Pobal‟s role in support and development was critical as many RTI groups
experienced skills and capacity issues with regard to management (including
management of transport operations) and administration starting-up.
16
The 2006 report concluded that meeting the level of unmet transport needs of rural
dwellers is ambitious and even unrealistic, given the current levels of RTI services,
and meeting this need should be a priority for the future.
3.2.3 Identifying the rural transport policy problem and policy options
The Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Transport (2001) chaired by the then
Department of Public Enterprise was responsible for developing a rural transport
policy. The policy development process involved a number of key inputs including
from,
the Sub-Committee on Rural Transport of the Public Transport Partnership
Forum and from the National Rural Development Forum,
the findings of the rural transport audit carried out by the County Development
Boards of the Local Authorities (National Rural Transport Survey),
a review of the regulation of bus services outside the Greater Dublin Area, as
well as,
learning from an evaluation of the RTI.
The resulting Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) suggests that the policy problem
for rural transport in Ireland is multi-faceted, including,
-
the need to address the social exclusion of target groups and the significant
levels of unmet rural transport need;
how to achieve a balance between meeting specific user needs within the
social inclusion policy objectives against the cost, management and delivery
considerations, including the optimal mix of conventional and nonconventional services; and, the involvement of local communities and key
stakeholders in the development of transport services.
The 2006 report also suggests that Ireland had a significant rural transport problem
compared to other countries, in part, due to a low population density and wide
population dispersal but also due, in part, to a tradition of conventional public
transport bus service delivery in rural areas, which the Report argues is undeveloped
when compared internationally. Regarding the RTI, the report suggests it has
introduced a non-conventional transport option to the rural transport services available
in Ireland.
In terms of a strategy to address the rural transport problem, the Fitzpatrick Associates
Report (2006) maintains the assumption that an improvement in social inclusion in
these areas will arise through providing more transport services, essentially filling the
transport gap caused by market failure. The Steer Davies Gleave Report on Bus
Services Outside the GDA (2002) suggested that the market for private licensed
operators in peripheral rural areas was not economically viable unless they had other
contracts, for example for school or health related transport. The Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006) also acknowledged the impact of settlement patterns in rural
17
areas and suggested that longer-term sustainable transport could be achieved in these
areas through the greater use of public transport.
The 2006 Report concluded that innovative transport solutions such as the RTI are
seen as a necessary component of rural development policy and recommended the
mainstreaming of the RTI with social inclusion as its primary objective. This would
take place on the basis of permanent financial support, with a time-frame for future
funding growth, via the then Department of Transport and within overall policy
considerations concerning rural development, social inclusion, spatial and
environmental policy, etc. The phased-based rollout of the Programme would see it
expand its geographical coverage of services nationwide.
The Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) suggested three options for delivery of rural
transport post-RTI and these options are differentiated by the scope of the target
group that the services are to cater, as set out in Table 3.1 below,
Table 3.1: Policy options for progressing rural public transport policy
(Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006)
Option 1. involves the existing target groups catered for by RTI.
Option 2. involves expanding the focus of RTI to wider target groups addressing the
transport needs of socially excluded groups in rural areas, including the needs of older
people, people on low incomes, the mobility and sensory impaired, and young people.
Option 3. involves a wider rural public transport extending the target group coverage
to all potential users of rural transport, i.e. services might not be exclusively for the
socially excluded but could cater for travel to work for example.
The Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) recommended, that the initial goal of an
expanded RTI should be to build up towards Option 2, while retaining the aim of
gradually moving to Option 3 in the longer-term.
The then Department of Transport engaged in extensive public consultation based on
the Fitzpatrick Associates Report 2006 and responses were generally supportive of
Option 2, with no convincing arguments put forward against the Fitzpatrick
Associates approach of phased-extension of the RTI. Based on the analysis for this
Review, the available policy documents clearly show that the policy decision for a
mainstreamed RTP was based on option 2. above, as identified in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006). This policy option was to, over a period, increasing the
range of people experiencing exclusion because of unmet transport needs while
extending transport coverage throughout rural Ireland, as well as, extend its transport
services beyond the social, shopping, etc. needs of the predominantly older passengers
who avail of RTI services at present, for example, by providing transport to hospitals
or community care centres.
18
The perceived benefits at the time of a policy to maintain RTP services within the
scope of Option 2 included consideration of,
-
-
the differences in the level of service among RTI Groups at the time;
the demonstrated potential of the RTP to meet the needs of a substantial
additional number of rural dwellers in the key socially excluded groups and to
provide higher levels of service for existing users; and,
the potential of RTI to develop over time into a comprehensive rural transport
system in line with Option 3.
The mainstreamed Rural Transport Programme (RTP) was launched in February
2007.
The National Development Plan 2007-2013 proposed that investment in public
transport would take account of the particular needs of rural and more isolated parts of
the country. Also proposed was that the mainstreamed Rural Transport Initiative
(RTI) would ultimately be expanded to areas where there remained unmet transport
needs, with funding of up to €90 million over the period of the Plan. The „National
Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016‟ and „Towards 2016‟ both acknowledge
the community and voluntary dimension for developing local and rural transport
services and for programmes combating social inclusion. These Plans envisage a
funding commitment on mainstreaming of the RTI to double the funding in 2006 (i.e.
€9 million) and thereafter a steady increase in annual funding for rural transport
services, ultimately to a cash level about four times the 2005 allocation (i.e. €18
million).
3.3 Overview of the RTP – the structures, roles and relationships
The following Section describes the various structures, roles and relationships for the
Programme delivery as set out in Figure 3.1
19
Figure 3.1 Programme organisational map
Department of Transport,
Tourism and SportNational Sustainable
Travel Office
Memorandum of
Understanding
3 Committees
Pobal
Contract
Three-year Strategic Plan
Annual Programme of
Activities
RTP Network
36 RTP
Groups
Sub-contract
Own operated services
Private Operator services
3.3.1 Memo of Understanding between the Department of Transport and Pobal
The relationship between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal
is underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the RTP covering the
period 2007-2009, which was renewed separately in 2010 and 2011 for a further year.
The MoU sets out the objective of the Programme; the roles of the Department and
Pobal with regard to the administration and delivery of the Programme; the financial
controls and reporting arrangements; as well as, general agreed terms concerning
termination or changes to the agreement, data protection, retention of documents and
liability in terms of complaints deriving from the agreement. The full schedule of
reporting between Pobal and the Department is at Appendix H.
Since 2003 the Programme was administered by the Public Transport Sector of the
Department of Transport with a staff allocation involved in this Programme on a parttime basis of 1PO, 1AP, 1 HEO, 1 EO as well as clerical support. In 2004 the
programme was repositioned under the National Sustainable Transport Office
20
(NSTO) of the then Department of Transport with responsibility for policy
development for sustainable transport under Smarter Travel.
The annual Department funding allocation for the Programme is notified to Pobal who
submit a forecast budget and business plan (including Pobal‟s administration budget),
as well as, an output report for progress on the previous year‟s business plan. The
Department pays quarterly instalments of the funding to Pobal on the basis of
quarterly Programme progress reports. Any additional funds required throughout the
year are agreed in advance between Pobal and the Department before a payment
request is submitted. Guidance on the detail and content of any payment request by
Pobal is set out as an appendix to the MoU. Contingencies for end of year surpluses or
deficits are also agreed between the parties.
3.3.2 Pobal‟s Role in administering the Programme and associated structures
Pobal (formerly ADM, 1992-2005) is a not-for-profit company with charitable status
that manages a range of programmes on behalf of the Irish Government and the EU.
In relation to the programmes that it administers, Pobal aims to support partnership
and to develop the capacity of local communities, as well as, to contribute to policy
development through the review of programmes and the piloting of new initiatives.
(Pobal Strategic Plan 2006-2008 and 2010-2013). In terms of corporate governance
structures, the oversight of Pobal‟s activities is carried out by a 16 member voluntary
Board, appointed by the Government on consideration of proposals received from
stakeholders of the Company and the National Social Partners.
Pobal has responsibility under the MoU to manage the Programme on behalf of the
Department, to disperse the funding to the RTP groups and support the RTP groups in
their role with regard to the administration and delivery of the Programme. In carrying
out its role, the MoU specifies that Pobal must have regard to a number of
considerations including the social inclusion objective of the Programme, as well as,
other relevant Department objectives such as,
-
accessibility and sustainability;
optimal use of voluntary and community capacity; organisational capacity of
the RTP groups nationally;
the responsibility and accountability associated with Exchequer financial
support; and,
the primacy of the RTP groups in initiating, developing, organising and
delivering transport services in their operational areas; subject to approval by
Pobal through the annual Programme of Activities process.
Pobal allocates 6 full-time equivalent posts to the administration of the RTP. These
include, a Programme Manager, Programme Coordinator, Financial Officer, Research
Officer, Transport Planner and Development Officers. The Programme Manager and
Financial Officer are apportioned across other Pobal Programmes, while the
remaining staff members are dedicated to the Rural Transport Programme.
21
3.3.3 Contract between Pobal and the RTP groups for the Programme delivery
The relationship between Pobal and the RTP groups delivering the Programme is
defined by means of a contract between Pobal and each RTP group, i.e. „Contract for
Funding from The Rural Transport Programme 2008-2010‟. The contract stipulates
that the RTP groups must ensure full compliance with all legal, insurance and
regulatory requirements. The appendix to the contract between Pobal and the RTP
groups requires the RTP group to supply full details of the routes and areas where
they intend to provide RTP services, as well as relevant employment details of
employees, vehicles, including PSV certification and tax compliance for all activities
by the RTP group or for service sub-contracted by the RTP group.
A further Appendix to the contract between Pobal and the RTP groups contains an
agreement between the RTP group and each operator providing sub-contracted RTP
services, which includes details concerning the operators licence, route and timetable
of the services to be operated, specific equipment needs such as telecommunications
or IT equipment, charge for the service to be invoiced monthly, all legal, regulatory
and insurance requirements, relevant employment details of employees and vehicles;
and, a driver log where services have been supplied previously.
The Programme of Activities (PoA) is an annualised work plan of each RTP group,
which falls from the RTP groups strategic plans and business case developments. RTP
groups were asked to produce strategic plans for the period 2008-2010. The PoA is
specified in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport MoU with Pobal as a
requirement to ensure approval by Pobal of RTP group funding. The Programme of
Activities typically contains,
a description of the project, including RTP group company status, transport
model, service types and other characteristics;
a profile of the RTP service provided, including timetable;
a summary of any proposed changes to the service in the year;
details of contractual agreements; information on funding sources;
targets for the year, e.g. training, research, development of collaborative links
with other stakeholders, accessibility, efficiency and value for money; and,
relevant information concerning corporate and financial controls associated
with the PoA.
It is the responsibility of Pobal to specify the reporting requirements for the RTP
groups and to ensure that the RTP groups supply complete information in the PoA.
3.3.4 Role and structure of the RTP groups
The Role of the RTP groups is to develop, plan, organise and deliver the RTP
services. RTP groups are required to submit a business plan and financial projections
to Pobal for proposed services. The PoA, which contains full details of all RTP group
activities, must be approved by Pobal. Funding is contingent on the terms of the
contract between Pobal and the RTP group, including the sub-contracted service
22
provider being met. Operational, reporting and other requirements as set out in the
Pobal „Programme Guidelines 2008-2010‟ must also be met.
There are currently 36 RTP groups involved in the assessment of local public
transport demand and engaged in the supply of RTP services. All RTP groups are run
on a not-for-profit basis and overseen by a Board of Representatives from the local
community, voluntary and State sectors, all participating in a voluntary capacity. 14
of the RTP groups are transport companies, where the transport managers employed
have professional competence in transport management and the companies are
registered with Road Passenger Transport Operators Licences (RPTOL). A separate
note outlining the changes to the number and organisation of the RTP groups from
RTI to RTP is at Appendix I.
Each RTP group employs a coordinator and an administrator on either a part-time or
full-time basis. RTP group staff are directly employed under the Programme (72 fulltime equivalents in 2008) or by staff funded through a combination of other sources
and programmes, e.g. the Community Support Programme and the Rural Social
Scheme (110 in 2008). In 2009, 185 people (125 FTEs) were employed with RTP and
other funding. In 2008, 329 private transport operators were working under contract to
the Programme and a total of 657 drivers delivered services through contracts with the
private operated transport sector. In addition, volunteers are involved with RTP
groups at all levels, including in management, in advocacy roles, as passenger
assistants and involved in carrying out community car schemes. (Pobal, 2008)
Taken together the RTP groups provide owner-operated service providers and subcontracted transport services. RTP funding is for current expenditure only, however,
in the start-up years of the initiative some RTP groups sourced funding for capital
investment, particularly for vehicles. In 2009, of the 768 vehicles providing RTP
services 9% were owned by RTP groups (3% SPSV and 6% LPSV).
Many RTP groups are involved in social enterprise and other trading activities, in
particular establishing training units and delivering training on MIDAS, PATS and
manual handling. The RTP is also involved in other community development
activities (a total of 47% of the RTP Companies), which enhance and support their
transport services, for example community alert, information provision, laundry
services, mobile library, meals on wheels and local trade discount schemes, as well as,
assisting community and disability groups in the delivery of services to key events
such as age active tea dances, voluntary day care centres, youth clubs and leisure
centres.
Co-ordination of local transport services and resources occurs across the RTP,
evidenced in some examples, including Cavan Area Rural Transport co-ordinated
hackney service, Avondu Blackwater RTP in the North Cork Area, Baltibus in Co
Monaghan and Clare Accessible Transport. Cavan Area Rural Transport (CART) has
a documented case study in 2009 of its co-ordinated hackney service involving HSE,
CART, SPSV services and private licensed bus operator services. Clare Accessible
Transport (CAT) has documented its service in 2009, which involves integrated
planning and consultation with HSE, Tourist bodies, Youthreach and Adult Education
Programmes as well as CSES. The different local structures and networks in each area
23
provide different opportunities and consequently varying levels and types of
integrated RTP services.
In addition, engagement with local partners increases the potential for integrated
planning of local transport services. A number of RTP groups are involved in County
structures including CDB sub-committees (59% of RTP groups in 2009), CDB Social
Inclusion Measure Groups (56% in 2009), Local Authority Policy Committees (26%
in 2009) and other County and Transport Fora (47% in 2009).
3.3.4.1 The RTP Network and its relationship with Pobal
The Rural Transport Network established itself in March 2009 as an umbrella body
for RTP groups. The Network states that its role is to establish a voice for the ongoing
development and mainstreaming of rural transport in Ireland, including,
-
the facilitation of RTP group networking through meetings and assemblies;
developing strategic alliances with key stakeholders;
promoting mainstreaming;
highlighting challenges and opportunities for the RTP;
lobbying on behalf of the RTP to Government and policy-makers;
promoting an integrated and co-ordinated strategy for the RTP; and,
raising the profile of the RTP through branding.
The Rural Transport Network has also recently prepared a „Rural Transport
Programme Strategy 2011-2016‟ (RTN, 2010).
Pobal has a formal agreement with the Rural Transport Network for joint working,
meeting roughly every two months and cover three thematic areas of 1) policy, 2)
finance and 3) operations. This joint working arrangement involving the RTP
Network replaces three consultative committees previously run by Pobal on these
matters.
24
CHAPTER 4
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND CONTINUED RELEVANCE
4.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the high-level objective of the Programme and its continued
relevance. The continued relevance of the Programme is discussed further in Chapter
7, „Consideration of policy and organisational options‟, in particular, the evidence on
effectiveness of the RTP to fulfil the Programme objective, as discussed in Chapter 6,
„Effectiveness of the Programme‟, and the continuation of the Programme in the
context of other policy alternatives.
4.2 The objectives of the RTP
Through bottom-up policy development the RTP has been built on the objectives and
principles of the RTI. The objective of the RTI was stated as follows,
„to encourage innovative community-based initiatives to provide transport
services in rural areas, with a view to addressing the issue of social exclusion in
rural Ireland, which is caused by lack of access to transport.‟ (Pobal, 2001)
In terms of high-level objectives, the social inclusion objective of this Programme
was envisaged as expanding in the longer-term towards more comprehensive rural
public transport in Ireland under a sustainable transport objective as recommended in
the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006).
In terms of the Department of Transport Strategy, for example, in the Statement of
Strategy 2008-2010 under the high-level goals of investment, sustainability and
integration is a provision for an objective of better public transport to support the
development of the RTP. Therefore, it is not clear from this Strategy Statement the
extent to which the social inclusion objective of the Programme, as envisaged in the
Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006), fits with the high-level goals within the
Department of Transport Strategy and there may be a need to make this clearer.
The memorandum of understanding between the Department of Transport and Pobal
sets out the objectives and aims of the Programme, reiterating those found in the
relevant Pobal documents, as follows,
a. To provide, enhance and sustain a nationwide community based public transport
system in rural areas.
b. To maximise existing transport assets and to utilise new technology where
necessary in the co-ordination and development of transport.
c. To act as a catalyst in providing models of partnership at all levels where key
sectors actively engage in transport provision.
25
d. To ensure equality of access for all, including older people as well as people with
mobility, sensory and cognitive impairments.
e. To maintain, promote and develop models of good practice.
f. To continue to contribute to rural public transport policy.
As will be discussed further in Chapter 6, „Effectiveness of the Programme‟, items a.
and d. above relate to the objectives of the Programme, while the remaining items
could be considered more as supporting aims or statements of good practice.
The stated mission in the Programme Guidelines 2008-2010 (Pobal) provides a more
succinct iteration of the Programme objective,
„To provide a quality nationwide community based public transport system in
rural Ireland which responds to local needs.‟
Pobal provide guidance to the RTP groups concerning the fulfilment of the
Programme objectives and aims by means of reference to a list of stated key
Programme principles under the social inclusion objective. The degree to which
Programme services and activities adhere to these Programme principles is a basis for
the acceptance of applications for funding and in this way is a method used to ensure
that the individual RTP groups strategic planning and objectives are aligned to the
Programme social inclusion objective.
Within the stated Programme policy documentation the objectives of the Programme
are broadly aligned to the high-level policy objective of social inclusion. However, a
clear connection is not made between stated objectives and aims and option 2 of the
Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006), which formed the basis for the Programme, i.e.
over a period increasing the range of people experiencing exclusion because of unmet
transport needs while extending transport coverage throughout rural Ireland, as well
as, extend its transport services beyond the social, shopping, etc. needs of the
predominantly older passengers who avail of RTI services at present, for example, by
providing transport to hospitals or community care centres.
There is a general requirement within relevant policy documents, e.g. the MOU and
Pobal Programme Strategy, to restate the Programme objective and aims to make
clear the connection between the high-level objective of social inclusion and the
strategic policy objective for the Programme. This connection needs to be drilled
down to the level of Programme principles in terms of addressing the unmet transport
needs of the identified target groups in rural areas.
A clearer connection between high-level policy objectives of social inclusion and the
strategic policy objectives for Programme implementation would facilitate evaluation
of the Programme at a policy level and in terms of frontline delivery. As set out in
Table 1.1 and in Table 6.1 the strategic policy objective for the Programme, as
identified in policy option 2 in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) and stated
above in terms of the decision for a mainstreamed RTP, provides the basis for
indicators of the expected intermediate outcome by which the Programme can be
measured.
26
The following Figure 4.1 summarises the policy path and alignment between the highlevel policy and social inclusion objective, in bold, and the objectives for Programme
implementation within an overall policy framework recommended in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006).
27
Figure 4.1: Policy path linking high-level objectives with the Programme
Policy Problem:
lack of public transport in rural areas
negative impacts on target groups
from isolation and poor access to
services and communities
Policy Solution:
more rural public transport
better spatial planning in rural areas
High-level policy objectives of a rural
transport policy:
Alignment
with highlevel
policy
objectives
Social Inclusion
Sustainability
Target:
Minimum 1 trip per
week
Target:
Weekly scheduled
services between
villages & towns
Policy Option 2
To increase target
group coverage and
extend services beyond
current (RTI) focus on
older passengers
Move to Policy Option 3:
Rural public transport –
coordination with other
public transport provision
in urban and rural areas.
RTP objectives (&
principles for RTP
Groups) for
Programme
implementation
Programme intermediate expected outcomes:
Increase in target group coverage
Increase in national coverage
Greater diversification of RTP services beyond the transport
needs of older people
28
4.2.1 Comments on the alignment with policy objectives of related Programmes
with funding streams to the RTP
The objectives of the RTP and the FTP are aligned under the high-level objective of
social inclusion, particularly in terms of providing access to specific target groups to
live independently within their communities and to access community, public and
commercial services. It is acknowledged that Free Travel customers have benefited
from the RTP, particularly those who had no access to public transport prior to its
establishment. Expenditure of approximately €1.5 million supported FTP on RTP
services in comparison to FTP funding of €58.2 million and €6.2 million to CIE and
some 90 private licensed operators, respectively, in 2009.
The Community Services programme (CSP) and Rural Social Scheme (RSS) are
administered by the Department of Social Protection. There is also alignment under
the high-level social inclusion objective for the high level-goals supporting the
rationale for these two funding schemes.
The aim of the CSP is to support local community activity with a particular emphasis
on the disadvantaged sector of the population. It also aims to provide employment
opportunities for people from the following target groups: people with disabilities, the
long-term unemployed, travellers, stabilised and recovering drug mis-users and exprisoners. The CSP falls within the high-level Departmental goal to encourage and
facilitate communities to pursue social and economic progress in their areas. The total
expenditure for CSP in 2009 was €45 million, of which approximately €1 million
supported the 10 RTP groups involved in the Programme.
The aim of the RSS is to provide income support to low-income farmers and
fisherpersons and to harness their skills and talents to provide certain services of
benefit to rural communities. The RSS falls within the Department high-level goal of
rural development, i.e. to promote living and working populations in rural areas by
helping to foster sustainable and culturally vibrant communities. (Department of
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, 2008-2010) In 2008 the financial cost of the
RSS was €30 million, of which approximately €550,000 supported rural transport
schemes.
The Rural Transport Night Scheme (RTNS), which was funded by the Department of
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, between 2007 and 2009, aimed to address
unmet transport needs in rural areas and in particular where there was a perceived
need for evening and night-time services not catered for by the RTP. The pilot
Scheme was administered under the Department‟s Rural Development Programme,
and falls under the high-level Department goal of rural development (D/CR&G,
2009). However, while the RTNS strategic role was differentiated from the RTP by
focussing on evening and night transport, consultation with Pobal for this Review
suggests that prior to the RTNS some of the individual RTP groups had identified a
need for night and evening services and in line with their identified operational
priorities in their areas were already providing these services.
29
4.3 Continued relevance of the Programme‟s policy objective
Chapter 3, „ Background and overview of the Rural Transport Programme‟, sets out
the rationale for the policy underpinning the strategic role of this Programme, i.e. to
address the „rural transport problem‟ and the acknowledged market failure of public
transport services in rural areas (Steer, Davies, Gleave, 2002 and Fitzpatrick
Associates, 2006). The connection between unmet transport need and the underlying
problems of social exclusion is made in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) and
was supported by other social inclusion and rural and community development
policies.
The policy decision for a mainstreamed RTP was based on a quantitative assessment
of the unmet transport needs and social exclusion in rural areas for target groups and
the population at large (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006), as well as an assessment of the
transport model best suited to fulfil those needs. Since then there has been no
comparable quantitative analysis carried out on rural populations from which the
current extent of the policy problem can be assessed or indeed whether there has been
any improvements to the level of unmet transport need in rural areas since 2002 that
might be attributed to the Programme. This analysis gap needs to be addressed in
order to facilitate the assessment of the continued relevance of the policy objective.
However, some available reports and data suggest that unmet transport need and
access is a persistent problem for rural dwellers.
First, in general living costs for rural dwellers in Ireland is higher than for urban
dwellers. A recent study in 2010 by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice
estimated a cost difference between the two of €70 and €109, with transport and food
being the two categories with the largest difference between rural and urban costs. It
also found that the deficiency of public transport in rural areas was a factor in the high
costs for rural dwellers as they rely more heavily on private cars than their urban
counterparts. Based on minimum income levels, i.e. national minimum wage and
social welfare rates three household types fell below a minimum essential standard of
living. One of those types were female pensioners (Aged 70+) living alone. These
types of findings are echoed in a similar study by the Commission for Rural
Communities in the UK which found that in rural areas people need to take home
20% more in pay than those in urban areas in order to reach an acceptable living
standard. Again transport and fuel costs were found to be amongst the main extra cost
burdens (Smith, N., Davis, A and Hirsch, D., 2010).
Second, data gathered from a once-off question in the Housing Survey of the Survey
on Income and Living Conditions (EU SILC, 2007), Table 4.1 below, support the
findings of the 2010 Vincentian Partnership study, indicating that rural dwellers
sampled in 2007 had significantly greater difficulty than their urban counterparts in
accessing public services, notably public transport.
Table 4.1: Percentage of households expressing difficulty accessing basic services
Unweighted
Sample
State
Rural
Urban
Size
5,608
2,181
3,427
Grocery
12
23
6
Banking
22
34
15
Source: Housing Module, EU SILC, CSO, 2007
30
Postal
16
24
11
Public
Transport
26
52
11
General
Practitioner
19
32
11
This survey question was repeated in 2009 for some of the service categories. In 2009,
people in rural areas showed consistently greater difficulty than their urban
counterparts in accessing public transport in 2009 (48.7% of rural respondents
compared to 8% of urban respondents). The figures for 2009 suggest less difficulty in
accessing public transport for rural dwellers over the two-year period between 2007
and 2009. However, it is difficult to assess whether this can be attributed to this
Programme, to improvements in other public transport services or indeed as a result of
changes in the respondents travel patterns or specific transport needs.
In comparison the findings in 2009 for banking (46.3% rural respondents compared to
10.9% urban respondents) and postal services (34.8% rural respondents compared to
7.9% urban respondents) suggested that difficulty accessing these services had
increased for rural dwellers over the two-year period. (CSO, SILC 2009 Table 3.13
Percentage of the population reporting other types of deprivation, by year)
Third, the level of public transport is not the only factor affecting social exclusion and
unmet transport needs for rural dwellers. It remains the case that, in 2006, 11.4% of
rural households in the State did not have a car. A further examination of Census 2006
household and car ownership data for all areas of the country outside the cities of
Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Dublin City and County, shows that of the
64,368 single resident households in rural areas with no car in 2006 there were 26,755
households where the single resident is aged 65+ years situated in rural areas (i.e.
13% of the 203,971 people aged 65+ living in aggregate rural areas in the State in
2006). In addition there are a further 3,988 households where all residents are aged
65+ which have no car and who live in these rural areas. While many of these
households with older people aged 65 years and more may be in peripheral and
isolated rural areas, we do not have data by which to verify if these numbers of
households equate to the target group using the RTP services.
Fourth, qualitative research concerning transport and older people in rural areas in
„Transport for Older People in Rural Areas‟ (Ahern, A. and Hine, J., 2010) carried out
through focus groups nationally, suggests that there is an ongoing unmet transport
need for this age cohort in rural areas. Key findings of this research suggest that lack
of transport is a persistent barrier to older people accessing health services. The
Report identifies a lack of coordination of health and transport policy as a key policy
problem in this regard. There is no available output data concerning the purpose of
trips to support a finding within this Review of a positive impact of the RTP services
on journeys for older people to access health services.
There are a number of other related findings contained in the Ahern, A. and Hine, J.,
(2010) research. Many older people in rural areas limit their discretionary travel
journeys and rely on family and friends for essential travel journeys only, thereby
limiting the opportunity for social connectedness. There are significant impacts from
the driving cessation of older people in rural areas due to age or health conditions.
This impact is greater for older men who in turn are less likely to use available RTP
services. In addition, with the lack of public transport in rural areas, safety when
walking is a key issue for this age cohort.
31
Finally, a recent Report of the „Review of Passenger Transport Services in County
Louth‟ (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2010) also provides an indication of unmet passenger
transport need in that County. The survey findings of the adult population in the
County were that people living in rural areas were among those who were least
satisfied with their current provision of public transport. Among the Reports key
conclusions and recommendations for strategic planning of transport provision in the
County is to improve the „collect and connect‟ services particularly in rural areas.
RTP transport services in Louth commenced in 2009.
4.4 Continued relevance of the Programme within the wider policy context
4.4.1 Wider economic context
This Review acknowledges that the continued relevance of this Programme must be
viewed within the context of the on-going current national budgetary pressure for
public expenditure cuts to address State budgetary deficit and to finance Ireland‟s loan
requirements under the National Recovery Plan (NRP) 2010-2014. The National
Recovery Plan aims to reduce GDP to 3% by 2014 as required to meet agreed targets
under the European Union Growth and Stability Pact. The Plan also proposes a
Governmental Expenditure Assessment (GEA).
In the period since 2009 funding for this Programme was maintained at €11 million in
2010 and has been maintained at €10.6 million in 2011. This is contrary to the
recommendation of the Report of the Special Group on Public Sector Numbers and
Expenditure Programmes which recommended the cessation of funding under this
Programme. (Mc Carthy, 2008) The question to cease funding under this Programme
is considered further in Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy and organisational
options‟, with regard to the available data and information and the findings of this
Review of the Programme, including a deficit of information for policy decisionmaking.
4.4.2 Rural and community development policy context
The RTP is part of the national strategic response to social exclusion under National
Action Plan for Social Inclusion (NAPSI) 2007-2016, along with other programmes
with a rural and community development focus that provide funding streams to the
RTP, i.e. CSP and RSS. The NAPSI is a cross-cutting strategy that acts as a social
inclusion driver for a number of the Programmes. NAPSI states that social exclusion
is the result of multiple disadvantage and exists in both urban and rural areas. The
Plan considers the Rural Transport Programme as an element in the range of rural
community and development programmes in combating social exclusion in rural areas
going forward.
In addition, many of the RTP groups are embedded in the local organisational and
structural arrangements for the administration of local community development under
a number of State funding programmes including the CSP, RSS and RTP. The
growing complexity of structures under the various community-based programmes in
32
rural areas required a joint Ministerial initiative in 2004 to improve cohesion and
focus across various measures and to simplify and improve local delivery of
programmes. The number of local structures was reduced from 94 to 55 operational
areas, i.e. 38 rural and 17 urban. A range of community development projects (CDPs)
have been amalgamated with the programmes of the old Local Development Social
Inclusion Programme under the Local Community Development Programme (LCDP).
14 of the RTP groups are Local Development Companies established under this
cohesion process.
4.4.3 Public transport policy context
The high level objective underpinning public transport provision in Ireland is to
expand and improve the capacity, usage, quality, accessibility, safety, sustainability
and integration of Ireland‟s public transport system. (Department of Transport
Statement of Strategy, 2008-2010). The policy for sustainable transport as embodied
in Smarter Travel 2009-2020 flags the future policy priority for public land transport
under a sustainable public transport objective. With the establishment of the NTA
under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, the process of facilitating greater
integrated and co-ordinated regulation of all sectors that contribute to public land
transport provision has commenced, in particular the regulatory and legislative
framework for development of national public transport.
However, the requirements under the National Recovery Plan 2010 to 2014 to reduce
the budgetary deficit, of which public expenditure is an important element, is likely to
have an impact on the previously conceived vision for public transport policy
development. Already this can be seen by reduction in the levels of subvention for the
provision of public transport services under PSC. The short-fall in the delivery of
projects under Smarter Travel in 2010 could also in part be attributed to the limited
and declining availability of capacity among the agencies and bodies charged with
implementing these projects. There could potentially be an impact on the envisaged
development of the NTA in terms of building capacity to meet the needs for further
development of the public transport regulation framework. Funding requirements of
the Local Authorities and the potential for reductions in availability of capital
expenditure could also have negative implications for the maintenance and delivery of
public transport infrastructure.
There is a high-level policy question to be addressed with regard to the situation of
the social inclusion objective of this Programme within the context of the high-level
objectives for public transport, and with regard to the cross-cutting nature of the social
inclusion policy involving many other non-transport policy measures monitored by
the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Social Inclusion.
This Programme may have relevance with regard to for sustainable public transport as
set out in Smarter Travel (2009). This is considered later in Chapter 7, „Consideration
of policy and organisational options‟.
There are related „street-level‟ questions to be addressed concerning the model of
transport services under the RTP and where it fits within the public transport
regulatory regime. From its inception the social inclusion focus of this Programme
33
favoured the community-based, flexible, demand responsive model of public transport
delivery in rural areas over conventional public transport provision. Also this
Programme‟s public transport dimension differentiates it from transport provided by
other not-for-profit, charitable and State funded transport that has a defined client
base and do not provide transport to the general travelling public.
While greater regulation and co-ordination of all the available transport providers
including the RTP could contribute to the achievement of the high-level public
transport objectives for an integrated, regulated and sustainable public transport, there
are a number of opportunities and obstacles to be considered, as discussed in Chapter
7, „Consideration of policy and organisational options‟.
4.4.4 Integrated State funded transport provision
Budgetary pressure within the context of the wider economic environment and the
wider aims of the National Recovery Plan 2010-2014 re-focuses attention on the
potential for greater efficiencies to be achieved in terms of integrating a number of
State funded transport services and assets including the School Transport Scheme, the
HSE transport services, the RTP and State funded public transport services. Within
this context the key Departments of Transport, Tourism and Sport, of Education and
Skills and of Health are engaged in working together with a view to identifying the
optimum organisation and procurement of State funded transport services.
The outturn for the School Transport Scheme in 2009 was in the region of €178
million (€186 million in 2010). In that year in the region of 135,000 children
(including approximately 8,000 children with special needs) were transported to
school. The level of revenue raised from charges paid by families for the services
represents a very small element of the overall cost of the Scheme. Bus Éireann
operate the services on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills.
The HSE budget 2010 for patient transport amounted to €50.2 million of which €23
million was for emergency ambulance services, with the balance for taxi and own
operated or hired-in client transport.
The amount of subvention paid to Bus Éireann under public service contract with the
NTA for the provision of public transport bus services in PSO routes in 2009 was €49
million and in 2010 was €45 million.
A discussion concerning the continued relevance for the RTP within the context of
greater integration of transport services is developed in Chapter 7, „Consideration of
policy and organisational options.
4.5 Conclusion
The examination in this Chapter suggests that the Programme objectives are aligned
to a high-level objective of social inclusion. The objectives of related Programmes
with funding streams to the RTP are also aligned to this social inclusion objective.
34
However, there may be a need to make clearer the alignment between the crosscutting high-level objective of social inclusion of this Programme with the
Department of Transport high-level strategy. A clearer connection also needs to be
made between high-level policy objectives of social inclusion and the strategic policy
objectives for Programme implementation within relevant policy documents by Pobal
and in the MoU between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal.
This will allow for evaluation of the Programme at a policy level and in terms of
frontline delivery. This will require re-articulation of the hierarchy of objectives in
the MoU level and in any policy/strategy documentation produced by Pobal. This rearticulation should recognise the high-level social inclusion objective, as well as, the
intermediate expected Programme outcomes to address the unmet transport needs of
rural dwellers nationally in the identified target groups.
A definitive conclusion with regard to the continued relevance of the policy objective
under-pinning the Programme is not possible due to a lack of quantitative data
concerning the current extent and levels of social exclusion as a result of unmet
transport needs in rural areas. However, available evidence supports a conclusion that
unmet transport needs and lack of access are a persistent problem in rural areas.
Available survey data and reports suggest that difficulty in accessing public transport,
or the lack of public transport, and the high cost associated with private transport
negatively affect rural dwellers more than their urban counterparts. Older people,
particularly women, in rural areas have been identified as an at-risk group in this
regard.
The market failure concerning public transport provision in rural areas has also been
acknowledged in both the Report on the Regulation of Bus Services Outside the
Greater Dublin Area (Steer, Davies, Gleave, 2002) and the Fitzpatrick Associates
Report (2006).
The available data indicating the need for public transport in rural areas generally and
the high-risk in terms of social isolation through a lack of public or private transport
associated with certain target groups, specifically the 65+ age cohort, as well as, the
acknowledged market failure associated with public transport provision in rural areas,
support the case for public policy intervention under a social inclusion objective.
On the other hand there is an overall trend of increase in car ownership since 2002 in
rural areas. There may also be unintended consequences arising as a result of this
Programme, such as, deadweight loss or displacement of other transport services.
A further discussion concerning the continued relevance of the Programme among a
range of alternative policy options is contained in Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy
and organisational options‟. The following Review Chapters 5 and 6, respectively,
will contain an examination of the cost and efficiency of the Programme and an
assessment of Programme effectiveness in achieving its objective.
35
CHAPTER 5
COST AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME
5.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out to identify the level and trend of the costs associated with the
Rural Transport Programme and consequently to analyse and comment on the
efficiency with which the Programme has achieved its objectives.
Initially an overall review of the funding provided to the scheme will be set out. The
Chapter also assess the level and trend of outputs by analysing the passenger journey
numbers that have availed of the service since 2004, separated into an analysis of total
passenger journey numbers, fare paying passenger journeys and passengers travelling
for free under the scheme. Finally an examination and breakdown of the RTP groups
expenditure will be presented.
5.2 Costs to the Exchequer of the Rural Transport Programme since 2004
As set out in chapter 2 – „The policy context for the Programme‟, the Rural Transport
Programme benefits in terms of Exchequer funding through four funding streams.
These funding streams correspond to four Programmes/initiatives, which were set up
at different stages through the last decade. Table 5.1 below shows the funding streams
to the RTP from each of these initiatives since 2004.
Table 5.1 Breakdown of funding for RTP
Year
2004
€‟000
RTP Receipts 3,000
from
Department of
Transport
FTP receipts 500
from DSP
CSP receipts N/A
from DCRGA
Evening Rural N/A
Transport
Receipts from
DCRGA
Total
3,500
2005
€‟000
4,500
2006
€‟000
5,100
2007
€‟000
8,976
2008
€‟000
9,800
2009
€‟000
10,970
Total
€‟000
42,346
750
850
1,500
1,500
1,500
6,600
N/A
825
1,087
1,040
1,045
3,997
N/A
N/A
250
415
293
958
5,250
6,775
11,813
12,755
13,808
53,901
Source: Pobal
It is acknowledged that the level of non-Exchequer Programme income or the level of
fare income funded through other State contracts for school transport or HSE clients
is not known, as set out in Section 5.3 below. It is clear, however, from the above
table that the Department of Transport has contributed the largest proportion of the
36
cost of the RTP in terms of Exchequer funding since its inception. Funding has
increased exponentially from €3m in 2004 to €11m in 2009, an increase of 266%.
This increase in expenditure is in line with the undertakings given in the NDP, which
stated, “over the period of the Plan, the RTI will be mainstreamed and ultimately
expanded to areas where there remains unmet transport needs. Its funding will be
doubled in 2007 and then steadily increased over the period of the Plan”. Between
2006 and 2007, expenditure on the RTP increased by 74% and has increased steadily
since. Department of Transport Funding increased by 76% between 2006 and 2007
and also increased steadily in the intervening two years (up 22%).
Table 5.2 Proportion of the overall spend on RTP that was contributed by
Department of Transport
Year
2004
€‟000
3,500
Total
Spend
DoT Spend 3,000
DoT Spend 86%
as a % of
total
2005
€‟000
5,250
2006
€‟000
6,775
2007
€‟000
11,813
2008
€‟000
12,755
2009
€‟000
13,808
Total
€‟000
53,901
4,500
86%
5,100
75%
8,976
76%
9,800
77%
10,970
79%
42,346
78%
Source: Department of Transport & Pobal
There has been some fluctuation in the proportion of the total provided by Department
of Transport since 2004, particularly in 2006 and 2007 when the CSP and the evening
initiatives came on stream. However the proportion provided by Department of
Transport rose to pre 2006 levels again in 2009.
5.2.1 Analysis of Department of Transport funding
The main thrust of this Review is to look at the funding provided to the scheme by the
Department of Transport. On that basis the next step is to look at this funding and
analyse how it is used. This is best done by analysing what Pobal receive from the
Department of Transport in respect of the RTP and then examining how Pobal use this
funding. Receipts and expenditure do not necessarily balance at the end of each year.
Therefore, there is a rolling year-end balance, which is carried forward to the
following year. This enables Programme funding continuity while the out-turn figures
for the year in question are being finalised and the first claim for the following year is
being processed.
37
Table 5.3 Analysis of Department of Transport funding
Year
Pobal receipts
from DoT in
respect of RTP
Total RTP Group
receipts from DoT
funding (Received
from Pobal)
2004
€3.0m
€2.9m
€0.1m
€0.3m
€3.3m
2005
€4.5m
€4.2m
€0.1m
€0.2m
€4.5m
2006
€5.1m
€4.6m
€0.04m
€0.3m
€5.0m
2007
€8.8m
€7.8m
€0.2m
€0.8m
€8.8m
2008
€10.0m
€8.4m
€0.1m
€1.2m
€9.7m
2009
€11.0m
€9.7m
€0.3m
€1.1m
€11.1m
€42.6m
€37.6m
€0.84m
€3.9m
€42.4m
Total
Technical
Expenditure*
Admin Fee
Charged by
Pobal
Total
Expenditure
*Technical expenditure includes training & support, health & safety management, legal/technical costs etc
Source: Department of Transport & Pobal
Coincidentally total receipts and expenditure relating to Department of transport
funding have balanced out over the 6 years of the Programme detailed above. There is
however a cumulative closing balance of €378k, which is held by Pobal.
Of the €11m of funding provided by the Department of Transport for the RTP in
2009, Pobal (the Programme administrators) gave €9.7m (88%) of this to the RTP
groups, while the remainder was used to cover administration and technical costs of
Pobal. The total of funding required to fund administration and technical expenses has
increased significantly since 2005; both in pure monetary terms as well as a
percentage of total spend (2005:6.7%, 2009:12.7%). Therefore as the Programme
became mainstreamed, costs to administer it grew disproportionally to total spend.
5.3 Total RTP group (gross) receipts 2007-2009
RTP group (gross) receipts are made up of a combination of subvention from the
Exchequer, any funds that may be generated from fare income, which includes
income under contracts, for example for provision of services catering for HSE
clients, plus any funding received from other sources such as the National Lottery.
Sufficient detail concerning the breakdown of fare income and from other sources is
not supplied to Pobal by the RTP groups under the current financial accounting and
reporting arrangements. In particular it is not possible, based on the available
accounting data, to make an assessment concerning the level of HSE contract income
by RTP group or financial information by which to make assessments concerning the
level, if any, of cross-subsidisation of services by the different income streams,
funding or otherwise.
38
Table 5.4 Total RTP group (gross) receipts
Year
2007
2008
2009
Exchequer
Subvention
€11.8m
€12.8m
€13.8m
Fare
Other
Total
€819k
€1.1m
€1.1m
€31k
€269k
€213k
€12.7m
€14.2m
€15.1m
Source: Pobal
Exchequer subvention makes up the vast majority of any receipts by the RTP groups.
This subvention is used to cover the costs of the Programme. Other revenue generated
by the RTP groups can be held in a reserve fund if not used in that year. These funds
can be used for a variety of reasons, notably for asset replacement. The reason for the
retention of funds must be stated by the RTP groups when making their budget
applications for the coming year.
5.4 RTP groups surplus/ (deficit)
Table 5.5 below gives an analysis of the surplus / (deficit) made by the RTP groups
with respect to Exchequer subvention over the last three years
Table 5.5- Surplus/(deficit) of RTP groups 2007-2009
Year
2007
2008
2009
Exchequer
Subvention
€11.8m
€12.8m
€13.8m
Expenditure
Surplus/ (Deficit)
€9.3m
€11.6m
€13.2m
€2.5m
€1.2m
€0.6m
Source: Pobal
Any surplus made by the RTP groups is not treated as such; rather it is treated as a
rolling balance. Therefore if a RTP group has a year-end balance, this balance is taken
into account and netted off when giving out the following year‟s Exchequer funding.
Therefore no RTP group is able to build up reserves from exchequer funded reserves.
Since 2009 a reserves policy has been implemented, which allows the RTP groups to
retain any surpluses from income, which they have generated outside of exchequer
funding. These surpluses are kept as reserves and can be used for contingency funds,
asset replacement funds etc. The RTP groups must provide a rationale for why they
are keeping reserves and this rationale must be approved by Pobal before the surplus
can be retained.
Further analysis of surpluses/ (deficits) made by the RTP groups is done below. This
section looks at surpluses/ (deficits) made purely on Department of Transport funding.
The following Table 5.6 gives an overview of the overall expenditure by the RTP
groups from Department of Transport funding as against this funding amount
39
Table 5.6- Department of Transport funding to RTP groups – receipts vs.
expenditure
Year
Funding received
Expenditure
Surplus/ (Deficit)*
2004
€2.9m
€3.4m
(€0.5m)
2005
€4.2m
€3.9m
€0.3m
2006
€4.6m
€4.8m
(€0.2m)
2007
€7.8m
€7.1m
€0.7m
2008
€8.4m
€8.2m
€0.2m
2009
€9.7m
€9.7m
€0
Total
€37.6m
€37.1m
€0.5m
*This figure does not take account of other funding that the RTP groups might receive e.g. from fare paying passenger journeys/
other exchequer funding.
Source: Pobal
As can be seen in most years, there has only been a small surplus/ deficit based on this
funding received and in 2009 the figures show a break-even result. The only
exception was 2007 when the Programme was mainstreamed and the RTP groups
were unable to take up their full allocation of funding.
5.5 Passenger journey numbers
The following Table 5.7 shows the trends in RTP services and passenger journey
numbers over the past six years.
Table 5.7 Services and passenger journey numbers on the RTP 2004-2009
Year
RTP Services
RTP Passenger Journeys
Av. Passenger Journeys per
Service
2004
64,954
514,137
7.9
2005
74,914
651,391
8.7
2006
93,419
791,264
8.5
2007
120,753
998,350
8.3
2008
146,771
1,200,194
8.2
2009
157,106
1,289,025
8.2
Source: Pobal
The trend has been for an increase in services and passenger journeys over this time,
with the total number of services increasing by 142% and passenger journey numbers
increasing by 151%. As can be seen from the above table, there is a distinct
correlation between the number of services on offer and the number of passengers
availing of the services as the average passenger journey numbers per service has
remained relatively stable during this time. This would indicate that passenger journey
40
numbers are a function of the number of services provided by the RTP groups.
However without knowing capacity levels and service schedules, it is difficult to draw
further conclusions from this.
The types of passenger journeys on the services provided by the Programme can be
divided into three groups,
1. Fare Paying Passenger journeys
2. Passenger journeys with Free Travel Passes (FTPs)
3. Other Free (The category mainly comprises clubs/groups etc who are provided
with transport but are not in a position to pay for it)
The below Table 5.8 gives a breakdown of the overall passenger journey numbers into
these three groupings
Table 5.8- Breakdown of RTP passenger journeys by payment type
Year
Total Number of Fare Paying
Passenger Journeys
Free Travel Passes
Other Free
2004
514,137
189,690 (37%)
313,668 (61%)
10,759 (2%)
2005
651,391
222,656 (35%)
407,383 (62%)
21,352 (3%)
2006
791,264
249,964 (32%)
499,895 (63%)
41,405 (5%)
2007
998,350
304,186 (31%)
631,844 (63%)
62,320 (6%)
2008
1,200,194
366,950 (31%)
772,444 (64%)
60,800 (5%)
2009
1,289,025
380,679 (30%)
832,231 (65%)
76,115 (5%)
Source: Pobal
Passenger journeys with free travel passes make up the biggest percentage of overall
passenger journeys and the number of these passenger journeys on RTP services has
steadily increased since 2004. The Free Travel scheme is administered by the
Department of Social Protection. It is available to a wide range of customers including
all persons aged 66 and over. The Department of Transport provides annual funding
to the RTP in addition to that provided by the Department of Social Protection. The
level of funding by DSP has been €1.5m since 2007.
The number of fare paying passenger journeys has clearly declined proportionally.
On the other hand „other free‟ passenger journeys have increased 3% in proportional
terms (600% in real terms during the six year period since 2004. This category of
passenger journey needs to be looked at by the RTP groups and Pobal in further detail
to assess whether they actually do fall under the criteria of passengers to whom the
Programme is targeted or who should be given free travel. That this category of
passenger journey is now approaching 100,000 shows that they are no longer just the
exception and the efficiency of transporting such club/groups for free must be
questioned.
41
Table 5.9- Income per passenger journey
Year
Total Number of
Passenger Journeys
Income
(Fares)
Received Income
Journey
2004
514,137
€389,579
€0.76
2005
651,391
€487,210
€0.75
2006
791,264
€649,375
€0.82
2007
998,350
€792,647
€0.79
2008
1,200,194
€923,229
€0.77
2009
1,289,025
€923,154
€0.72
Per
Passenger
Source: Pobal
Overall income per passenger journey has decreased by 5% over the six-year time
frame, this rises to 12% when comparing from 2006 to 2009. A comparison with
income per passenger journey on Bus Éireann routes shows the following
Figure 5.1 Income per passenger journey RTP vs. BE
€4.00
€3.50
€3.00
€2.50
€2.00
€1.50
€1.00
€0.50
€0.00
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Income per Passenger Journey RTP
Income Per Passenger Journey BE
Source: Pobal and BE Annual Accounts 2005-2009
Each passenger journey on BE services generates between four and five times that
which is generated by passenger journeys on RTP services. While that is to be
expected as BE is a commercial transport provider, the fact that income per passenger
42
journey is falling is a greater area of discussion. This fall in income per passenger
journey can partially be linked to the increase in „Other Free‟ passenger journeys, as
discussed above.
Further analysis on the income generated by RTP services show that the average
income per fare paying passenger journey is as follows,
Table 5.10- Income per fare paying passenger journey
Year
Fare Paying Passenger
journey
Income Received
Income Per Fare Paying
Passenger journey
2004
189,690
€389,579
€2.05
2005
222,656
€487,210
€2.19
2006
249,964
€649,375
€2.60
2007
304,186
€792,647
€2.61
2008
366,950
€923,229
€2.52
2009
380,679
€923,154
€2.43
Source: Pobal
The figures per fare paying passenger journey for the RTP are more in line with BE
figures and indicates that for fare paying passenger journeys, average fares are not
excessively low or high. The table does show that the average income per fare paying
passenger journey has declined since 2007. The elasticity of demand on passenger
journey numbers on the RTP is something that has not been explored and as such it is
difficult to be definitive on the appropriate fare levels for the service, especially as the
RTP groups are serving many disparate and different areas and routes. However, an
analysis of fares charged by individual RTP groups, using data gathered in a once-off
exercise in 2007, shows a wide disparity in the fares charged, ranging from €2 to €5
for a single journey.
The 2007 data also shows a wide variety of fare structures being applied to the
services across the RTP groups, indicative of the fact that no fare policy exists for the
RTP groups. Standardisation of fares is not ameliorated by the absence of ticketing
facilities on RTP services. Hail „n ride is a very small proportion of the RTP
passenger journeys, 13% in 2008 (Pobal) and on the majority of services the driver
has a list of pre-booked passenger, many of whom pay the driver on the service. There
is no other on-board control for fare collection or indeed for data collection purposes.
Community car, which has limited use in very specialist circumstances, is funded on
the basis of public service mileage rates.
There is currently no fares policy for the RTP groups to adhere to and there is a need
to have greater standardisation of fares so as to facilitate more transparent reporting of
fare income and monitoring against service and per passenger costs. Pobal should
review the options for standardisation of fares across the RTP groups, including
consideration of a fare range per journey, i.e. €5-7 within each service mode or a rate
based fare structure on the basis of stages, mileage or time. Consideration might also
43
be given to the structure of fares for fixed scheduled services following the similar
principles to the State bus companies.
This review of the options for standardisation of fare structures should be carried out
in consultation with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the context of
the annual MOU, as a first phase towards an analysis of the options for increasing
fares, with due regard to the full economic cost of the services and in line with
increases in other costs in the economy, such as, public transport or Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
In this regard any regulatory implications of increasing fares needs to be addressed
with due regard to the previous regulatory provisions for commercial passenger bus
route licencing under the Road Transport Act 1932 being replaced by the Public
Transport Regulation Act 2009. A greater emphasis on the promotion of existing RTP
services, particularly to target groups other than the age 65+ cohort, could have
potential to positively impact on fare income.
5.6 Ratio of passenger journey numbers vs. Department of Transport funding of
RTP
It has been seen over the previous sections that while passenger journey numbers
using the RTP services have risen, Department of Transport spending has also
increased over the same period of time. This section looks at the rate of increase of
this spend versus the rate in increase in passenger journey numbers and assesses
whether these increases are in tandem with each other.
Figure 5.2 Ratio of passenger journey numbers vs. Department of Transport
funding of RTP
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Source:
50Pobal
0
2004
2005
DoT Expenditure
2006
44
2007
2008
Passenger Journey Numbers
2009
Using 2004 as the baseline year, it can be seen that passenger journey numbers have
increased by 2.5 times over the past six years. However over the same period of time
Department of Transport funding has increased by 3.7 times. Therefore the increase in
investment in the Programme over the last six years has not seen an equivalent
increase in passenger journey numbers.
A review of the number of services on the Programme shows that these rise in close
correlation to the number of passenger journeys. Therefore Department of Transport
funding is also not showing a similar return on the increase in services being
provided. The following table will show the distinction even more clearly
Table 5.11 Average cost to Department of Transport per service and per
passenger journey
Year
Av Cost Per Service
Av Cost per Passenger Journey
2004
€46.18
€5.83
2005
€60.07
€6.91
2006
€54.59
€6.45
2007
€74.53
€9.01
2008
€68.13
€8.33
2009
€70.02
€8.53
Source: Pobal
As can be seen from the above table, both the average cost per passenger journey and
the average cost per service to the Department of Transport have increased
significantly over the last six years, thus showing that despite the significant increases
in funding for the Programme, the level of services being provided and passenger
journeys being carried have not increased to the same extent.
These findings do raise questions as to why this is the case. It is clear that whatever
the reason, the Programme has been operating less efficiently in recent years than
previously. It is worth pointing out that the most significant jump in average costs
occurred in 2007, as the Programme was being mainstreamed. After that rise in 2007,
average costs reduced in 2008 before rising again in 2009. There does not appear to
be a pattern to this fluctuation in average costs, it is a function of passenger journey
numbers versus funding received.
5.7 Funding per passenger journey on RTP vs. Bus Éireann and Regional
Airports
In light of the previous analysis, it is relevant to analyse the value for money of
funding for the RTP versus that received from the subvention paid to Bus Éireann and
the Regional Airports. This will show the value for money, which is being received in
terms of passenger journey numbers by the RTP against a commercial transport
45
operator in Bus Éireann and against a completely different type of transport provider
in the Regional Airports.
Both of these providers also rely significantly on Exchequer support to transport
passengers. BE do have a significant number of commercial routes which would not
be in receipt of Exchequer funding but which are still included as part of the below
analysis. In light of this it must be remembered that the reason for the existence of the
RTP is that it serves rural areas where there is market failure with regard to public
transport provision on a commercial basis. As there is no available data on
deadweight it is not possible to assess market failure on specific routes. It would be
expected, however, that the cost for providing transport services would be higher on
routes with market failure than for routes served by transport providers on a
commercial basis in other areas.
Table 5.12-Subvention per passenger journey on RTP, Bus Éireann and Regional
Airports
Year
RTP:
Passenger journey
No‟s
DoT
Subvention per
Passenger journey
Bus Éireann:
Passenger journey
No‟s
Subvention
Subvention per
Passenger journey
Regional Airports:
Total Passenger
journey Numbers
PSO+Subvention
Subvention per
passenger journey
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
651,391
791,264
998,350
1.2m
1.3m
€4.5m
€6.91
€5.1m
€6.45
€9.0m
€9.01
€10.0m
€8.33
€11.0m
€8.53
49m
49.7m
50.2m
48.2m
45.3m
€25m
€0.51
€26m
€0.52
€36.6m
€0.74
€41.8m
€0.88
€44.9m
€0.99
1.5m
1.8m
1.9m
2m
1.7m
€21.3m
€14.20
€17.1m
€9.50
€17.7m
€9.32
€18.0m
€9.00
€18.1m
€10.64
Source: Department of Transport & Pobal
As can be seen from the above table, the funding per passenger journey on the RTP is
significantly higher than that on Bus Éireann; though it is lower than the subvention
per passenger journey on Regional Airports. However it should be pointed out that in
2005, the subvention for Rural Transport was less than 50% that of the Regional
Airports whereas in 2009 it amounted to 80% of the per passenger journey subvention
for the Regional Airports. As a direct comparison this would indicate that the value
for money on the RTP is decreasing. This corresponds to what has been deduced from
the data in Table 5.11
It would be expected that the subvention per passenger journey would be higher on
the RTP than on Bus Éireann due to the commercial aspect of BE as discussed above
and also as the one of the objectives of the RTP is that it is designed to serve people
46
living in rural and remote parts of the country that are not adequately, or not, served
by other forms of Public Transport. As such it follows that such an analysis would
broadly provide the above outcome although it is difficult to determine an acceptable
range of values for subvention per passenger journey in terms of the extent of the
market failure. Table 5.12 above illustrates the different circumstances under which
the RTP and Bus Éireann operate and it provides an insight into the nature of the
service provided by the RTP and the cost thereof.
5.8 Cost passenger journey carried on Free Travel Passes to Department of
Transport vs. to Department of Social Protection
Table 5.13- Cost per FTP passenger journey - Department of Transport vs.
Department of Social Protection
Year
Cost to DoT
Cost to DSP
2004
€5.83
€1.59
2005
€6.91
€1.84
2006
€6.45
€1.70
2007
€9.01
€2.37
2008
€8.33
€1.94
2009
€8.53
€1.80
Source: Pobal
It is clear from the above table that the cost to the Department of Social Protection of
providing Free Travel Passes for the RTP in 2009 is far below the cost to Department
of Transport of supporting the overall Programme. This is despite the fact that the
Free Travel Pass scheme essentially falls under the remit of the Department of Social
Protection. Further analysis shows that Department of Social Protection provided
€58.2m to BE and €6.2m to private operators in 2009 for the Free Travel Pass scheme
as well. There are however no figures available to detail the number of passengers
who travel using Free Travel Passes on either BE or on privately operated buses. Thus
comparison of these figures cannot be done.
As set out in Chapter 2, „The Policy Context of the Programme‟, the Free Travel
scheme as envisaged was to incentivise older people to travel at off-peak times on
public transport services to achieve greater and more efficient use of capacity. This is
not a concern with RTP services which have older people as a core passenger target
group. While it appears that the Department of Transport is increasingly subsidising
FTP passenger journeys more than Department of Social Protection, any increase in
the current levels of funding from the Department of Social Protection in this regard
would be neutral in terms of Exchequer savings and would require differential
treatment for the RTP over other public transport operators in receipt of the
Department of Social Protection Free Travel Pass Scheme funding.
47
5.9 Costs of the Programme
5.9.1- Breakdown of RTP group costs
This section looks at the breakdown of RTP group Costs between administration,
operational and capital spend. The first part of the section looks at the breakdown
from a Gross Cost perspective, while the second part looks at spend from Department
of Transport funding only.
Table 5.14 Breakdown of RTP group costs
Year
2007
2008
2009
Total Cost
€9.3m
€11.6m
€13.2m
Admin
€2.4m (26%)
€2.6m (22%)
€2.9m (22%)
Operational
€6.9m (74%)
€9m (78%)
€10.3m (78%)
Capital
0
0
€85k
Source: Pobal
The above table shows that operational expenditure amounts to approximately threequarters of total RTP group (gross) costs.
Table 5.15 below goes into further detail on RTP group expenditure from Department
of Transport funding and shows how this expenditure is broken down between
operational, administration and capital spend.
Table 5.15 Breakdown of RTP group costs from Department of Transport
funding
Year
Total Cost
Administration
Operational
Capital
2004
€3.4m
€1.3m (40%)
€2m (60%)
€11k
2005
€3.9m
€1.4m (37%)
€2.5m (63%)
€18k
2006
€4.8m
€1.6m (33%)
€3.2m (67%)
€48k
2007
€7.1m
€2.4m (34%)
€4.7m (66%)
€11k
2008
€8.2m
€2.3m (28%)
€5.9m (72%)
0
2009
€9.7m
€2.2m (22%)
€7.5m 78%)
0
Source: Pobal
The trend over the six years has been towards a larger proportion of spend on the
operational side of the budget. In 2004, operational expenditure amounted to 60% out
of a €3.4m budget; while in 2009 it amounted to 78% of a €9.7m spend. Overall there
has been a 272% increase in operational expenditure since 2004. Some increase
would be expected due to the increase in the number of services and passenger
journeys over this time; however the jump in operational expenditure has outweighed
these increases.
48
In terms of administration expenditure; there was a large increase between 2006 and
2007 when administration expenditure rose by 51%. This was part of an overall
spending increase as the Programme became mainstreamed. However since 2007
there has been a downward trend in administrative spend in both overall terms and
percentage wise. Despite this, the fact remains that administration costs are extremely
high.
The allocation of RTP group costs between operational and administration is an issue
of concern that needs to be addressed and Pobal have requested the RTP groups to
reduce the administration element of their spend. In percentage terms this has been
done, though not to the extent required and there are concerns over a lack
transparency of reporting on the apportionment of these costs by the RTP groups.
Comparisons drawn with the breakdown in spend on the Transport Night Scheme is
relevant.
This Scheme, also administered by Pobal, was run under the aegis of the Department
of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. A review of the pilot scheme was
undertaken in 2009 and showed that for the nine month period January 2008 to
September 2008, operational expenditure amounted to 93% of the total spend while
administrative spend only came to 7%. This is a significant difference in terms of the
proportionality of the spend and it indicates that the level of administrative spend on
the main RTP may be too high. However, it should be noted that many of the
administration structures that were necessary for the Night Scheme were already in
place for the main scheme by the time the Night Scheme was set up and that in fact
many of the administration costs of the Night Scheme were already borne by the main
scheme.
Notwithstanding this, there is still a case for a reduction in the level of administration
costs of the Programme and the allocation of costs between administration and
operational expenditure. While the proportion of administration costs has decreased
from 40% (2004) to 22% (2009), this still remains far too high. To reduce the
proportion of administration costs by 10% from 22% to 12% of total costs would see
a saving equivalent to €1.2m based on 2009 figures. This would amount to a reduction
of 55% in total RTP group administration costs from €2.2m to €1m. It is proposed
that this reduction be carried out in two stages. The first to be done in 2011 would see
an initial proportional reduction in administration expenditure of 5%, which would
lead to savings of approximately €700k (again based on 2009 figures). Another 5%
proportional reduction in 2012 would yield a further €500k of savings bringing the
proportion of administration expenditure down to the targeted figure of 12%.
A further analysis of the individual RTP group proportion of administration costs as a
percentage of the their total RTP group costs in 2009 showed that 24 RTP groups had
a percentage administration cost above the 22% for total RTP group administration
costs in 2009 as identified above. In 2009, 24 of the RTP groups had administration
costs over the 22% RTP group average as a proportion of their total RTP group costs
and in the case of three RTP groups the proportion administration costs were over
40%, with one RTP Group having administration costs of 74%. With regard to this
latter RTP group and one other among the RTP groups with exceptionally high
administration costs, it should be noted that they had only commenced services in
2009 and it would be expected that as operation costs rise in subsequent years that the
49
percentage administration cost decreases. Alongside the need for an overall reduction
in the proportion of total RTP group administration costs to 12% of total RTP group
costs, this proportional split should also be consistently applied across the individual
RTP groups.
Capital spend has been very inconsequential as a percentage of the overall total RTP
group expenditure from Department of Transport funding since 2004 and as can be
seen here there has been no capital spend under this funding in the past two years.
This is because it has been made clear that as Exchequer funding comes from
Departmental budgets they cannot use it on capital expenditure. If the RTP groups do
need to spend on capital items, they must fund this expenditure themselves or through
another source of funding such as National Lottery funding. However, there is a
caveat to this as according to Pobal, the capital cost figures above are only the capital
costs, which the RTP groups have disclosed to them. If RTP groups have received
funding from another source for Capital expenditure it might not be reflected above.
5.9.2 Breakdown of the administration costs from RTP group (gross) costs
Wages & salaries were the largest component of administration costs of th RTP group
(gross) costs amounting to almost €2m (68% of total administration costs) in 2009.
See Appendix M for a detailed breakdown of administration costs. This figure
increased from €1.3m in 2007 a greater than 50% increase. The following graph plots
the increase of wages (as a percentage) over the three-year period 2007 to 2009
against the increase in total administration expenditure and the increase in funding for
the RTP groups from Department of Transport alone in the first instance and in total
funding in the second instance.
50
Figure 5.3 Increases in RTP group wages & salaries (gross) costs 2007-2009
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
2008
2009
Increase in RTP Group Wages & Salaries Costs (Gross)
Increase in RTP Group Admistration Costs (Gross)
Increase in DoT Programme Funding
Increase in Total Exchequer Programme Funding
Source: Pobal
With 2007 as the baseline year, it is clear from the above chart that proportionally
wages and salaries of the RTP groups have increased far above the increase in total
RTP Group administration in terms of gross costs as well as far beyond any increase
in Exchequer investment in the Programme from Department of Transport or from
other Departments. This increase in wages and salaries indicates that certain
inefficiencies do exist in the running of the Programme, particularly from a resource
point of view.
Staff numbers in the administration area over the three year period 2007-2009 grew
from 47.5 FTE‟s to 59.01 FTE‟s, a 24% increase. This is significantly smaller than the
increase in the total wages and salaries being paid and indicates that over the 3 years,
increasing salaries were also a reason for the increase in the wages bill. This increase
took place between 2007 and 2008 as there was a slight decrease in staffing numbers
from 61.15 to 59.01 in 2009.
In comparison, over the same period 2007-2009 Bus Éireann staff numbers including
part-time drivers under the school transport scheme increased by 1.3%, with an
equivalent increase in wages and salaries over the period. However, full-time staff
numbers decreased over the period 2007-2009 by 1.6%.
Over the same period there has been a reduction in other RTP group administration
(gross) costs, particularly in areas such as Staff Training (-93%) and Travel and
Subsistence (-44%). However, the increase in wages and salaries has exceeded these
51
reductions resulting in an overall increase in RTP groups administration (gross) costs.
Wages and salaries made up over 61% of total RTP group administration (gross) costs
in the latter 3 years.
In addition, under the current organizational arrangements Pobal has little control over
the level of wages and salaries of posts in the RTP groups. There is no standardization
of wages and salaries for similar posts across the RTP groups which allows for salary
levels or wage increases for similar posts to vary across the RTP groups.
The high administration costs of the Programme have been a persistent concern over
its lifetime. The Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) review of the RTI commented on the
high administration cost of the RTP groups in particular as a result of set-up costs by
the RTP groups in 2002/2003 and that improvements could be made in this area. The
Review of the RTNS also commented on the high percentage of administration costs
of the Programme overall. In addition, Pobal‟s role in supporting individual RTP
groups has continued to date rather than moving to intervention on a Programme
basis. This is in part due to the relative underdevelopment of RTP group capacity
which continues to place a burden on the available Pobal staff in terms of providing
individual RTP group support.
Finally, it is clear from previous indications of high costs and from the analysis
carried out as part of this Review that there is a significant administration burden to
running 36 RTP groups and this burden is increasing year-on-year. In order to achieve
cost efficiencies and economies of scale, and a reduction in administration costs, an
organisational restructuring involving a reduction in the number of RTP groups would
be required.
5.9.3 Breakdown of RTP group operational (gross) costs
RTP group (gross) costs have increased even more substantially in the operational
budget of the RTP groups, increasing by 49% between 2007 and 2009. See Appendix
L for a detailed breakdown of RTP group operational (gross) costs. Operational wages
and salaries (drivers and dispatchers etc) have more than doubled in this time frame.
However in overall terms, the most substantial rise in costs has been in subcontracting costs which have increased from €4.9m to €6.8m (39%). Over the threeyear period in question, sub-contracting costs amounted to 69% of total RTP group
operational (gross) costs. There is little scope for cost efficiency savings through joint
procurement within the current RTP group structures, whereby each RTP group
engages in its own services contracts.
The increase in both these costs while significant, is however somewhat
representative of the increase in the number of services being provided under the
Programme, which is up 30% over the same time frame. However, it is not the only
explanation for the increase in costs, as costs have risen 39% as opposed to the 30%
increase in services. You would also expect to see some economies of scale as service
provision increased. It does therefore appear that as with administrative expenditure,
there is scope for efficiencies to be gained in this area. For example, discussions with
Pobal concerning procurement practices by the RTP groups suggest that the practice
of planning of services based on historical actual cost data and estimated costs could
52
be strengthened so that contract price ranges are not dictated by the available tender
proposals.
Further analysis of RTP Group operational costs with regard to wages and salaries
shows that the total figure more than doubled between 2007 and 2009, while over the
same time-span actual staff numbers on the operational side only increased by 6%
from 62.45 to 65.94. As with the administration side of things, it appears that
increases in existing wages and salaries rather than the increase in staff numbers have
contributed to the increase in the wages and salaries bill.
As a comparative, the table below looks at the % increase in operational costs year on
year between the RTP groups and Bus Éireann from 2007 to 2009.
Table 5.16 Increase in operational costs, RTP groups vs. BE
Year
2007
2008
2009
RTP groups
46%
31%
14%
Bus Éireann
10%
8%
2%
Source Pobal & BE Annual Accounts 2007-2009
Over each of the three years, the percentage increase in operational expenditure by the
RTP groups has far outweighed the increase in operational expenditure in Bus
Éireann. This is a clear sign that the cost increases of the RTP groups have been too
high recently. For a Programme with a small budget, cost increases such as the above
should not be occurring.
The above information indicates that in line with the trends in administration
expenditure, the Programme is not operating as efficiently as it could. Sub-Contractor
costs especially have caused a substantial increase in total costs. Increases in driver
and dispatch costs have also been a reason for the increase. As indicated in the RTP
group administrative (gross) cost section, a review of the current organisational
structures is perhaps the most appropriate way to begin such a review of costs. A
reduction through rationalisation/merger of RTP groups or otherwise should produce
economies of scale, particularly in sub-contracting costs that would allow the
Programme to operate far more efficiently than at present.
5.9.4 Administration costs of the Programme
This section sets out the administration costs of the Programme, taking into account
the administration costs sustained by the RTP groups as well as the administration
costs of Pobal in looking after the Programme.
53
Table 5.17- Administration costs of the Programme
Year
2007
2008
2009
Admin Costs of RTP Admin costs of Pobal
groups
€2.4m
€823k
€2.3m
€1.2m
€2.2m
€1.1m
Total Admin costs
€3.2m
€3.5m
€3.3m
Source: Pobal
There is substantial total administration costs involved in the Programme and these
costs have increased significantly from the 2006 level, before the Programme was
mainstreamed. For a Programme, which had exchequer funding totalling €13.8m in
2009, administration costs amounting to €3.3m or 24% of the total appear excessive.
This level of expenditure on administrative activities has a negative impact on
operational budget. Efforts should be made to drastically reduce the administrative
burden on the Programme both from Pobal's end and by the RTP groups themselves.
In line with Section 5.9.1, this report has an expectation that the administration costs
of operating the RTP can be reduced. Section 5.9.1 has put forward savings of €1.2m
as being achievable from the administration costs of the RTP groups by 2013 (€2.2m
down to €1m). Assuming Pobal administration costs remained at €1.1m, this would
imply total administration costs of €2.1m by the end of 2013. Based on 2009
exchequer funding of €13.8m, administration costs amount to 15% of funding.
In comparison to other exchequer funded programmes, such as the School Transport
Scheme, this percentage of administration costs is still slightly high. The School
Transport Scheme has administration costs amounting to 14%3 of total funding in
2008. However, the Value for Money Review of the School Transport Scheme in
2010 recommended substantial savings in administrative costs. To that end, the
Department of Education and Skills has initiated discussions to agree updated
administrative arrangements including the administration costs with Bus Éireann i.e.
the administration cost percentage may well reduce depending on the outcome of
these discussions.
For the Rural Transport Programme it is recommended that a further €300k of savings
would be required from Pobal‟s administration budgets reducing their administration
costs to €800k and total Pobal administration costs from Department of Transport
funding to €1.8m by 2013. Based on 2009 total Exchequer funded Programme
receipts, this would yield an administration cost percentage of 13%.
3
The administration cost percentage is based on costing data sourced from Tables 5.1 and 5.2 of the
School Transport VfM Report 2010 and is intended to reflect a like for like comparison with the
administration cost percentage for the RTP scheme. An attempt has been made to include broadly
similar types of administration costs for both programmes. Administration costs for the School
Transport Scheme are deemed to include the charge paid by Department of Education and Skills to Bus
Éireann and the costs incurred by Bus Éireann in managing and supervising the Scheme. The
administration costs for both funding programmes have been calculated on a net basis, i.e. excluding
fare income as an add-on to the grant.
54
Table 5.18 Proposed total administration costs of RTP by 2013
Admin Costs of RTP
groups from DoT
funding
Admin costs of Pobal
from DoT funding
Total
Programme
Admin costs
Exchequer Funding
Total Admin Costs as
a % of Exchequer
Funding4
2009
€2.2m
2013
Savings
€1.0m (as per section €1.2m
5.9.1)
€1.1m
€0.8m
€0.3m
€3.3m
€1.8m
€1.5m
€13.8m
24%
€13.8m
13%
Source: Based on data supplied by Pobal
5.9.5 Volunteer workers
In addition to salaried RTP group staff resources, there are a large number of
volunteers working for the Programme. Volunteers participate at a number of levels,
i.e. through Board membership, as Community Car drivers, Passenger Assistants and
in many other operational, administrative and advocacy areas. In 2008 a total of 1,354
volunteers (1,160 volunteers in 2009) across the RTP groups gave an estimated total
of 40,000 hours of their time, i.e. -estimated by Pobal as having monetary value of
€350,000 based on a minimum wage rate of €8.65
5.9.6 The RTP Network
An administrative matter related to the discussion in Section 5.9.1 on the support role
carried out by Pobal, is the level of interface between Pobal and the RTP network, the
representative body for the RTP groups. This consists of three separate consultative
committees, each meeting twice a year. It is not clear whether this is also burdensome
in terms of Pobal resources or whether the most optimally efficient arrangement for
consultation between Pobal and the RTP Network is being achieved. It is also not
clear the amount of duplication that is occurring, with Pobal consulting with the RTP
network and then separately with individual RTP groups.
In addition to its role as a representative body for the RTP groups, the RTP Network
has a clearly identified lobbying role (RTP Network, 2009:16). It is also understood
that the annual membership fee for the RTP Network was in the region of €300 per
RTP group in 2009. However, it is not clear from the reported RTP group accounts as
to what income source the membership fee is being supplied, particularly with regard
to State funds.
4
The calculation of the % administration costs is net of fare income.
55
5.9.7 Reduction of Pobal overhead costs in 2009
In November 2008 the Department of Transport advised Pobal of the requirement for
the RTP as a whole to reduce overheads to approximately 25% of the total RTP
budget. An extensive review of all salary and non-salary costs was undertaken and a
number of changes have been implemented, including savings in salary costs, travel
and subsistence costs, office running costs, staff training and development and IT &
communications equipment costs. Cost savings in these areas amounted to €120,000
in 2009. Other savings were made in the beneficiary support budget, which was
halved and in project level budgets. These savings resulted in overhead cost
expenditure as a % of the Total RTP budget reducing from 29% to 25% in 2009, with
budgeted figures suggesting that this figure will drop to 22% in 2010. As a % of
Department of Transport funding only, overhead costs fell from 35% in 2008 to 29%
in 2009 and budgeted figures indicate that this figure will fall to 25% in 2010. Work
is continuing to further reduce costs in the administrative budget in 2010.
5.9.8 Cost breakdown by RTP group
An analysis of the cost per service and cost per passenger journey on an RTP group
basis for 2009 has been carried out as part of this Review as a first step to assess
variance in cost per service and cost per passenger journey across the Programme.
Data upon which to base a cost per kilometre analysis was not available for this
Review. It should be noted that this analysis was based on Department of Transport
Programme funding only and did not include the full range of Exchequer funding or
fare income streams, as well as any voluntary contributions and other income of the
RTP groups. The unit costs may be underestimated as it is not clear if all costs and
expenditure by the Programme, i.e. not relating to State funding, for transport
activities have been included. The findings of the analysis therefore would be more
pronounced if overall Programme costs and income were included. At RTP group
level this data was not readily available.
5.9.8.1 Cost per service
As stated in Section 5.6 the average cost of operating a service across the RTP groups
in 2009 was €70. However, there is a wide range of cost per service across the RTP
groups, spanning from €22 (RTP group A) to €364 (RTP group Z), a 1500%
difference. Other variable factors relating to the two RTP groups at each extreme in
terms of cost per service are illustrated in the Table 5.19 below.
Table 5.19- RTP group comparison
Cost per service
RTP group A
RTP group Z
%Difference
€22
€364
1500%
Expenditure
€172,343
€251,963
46%
Source: Based on data supplied by Pobal
56
Number of
services
7,796
692
No of passenger
journeys per
service
3
16
The difference in expenditure between the two RTP groups is only 46%, which
indicates that other variable factors are affecting cost per service. These other variable
factors include the number of services and the number of passenger journeys per
service. In this case RTP group A with the lowest cost per service ran close to 8,000
services compared to 692 service run by RTP group Z. RTP group A also had over 5
times less passenger journeys per service than RTP group Z. Information not readily
available for this analysis included the model of service, i.e. whether demand
responsive or fixed scheduled, the population size and density or vehicle size and
capacity. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the age of the RTP
groups; in this case RTP group A is a long established RTP group whereas RTP group
Z was established in 2008 with 2009 being its first full year of service operation.
Newer RTP groups tend to have higher costs associated with development of
capacity, services and passenger journey base.
While this preliminary examination of the variance in cost per service above does not
reveal any immediate benchmark trends with regard to the prioritisation of the factors
affecting cost, it does provide an indication of the range of variable factors that need
to be considered. It can, however, be concluded even at this early stage that a cost per
service at the high extreme, i.e. €364, which is almost 6 times the national RTP group
average in 2009 is unnecessarily high. A small number of the RTP groups are
operating at a level that is far beyond that of their counterparts. In addition the high
number of services in the case of some RTP groups needs to be reviewed with a view
to reducing service numbers in particular where inefficiencies have been identified on
a unit cost basis.
5.9.8.2 Cost per passenger journey
Similarly, this preliminary analysis shows a wide variance in cost per passenger
journey. The average cost per passenger journey in 2009 amounted to €8. The lowest
cost per any RTP group was €4 while the highest was €30 a 650% difference. Almost
75% of the RTP groups have an average cost per passenger journey within 25% of the
average. A small number of RTP groups have cost per passenger journey that is far
beyond their counterparts.
However it does not appear that there is any one reason why costs are so much greater
in some areas than in others. With regard to the outlier RTP groups with a cost per
passenger journey greater than €8 there would appear to be three emerging trends for
the differences at the higher end of the scale, i.e. low total passenger journey numbers,
low average load factor and population density. The three RTP groups with the
highest cost per passenger journey are within the bottom five RTP groups with the
lowest total number of passenger journeys made. Some of the RTP groups with high
cost per passenger journey and could have a very low average load factor, as low as 2
passengers per service based on the low number of passenger journeys. These RTP
services are operating in areas with low population densities relative to the other RTP
group areas.
Based on the data above, it is clear that there is a wide variance in costs per passenger
journey and per service among the RTP groups. It does not appear as if there is any
57
measurement process in place to gauge the efficiency or otherwise of the individual
RTP groups. However the numbers suggest that some RTP groups are getting far
better value for money in terms of the number of passenger journeys made per service
and the number of services being operated. To combat some of the inefficiencies it is
recommended that a minimum number of passengers per service for the different
transport modes or vehicle capacity categories be implemented. The School Transport
Scheme employs such a minimum of seven passengers per service and it has proved
successful in terms of reducing costs.
With due regard to the social inclusion focus of the Programme, including the
principle of equality of access this may appear to be contradictory especially as within
the School Transport Scheme some students in rural areas fall outside the Scheme
criteria and end up relying on RTP services instead. However, in terms of striking a
balance between the social inclusion focus and the need for efficiencies in the
Programme it is something that is necessary.
There may be instances where meeting passenger needs requires a separate transport
service, including the option of community car or taxi. In such cases the criteria for
social inclusion and transport needs must be balanced against the value for money
criteria with regard to the optimal use of resources and should be considered within
the development of acceptable practices and benchmarking for utilisation of capacity
on a cost efficiency basis across the Programme, as well as, the priorities for funding
within the individual RTP groups in terms of transport needs in their area.
There is a need for further review in this area and there may be cases where it would
be more efficient for RTP groups to replace the existing carriers with smaller vehicles,
which may still be large enough to provide their area with an adequate service. Such a
change should in itself also serve to lower costs. With regard to the need to ensure
efficiency through a lower cost per service run and a lower cost per passenger or
passenger journey served, and resulting decrease in administration and operating costs
of the service, the unit cost per passenger or passenger journey for the different
service modes should be benchmarked against an optimal utilisation range for the
different transport modes. Ultimately however, where it is clear that the cost per
passenger journey is still too high on certain routes, consideration should be given to
closing down these routes.
In line with this and with regard to the need to standardise unit costs across all the
RTP groups and to narrow the vast discrepancy of cost per service that exists between
RTP groups, consideration should be given to setting maximum cost per service
within each service mode, i.e. community car, hackney, minibus, etc.
5.9.8.3 Monitoring cost efficiency and benchmarking performance
Given the limitations of the unit cost analysis within this Review due to lack of
readily available data, it is recommended that Pobal carry out a further ongoing
analysis at RTP group level of unit costs, e.g. per kilometre, per service and per
passenger or passenger journey, in conjunction with the greater availability of
electronic data via the online GIS and PMS systems, with a view to identifying trends
across the relevant variable factors and establishing performance benchmarks within
58
acceptable cost boundaries. A benchmark could be set within a range for cost per
kilometre, passenger or passenger journey and cost per service mode. A benchmark
could be established within each service mode based on a range of optimum
utilisation, for example, 80-90% utilisation, so as to ensure optimum use of available
vehicle capacity.
Given that the majority of RTP services are pre-booked and private operators
subcontracting the services have limited control over passenger numbers, route,
accessibility, etc. the scope for cost control incentives and related performance targets
within this subcontract is limited. Therefore, Pobal should examine the potential for
incorporating cost control incentives and performance targets within its contracts with
the RTP groups. The reporting by RTP groups and monitoring by Pobal via the online
GIS and PMS system concerning the projected and actual costs per service will assist
in this regard.
In line with the previous recommendations in this Chapter concerning overall
efficiency of the Programme delivery, the desire to reduce overall costs and driving
efficiencies of scale to reduce both average service costs as well as average passenger
journey costs would be facilitated by a rationalisation of the existing organisational
structures for Programme delivery to allow for greater consolidation of the
programme cost base.
5.10 Conclusion
A number of areas of inefficiency with the Programme have been identified
throughout this Chapter. It is also apparent that inefficiencies in certain areas have
increased since the Programme was mainstreamed. It is clear from the chapter that
there are areas where increased cost control is necessary and where efficiencies
should be achievable. In the simplest terms the cost of the Programme to the
Department of Transport has increased over the past six years, without a
commensurate increase in passenger journey numbers. This has seen the cost of the
Programme per number of services run and on a per passenger journey basis increase
throughout the lifetime of the Programme.
As has been mentioned in the chapter, one area that needs to be looked at is the
number of RTP groups involved in the operation of the Programme. The existing
organisation of 36 RTP groups spread over the 26 counties brings with it a large
administration burden for operating the Programme, and also for Pobal who manage
the Programme. This is particularly the case for the RTP groups where the costs are
uneconomic e.g. where costs per passenger journey are unreasonably high. A
rationalisation of the organisational structures for Programme delivery could achieve
Programme efficiencies through greater economies of scale and greater use of shared
services, and would dictate the optimum number of RTP groups to be funded under
the Programme.
With due regard to the range of variable factors affecting unit costs across the RTP
groups for services and passenger journeys, there is a wide range of variance in these
unit costs and costs at the extreme are a cause for concern. As part of the
aforementioned review the numbers of passenger journeys carried on each service
59
should be looked at with a view to standardising a minimum number of passenger or
passenger journeys per service. Pobal should review service costs, with the assistance
of the greater availability of the necessary electronic data, and explore the possibility
of setting acceptable service cost levels and benchmarking future performance with a
view to achievement of greater cost control and efficiency in this area. In addition,
consideration should be given to setting maximum costs within each service mode,
i.e. community car, hackney, minibus, etc. Given the high level of identified per
service costs, i.e. in the region of €300, there is a strong case for an upper limit on
service costs.
While Pobal have managed to lower their administration costs over the past two years,
there is further scope for improvement in this area. Administration costs from
Department of Transport funding of the RTP groups, identified as totalling 22% of
total RTP group costs, appears far too high proportionally. A 10% proportional
decrease in the RTP group administration costs as a percentage of total RTP group
costs to 12% would lead to savings equivalent to €1.2m based on 2009 figures. This
10% proportional decrease in RTP group administration costs would represent an
actual 55% decrease in these administration costs based on 2009 figures.
In addition to this, further savings of €300k from Pobal‟s administration budget of
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport funding by 2013, together with the
saving in RTP group administration costs based on 2009 figures, would lead to total
savings of €1.5m in Programme administration costs and would reduce the proportion
of Programme administration costs as a percentage of total funding from 24% to 13%.
This would be in line with administrative cost levels of other exchequer funded
transport programmes.
The allocation of costs between administration and operational spend is something
that needs to be reviewed and standardised. It appears that administration costs across
the RTP groups have been reduced in the past couple of years, in line with a request
from Pobal for the RTP groups to do so. Despite this administration costs remain
unacceptably high. Analysis of RTP group (gross) costs shows that wages and salaries
have increased by more than 50% since 2007, which is a far larger percentage
increase than the increase in staff numbers over the same time period. This is a very
clear sign of inefficiency. Operational costs have also substantially increased, by 49%
between 2007 and 2009. This also casts doubt as to the efficiency of the Programme
in that time span.
While there is evidence that shows that administration costs in total have reduced,
there is no clarity or transparency as to whether these costs were actively reduced or
whether it was a case of reallocation from administration to operational costs.
The breakdown of passenger journey numbers between fare paying and non-fare
paying passenger journeys produced interesting results. The majority of passenger
journeys, up to 70%, are non-fare paying broken down between those on travel free
passes (65%) and other passenger journeys (5%) who are also allowed travel free.
The question of „other free‟ passenger journeys is something that should be addressed
by both Pobal and the RTP groups. This category of passenger journey has
significantly grown in the last six years and despite not being a large proportion in
60
overall terms, stills adds a extra cost burden on to each of the Department, Pobal and
the RTP groups at a time when there is considerable budgetary pressure on Exchequer
funding. Consideration should be given as to whether the provision of such services
fall under the objectives of the Programme and as to whether they should be provided
into the future. By eliminating this category of passenger journey, there is a potential
for savings equivalent to €450,000k, based on 2009 figures.
Programme level information and reporting on the fares and fare structures of the
services across the RTP groups needs to be more transparent. Consideration should be
given to the option for a greater degree of standardisation of fares across the RTP
groups. Data gathered in 2007 on fares across the RTP groups shows a wide range of
fare structures and levels in operation. Pobal should take the lead in a review of fares
and devise a Programme-wide system of fares that would be equitable across all the
RTP groups. This would be a first step by Pobal in consultation with the Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport towards consideration of the option for increasing
fares. Maximising fare income across the Programme as opposed to individual RTP
groups should be the main objective of the review by Pobal.
In terms of the gross receipts of the Programme there is a lack of transparency and
accounting data reported on by the RTP groups to Pobal concerning their different
income streams. In particular, more financial reporting information concerning the
income from contracts operated by RTP groups is necessary in the assessment of
whether cross-subsidisation is taking place between the different income and funding
streams against activities of the RTP groups
It is also clear from the figures analysed in the chapter that the cost of the Programme
does not represent efficiency for the Exchequer, particularly when looked at against
more commercial transport companies. This is a key point however, as this
Programme is run on a not-for-profit basis. The RTP serves a customer niche in areas
where there is acknowledged market failure; however, the commercial status of
specific routes is not certain due to a lack of data on deadweight. It is inevitable that
the cost of servicing these routes is high.
Notwithstanding this, it is clear that the Programme is not being run as efficiently as
possible and there are a number of areas across the Programme where savings can be
made. These should be set out in an implementation plan by Pobal concerning the
achievement of cost efficiencies as recommended in this Review. In consultation with
the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport targets for cost savings and a plan
for achievement of those targets should be agreed between the parties within the
context of the MoU.
61
CHAPTER 6
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME
6.1 Introduction
This Chapter examines the effectiveness of the Programme in achieving the objective
of social inclusion associated with unmet transport needs of identified target groups in
rural areas, by means of identified performance indicators and supporting data where
available.
6.2 A framework for analysis
6.2.1 Programme performance monitoring
Five key reporting requirements were identified by the Department of Transport at the
initiation stage of the Programme,
-
good corporate governance and accountability;
meeting the social inclusion objective of the Programme;
impact on the level of unmet needs;
broadening geographic coverage and an increase in service levels and
frequencies; and,
value for money.
Reporting concerning the above takes place within the context of the MoU between
the Department of Transport and Pobal. The Pobal „Programme Performance
Monitoring Strategy (PMS)‟, 2008, has resulted in annual performance monitoring
reports for the years 2008 and 2009. These reports form part of the reporting by Pobal
under the MoU with the Department of Transport, see Appendix H.
While there is a certain amount of data supplied on an ongoing basis by Pobal to the
Department of Transport, it has not been sufficient to meet the requirements of the
reporting framework for monitoring and evaluation of Programme performance. This
lack of data is evident throughout this Review report.
As set out in Chapter 4, „Programme objectives and continued relevance‟, the
Programme‟s social inclusion objective needs to be more clearly stated in the MOU
between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal. In addition, there
is a need for agreed targets for Programme performance in meeting the high-level
social inclusion objective, within the Programme MoU between the Department of
Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal.
62
6.2.2 Issues concerning measurement of the social inclusion impacts of the
Programme
There is an acknowledged difficulty associated with the measurement of social
inclusion impacts. The Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy (Pobal, 2008)
sets out a framework to measure social inclusion through thematic indicators. The
research and data sources to support these indicators have not been developed as it is
a resource intensive process. This data gap is evident in the inappropriateness of key
performance indicators supporting social inclusion impacts for the Programme
reported under NAPSI (2007-2016), i.e. the number of passenger journeys and
services alone does not indicate impact on unmet transport needs or on social
exclusion in rural areas. However, the measurement of social inclusion impacts and
the lack of performance indicators that translate into value for money analysis is an
issue for all Programmes under a social inclusion objective. Development of such
social inclusion indicators for the measurement of impacts may be more appropriate
within a wider policy development context encompassing all social inclusion
programmes, for example under NDP (2007-2013) or NAPSI (2007-2016) and would
not be specific to this Programme.
While the above issues concerning high-level social inclusion objectives and targets
should be acknowledged in this Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy, and
efforts should be made to connect programme targets to the high-level objective, a
focus on the expected intermediate outcomes relating to unmet transport needs would
be more appropriate and meaningful in terms of the Programme‟s reporting and
monitoring framework. However, this Review identified a lack of available up to date
data concerning levels of unmet transport needs among rural dwellers and in the
different targets groups identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006). There
is no connection made in the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy with the
target for one trip per week for rural dwellers (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006) or for
similar NDP targets, i.e. extension of the RTP on a phased basis to achieve nationwide coverage 2007-2009, and for a significant reduction in the numbers of people in
rural areas experiencing social inclusion due to lack of access to transport (NDP
2007-2013).
The targets established under the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy
involve stepped targets based on previous years data commencing with 2007 baseline
performance data. These performance targets for 2008 and 2009 were established by a
task group, including Pobal and RTP group representatives. The targets were based
upon previous years performance and on wider NDP targets without reference to the
targets and estimate for Programme achievement put forward in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006). While these targets for Programme implementation as set
out in the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy provide a short-term
indication of changes over a three-year strategic period, they need to be connected to
higher-level targets concerning the achievement of social inclusion through
addressing unmet transport need. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in
consultation with Pobal needs to have a greater involvement in the setting of agreed
targets for the Programme.
The assessment of unmet transport needs and social exclusion carried out at County
level by the RTP groups is critical to the appropriate social inclusion targeting of this
63
Programme‟s resources. This happens as part of the three-year strategic planning
based on RTP group-level data analysis and consultation through public meetings,
questionnaires, passenger surveys and stakeholder interviews. The RTP groups apply
an accessibility and deprivation index to the areas covered by their RTP services. The
decision-making by Pobal concerning the apportionment of funding among the RTP
groups places a greater weighting on RTP services with a higher ranking in terms of
the accessibility and deprivation in line with the high-level social inclusion objective.
It is noted that there are a number of identified data inputs such as car ownership data,
bus and train frequencies, etc. which if included within the index methodology would
strengthen its capability as an analytical tool.
It is envisaged that the GIS system, which has the capacity for layering of a range of
different national level data sets, will enable a more objective verification of the
County-based needs assessment by the RTP groups. It will also assist in the central
planning and control of the RTP network from a national viewpoint. However,
notwithstanding the progress being made in developing the GIS and other IT systems
for data recording and reporting, the lack of objective data sources concerning the
levels of social exclusion as a result of the unmet transport needs of rural dwellers and
people in the specific target passenger groups affects the measurement of the
Programmes impact in terms of its high-level social inclusion objective and associated
targets.
The success of the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy depends on how
well its performance indicators are supported by available data sources. The currently
available data is collected through the RTP groups annual Plan of Activities (PoA),
the monthly passenger returns and through specific questions asked by Pobal. The
Performance Monitoring Strategy assumes a number of key data sources, including an
online passenger database, the GIS system, a passenger satisfaction survey every three
years, and thematic research on a priority theme each year. None of these data sources
were in place to provide data for the purposes of this Review. The data gaps
concerning Programme output and expected intermediate outcome are identified and
discussed further in the following Sections of this Chapter.
6.2.3 Linking the Programme objectives, aims and performance indicators
Following an assessment of the available reports and documentation relating to the
mainstreaming of the RTP, rural transport policy development and the objectives of
the RTP, this Review finds that the strategic role of the RTP is broadly in line with the
recommended Option 2 of the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) and falls under
the social inclusion high-level objective. The strategic role of the RTP therefore has
three main elements as set out in Section 2 of Chapter 4, „Programme objectives and
continued relevance‟, as follows,
1) to meet the transport needs of socially excluded people in the target groups;
2) to extend transport coverage throughout rural Ireland; and,
3) to extend transport services beyond the needs of older passengers.
64
The effectiveness of the Programme in the fulfilment of its strategic role under the
social inclusion objective can be assessed through the measurement of performance
under a range of identified performance indicators. The clearest and most succinct
available statement of the objective for Programme implementation is to provide a
quality nationwide community based public transport system in rural Ireland, which
responds to local needs, (Programme Guidelines 2008-2010). This objective is broken
down into six stated aims for Programme implementation as set out in Chapter 4
„Programme Objectives and Continued Relevance‟ in Section 4.2. Of these aims, 1) to
provide, enhance and sustain a nationwide community based rural public transport
system and 4) to ensure equality of access to all users, directly relate to the Strategic
role of the RTP. The remaining four aims relate to necessary supporting activities for
Programme implementation. The Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy
contains performance indicators which can be used to measure the output and
outcomes of the Programme.
The following framework sets out the links between the Programme‟s high-level
policy objective of social inclusion, (for the sake of completeness the high-level target
for social inclusion as set out in the Fitzpatrick Associates report (2006) is included),
its role, objective and aims for Programme implementation and relevant performance
indicators for measurement, against which the effectiveness of the Programme to date
can be assessed, using the available data.
65
Table 6.1: Framework for analysis of Programme effectiveness
High-Level Policy Objective: Social Inclusion
High-Level Target – „Rural residents in excluded groups without access to a car
should have the option to make a minimum of one weekly trip to their nearest local
town, county town or large market town‟ (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006).
Policy
Programme
Relevant
Intermediate Relevant
option 2 –
objective/mission Pobal aims
outcome
performance
strategic
indicators
monitoring
role of RTP
indicators
(Pobal, 2008)
↓
1. to meet the
transport
needs of
socially
excluded
people within
the target
groups
↓
„To provide a
quality nationwide
community based
public transport
system in rural
Ireland which
responds to local
needs.‟
2. Extend
transport
coverage
throughout
rural Ireland
↓
Aim 4: To
ensure
equality of
access to all
users
Aim 1: To
provide,
enhance and
sustain a
nationwide
community
based rural
public
transport
system
3. extend
Aim 4: To
transport
ensure
services
equality of
beyond the
access to all
needs of
users
older
passengers
*data not currently available for indicators
Source: Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) and Pobal
66
↓
Increase in
target group
coverage
↓
-Gender Profile
-Passenger
ability*
-Number of
free Travel
Pass Journeys
-Number of
accessible
services
-Type of
services
provided
Increase in
-Number of
national
RTP Passenger
coverage
Journeys
-Number of
RTP services
provided
-Number of
RTP groups
-Number of
Electoral
District Areas
with RTP
services*
Greater
- Age Profile
diversification -% Passenger
of RTP
journeys used
services
to access other
public
services*
6.3 Measurement of the effectiveness of the Programme
Using the framework linking the Programme objectives, aims and performance
indicators (PIs) at Table 6.1 above, the effectiveness of the Programme in the
fulfilment of its role within rural transport policy will be assessed in terms of its
output and impact, drawing from a number of data sources including, the RTP
performance and monitoring reports, interview and survey findings for this Review,
and from relevant case studies and other surveys.
6.3.1 To meet the transport needs of socially excluded people within the target
groups
In the 2006 analysis of rural transport carried out by Fitzpatrick Associates an
assessment was made concerning the level of social inclusion through the unmet
transport needs of rural dwellers generally and, more specifically, for rural dwellers
that fall within at-risk target groups. These groups identified in the 2006 Report
included women, older people, people on low incomes, and people with mobility,
sensory or cognitive impairments. An expected intermediate outcome of the
Programme is to increase the provision of transport to socially excluded people in
rural areas from these target groups.
6.3.1.1 The impact on the level of unmet transport needs
As mentioned in previous sections there is a paucity of data by which to measure the
final outcome and impact of the Programme in achieving an increase in the level of
social inclusion and access to transport for those with prior unmet transport needs.
However, Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) who recommended the policy supporting the
Programme and its strategic focus, also offers estimates, in Table 6.2 below, of
improvements to rural dwellers and those in target groups with unmet transport need
in terms of RTP user levels for 2011 and 2016.
Table 6.2: Indicative estimates for impact on unmet needs 2005-2016
Year
2005
2011
2016
Persons with „unmet needs‟
Total
Target Group
382,902
209,281
409,856
210,878
434,543
225,717
RTI Users
(Option 2)
35,000
105,000
140,000
RTI „market share‟
Total%
Target Group%
9.1
16.7
25.6
49.8
32.2
62.0
Source: Fitzpatrick Associates (2006)
Projections for the number of RTP users, based on a range of travel frequencies,
offers a range of expected estimates for passenger journey numbers in 2011. Table 6.3
below sets out estimates of passenger journey numbers in 2011 based on the
Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) estimated number of RTI (RTP) users in 2011 under
various travel frequencies, namely the high-level Programme target and the actual
estimates for Programme travel frequency in 2003 and 2005 (Fitzpatrick Associates,
2006).
67
Table 6.3: Projected passenger journeys in 2011 based on estimated actual travel
frequencies and the high-level target travel frequency
RTI Users
in 2011
105,000
Travel Frequency
Based on Fitzpatrick
Associates Report
(2006):
High-level target
Estimate of 2003
actual
Estimate of 2005
actual
Passenger
Journeys
(millions)
Frequency
1 trip per passenger
per week
Not Specified
1 return trip every 4
weeks
Average
Journeys per
passenger
104
10.9
19
2
27
2.9
Source: Based on data supplied by Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) and Pobal
Based on the high-level target frequency of use of one (return) trip set out in the
Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006), i.e. 2 passenger journeys, per person per week,
in order for the Programme to achieve the projected level of users, i.e. 105,000 by
2011 it would require an estimated 10.9 million passenger journeys. Based on
estimated actual frequency of use in 2003 and 2005 the estimated passenger journeys
in 2011 would be 2 million and 2.9 million, respectively. The estimated range of RTP
passenger journeys in 2011 based on these different average travel frequencies is
therefore between 2 and 10.9 million. The 2009 actual passenger journey numbers
was 1.29 million, which equates more with an average travel frequency target by RTP
users of 1 return trip every four weeks, or less, rather than once every week.
In 2009 the actual number of passenger journeys came to a total of 1,289,025. Using
the same range of travel frequencies as in the previous Table 6.3, the following Table
6.4 shows the estimated RTP users in 2009 based on actual 2009 passenger journey
data.
Table 6.4: Estimates of RTP users in 2009 based on actual 2009 passenger
journey numbers and estimated actual travel frequencies and high-level target
frequency
Based on Fitzpatrick
Associates Report
(2006):
High-level target
Estimate of 2003
actual
Estimate of 2005
actual
Travel Frequency
Frequency
Estimate of RTP users
Average
Journeys per
passenger
104
1 trip per passenger
per week
Not Specified
1 return trip every 4
weeks
Source: Based on data supplied by Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) and Pobal
68
12,395
19
67,844
27
47,742
An estimated range of RTP users based on actual 2009 passenger journey figures of
1.29 million is therefore between 12,000 and 68,000. At the higher travel frequency
envisaged in high-level target (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006) the estimated number of
RTP users in 2009 is 12,395. At the estimated actual travel frequencies for 2003 and
2005 (Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006), the estimated number of RTP users in 2009 is
67,844 and 47,742 respectively. At the high-level target of one trip per week per
person, based on 2009 passenger journey figures, the estimated RTP users in 2009
(12,395) falls well below 2005 estimates (35,000). At 2003 and 2005 actual estimated
travel frequencies, based on 2009 passenger journey figures, the estimated range of
RTP users (50,000-70,000) is well below what would be expected for 2009 RTP user
levels in order to achieve the 2011 estimated RTP user numbers, i.e. 105,000 in the
Fitzpatrick Associates analysis in Table 6.2.
While the rate of increase in actual passenger journey numbers on previous year
figures grew up to 2007 ( 26% increase on 2006 figures) this rate has been in decline
since, with the increase in the number of passenger journeys on the previous year
figures, was 20% in 2008 and 7% in 2009. Therefore growth in passenger journeys
and in the numbers of RTP users is not as great as envisaged in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006) estimates, even at the lower 2003 and 2005 estimated actual
travel frequencies.
Any findings concerning this comparison between estimated and actual numbers of
RTP users and passenger journeys must be treated with care due to the large extent of
extrapolation from a small amount of actual data and due to a lack of up-too-date
comparable data sets. In addition the estimates for 2011 and 2016 RTI passenger
journey usage growth in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) are based on some
assumptions concerning growth in the target demographic and funding and passenger
growth of the Programme. With regard to these assumptions, firstly, there is no up-todate actual data by which to verify the estimates for growth, or decline, in the levels
of unmet transport needs and, secondly, with regard to assumed growth in funding
over the 2005-2009 period, RTP funding has increased at a slightly lower rate than
anticipated.
It should also be noted that in terms of setting Programme targets passenger journey
data is not as useful as the estimates of RTI (RTP) users within the Programme target
groups and the average frequency of use. For example, it would be more desirable that
a target average travel frequency is achieved by a large number of Programme target
group beneficiaries rather than a few Programme beneficiaries taking a very high
number of passenger journeys.
The examination of estimated and available actual figures on the number of
Programme users and passenger journeys, as set out in this Section, raises the
question of the current relevance of the high-level social inclusion target as set out in
the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006), i.e. 1 trip per passenger per week, and the
capability of this Programme to fully achieve this. In addition, other national statistics
relating to household car ownership in rural areas (62,651 households with no motor
car in 2006) and implied population nationally in the 60+ age cohort without a drivers
licence (202,352 in 2006) suggest that the estimated unmet need (up to 400,000
persons) in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) may not be as high as envisaged.
69
Therefore it is necessary for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in
consultation with Pobal to review this high-level target with regard to the degree to
which it can be achieved by this Programme. Targets should be reviewed within the
context of the MOU between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and
Pobal and incorporated into the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy, in the
light of the Programme objectives.
6.3.1.2 The impact on social inclusion - Programme beneficiaries
There are acknowledged difficulties in measurement of the social inclusion impacts
on the Programme beneficiaries. The key data sources that have been identified in the
Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy are undeveloped, for example,
passenger satisfaction surveys and thematic research on themes such as quality of life,
health or social inclusion. The RTP Performance Reports for 2008 and 2009 explain
that while there has been learning concerning potential indicators of social inclusion,
i.e. the importance of the journey in passengers social life, as well as, autonomy,
independence and connectedness of passengers, the measurement of improvements to
quality of life of passengers in the reports relies on testimonies from some passengers.
Primary research for this Review through a survey of the RTP groups views and
through interviews with representatives of key stakeholders, suggests a consensus of
perception that the Programme offers social inclusion benefits to its users, in
particular from the target groups of older people and people with disabilities. In the
survey of the RTP groups carried out for this Review responses suggest that the most
significant benefits to users/passengers of the RTP services over the period of the
Programme relate to its social inclusion focus for those living in isolation from their
community, including providing independence, autonomy, social life, and improved
self esteem and quality of life.
The perception of those stakeholder representative groups consulted as part of this
Review, i.e. through the Office for Local Authority Management, RTP Network, Age
Action & Disability Federation, suggest that the impact of the Programme is in terms
of the social inclusion benefits to the users/passengers of the RTP services, in
particular those passengers from the target groups, i.e. older people and people with a
disability. With regard to these specific target groups, the representative bodies for
older people and people with disabilities who were involved in the interviews for this
Review all indicate that there are significant improvements that could be made to the
RTP in providing for the transport needs of older people and people with disabilities.
In particular the response from Age Action suggested that there was not enough RTP
services to meet the current transport needs of older people. All the representative
groups suggested that there could be improvements to achieve a consistent level of
service provision or accessibility levels across all the RTP services.
Further evidence supporting the benefits of the Programme to older people can be
drawn from the Report entitled „Connections: Mobility and Quality of Life for Older
People in Rural Ireland‟ (Intel, 2009), which found that,
70
“…to be active beyond the home is a sine qua non of wellbeing in late life.
Transportation services such as the RTP are crucial enablers of action and
activity beyond the home; they underpin autonomous and independent lives”
This research was based on an ethnographic study of five of the RTP services around
the country carried out in the first half of 2007, whereby researchers embedded
themselves for a week at a time in the five RTP projects, participating in the bus
journeys and other aspects of the projects activities, observing and asking questions
with a view to increasing understanding „in the round‟. The accounts of social and
cultural context and actions gathered through this process lead to the conclusions
drawn from the research.
A key conclusion concerning the RTP and transport for older people contained in the
Intel Report (2009) is that,
“…the RTP projects are providing an essential service to a large population who
would otherwise have few opportunities for travel, for social interaction or for
access to healthcare and other important services… The value of the RTP lies
far beyond transportation. It links many of the activities, contexts and services
that are vital to life in rural contexts and in so doing creates value for its users
and others.”
A closer analysis of each of the specific target groups identified as most socially
excluded in rural areas as a result of unmet transport needs follows.
Firstly, the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) identifies people on low incomes as a
target group under the Programme. There is no specific data reported on by the RTP
groups on this socio-economic cohort and there are acknowledged difficulties in
collection of such data from Programme beneficiaries on a journey-by-journey basis.
The targeting of lower income groups is by means of the planning process for the
RTP services, which relies on an analysis and ranking of service catchment areas
based on an accessibility and deprivation index developed by Pobal. As the
application of the accessibility and deprivation index has not yet been tested or
verified objectively it is not possible to assume the level of RTP beneficiaries in any
area that are likely to fall within this socio-economic cohort.
With regard to the second target group identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report
(2006), people with disabilities, there is no data reported on by the RTP groups
concerning the level or type of disability, i.e. whether physical, sensory or intellectual,
among the Programme beneficiaries. While there are acknowledged improvements on
the transport supply side in terms of the accessibility of RTP services, it cannot be
extrapolated from transport supply side data as to whether there is greater targeting of
people with disabilities among those with unmet transport needs in rural areas. This
data gap needs to be addressed.
As mentioned, regarding the improvements to RTP service accessibility, the increase
in fully accessible RTP services on the previous year‟s figures was 28% in 2008 and
11% in 2009. The increase in the number of passenger-assisted journeys on the
71
previous year‟s figures was 11% in 2008 and 18% in 2009. However, while overall
passenger journey numbers also grew over this period, proportionate increases in
passenger assisted services of total passenger journeys may not be significant. For
example, over the 2007-2008 period actual passenger-assisted journeys increased by
15,657 but proportionately remained static at 14% of total passenger journeys.
It is also acknowledged that the categories under which accessible services are
currently reported on by the RTP groups, i.e. fully accessible, partially accessible and
non-accessible, do not capture the specific levels and types of accessibility of vehicles
used in the RTP services. The PMS1 IT system will address this matter by allowing
RTP groups to provide information on the different aspects of accessibility and the
specific disabilities that the services cater for. It should be noted that there is no
agreed vehicle specification for the accessibility of small buses in Ireland.
The third target group, women, is identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report
(2006) as being at risk in terms of social exclusion connected with unmet transport
needs. The Table 6.5 below shows that the numbers of passenger journeys by women
has almost doubled between 2005 and 2009 and the proportion of passenger journeys
by women over men has remained around 67-68% over the same period.
Table 6.5: Numbers and proportion of RTP passenger journeys by women 20052009
Year
Total Passenger journeys
Number of journeys taken by
females
% of journeys taken by females
2005
651,391
439,153
2006
791,264
537,879
2007
998,350
673,085
2008
1,200,194
816,527
2009
1,289,025
877,036
67
68
67
68
68
Source: Pobal
It should be noted that qualitative research carried out since 2002 shows that social
exclusion and unmet transport needs is a significant problem for older men in rural
areas, suggesting that gender-based targeting with the older cohort of beneficiaries
under the Programme may need to be reviewed.
With regard to a fourth target group, older people, identified in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006), the 65+ age cohort has continued to constitute over a half
of all RTP passenger journeys between the period 2004 and 2009. In 2009 the
proportion of passenger journeys by the 65+ age cohort was 58%. There is also an
increase in the numbers of FTP journeys on the RTP, based on the previous year‟s
figures by 22% in 2008 and 8% in 2009. In addition, the Programme Performance
Monitoring Strategy has identified that females are more likely to use RTP services.
Based on 2008 data 74% of the FTP users of RTP were female and 26% male. This
supports the findings of other social science research in the area of older people and
travel which indicates that, despite the larger proportion of women to men in this age
cohort overall, older men are less likely to use RTP services than women.
The number of free travel pass journeys, as well as, the percentage FTP journeys of
overall passenger journeys, has increased over the period of the Programme to 65% in
2009 as illustrated in the following Table 6.6.
72
Table 6.6: Number and % of total RTP passenger journeys for FTP passenger
journeys 2004-2009
Year
Number of FTP
passenger journeys
FTP as a % of overall
RTP passenger journeys
2004
313,668
2005
407,383
2006
499,895
2007
631,844
2008
772,444
2009
832,231
61%
63%
63%
63%
64%
65%
Source: Pobal
In comparison, the level of FTP passenger journeys on Bus Éireann local/rural
commuter scheduled services, taken from a one-off recent piece of market research,
shows that 17% of passenger journeys relate to free travel pass (Milward-Brown and
PAN research, 2010). The findings of the market research in terms of FTP passenger
journeys (18.5%) across all Bus Éireann scheduled services, i.e. including
Expressway and City/Town services, is considered to be high. Therefore, as expected,
RTP is significant in terms of public transport options for the 65+ age cohort in rural
areas. A number of interview respondents for this Review indicated that the door-todoor demand responsive services provided under the Programme may suit the
transport needs of older people specifically where individuals have mobility and
access difficulties with regard to other conventional public transport services.
With regard to a fifth target group identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report
(2006), that of young people, the number of passenger journeys within this age cohort
have increase from 239,995 passenger journeys in 2004 to 543,805 in 2009. However,
the trend in the proportion of RTP passenger journeys by younger people under 25
years of age shows a downward trend by two percent over the period 2004 to 2009.
Table 6.7: Number and percentage of younger people <25 among RTP passenger
journeys
Year
% <5
% School Age*
% 18-25
Total % <25
2004
1.38
20.46
4.73
26.57
2005
0.98
21.29
4.44
26.71
2006
0.89
20.45
4.14
25.48
2007
0.71
22.22
3.74
26.67
2008
0.63
21.28
3.51
25.42
2009
0.49
19.76
4.01
24.26
Source: Pobal
The targeting of RTP services to the majority of the target groups mentioned above is
by means of a combination of flexible, semi-flexible and scheduled services. There is
an increase in the number of demand responsive RTP services on the previous year‟s
figures of 19% in 2008 and 17% in 2009. In 2009 there was a slight decrease in the
demand responsive services as a proportion of overall RTP services. In 2009 demand
responsive services made up approximately a fifth of all RTP services. However, it is
acknowledged that this categorisation does not fully show the true balance of fixedverses semi-scheduled services. It is thought that semi-scheduled services make up the
majority of RTP service type. The issue of categorisation is being addressed in the
73
categories being reported on under the PMS1 system by the RTP groups commencing
in 2011.
It should be noted, however, that whether a service type is fixed or semi-scheduled is
not a strong indicator of the targeting of the key demographic groups, for example, a
well planned fixed scheduled service could cater for large numbers of low income and
other target group beneficiaries. The balance of fixed- to semi-scheduled service may
have greater relevance in relation to unit cost analysis as it is generally assumed that
semi-scheduled services and demand responsive services involve a higher unit cost.
6.3.2 To extend transport coverage throughout rural Ireland
A key performance indicator identified within the Programme Performance
Monitoring Strategy by which to measure whether the RTP is fulfilling its role to
extend transport coverage throughout rural Ireland is the number of Electoral District
Areas (EDA) with RTP services. The data source for the number of EDAs with RTP
services is the GIS system, which was not available at the time of this Review. Other
output indicators, such as, number of RTP passenger journeys and services can
provide an indication of the expansion of RTP transport but it is not related to a
demographic or geographic context.
There is currently at least one RTP group in every County of Ireland. A map and
description of the development and growth in number of the RTP groups is contained
at Appendix I. Also there is an overall trend of increase in passenger journeys and
services over the years as illustrated in Table 6.8 below. The increase in the number
of passenger journeys on the previous year‟s figures was 20% in 2008 and 7% in
2009. The increase in the number of RTP services on the previous year‟s figures was
22% in 2008 and 8% in 2009.
Table 6.8: Trend in the number of RTP passenger journeys and services 20042009
Year
Number of RTP
passenger journeys
Number of RTP
services
Source: Pobal
2004
514,137
2005
651,391
2006
791,264
64,954
74,914
93,419
2007
998,350
120,753
2008
1,200,194
2009
1,289,025
146,771
157,106
The necessary source data to examine the number of EDAs with an RTP service is not
available and there is no available network map of all public transport bus services in
rural areas of Ireland against which to measure the RTP services in terms of the
overall bus network. It is envisaged that GIS may facilitate such measurement. The
number of RTP groups and number of passenger journeys and services indicate an
expansion of RTP services but without a demographic or geographic context for this
data it does not provide indicators to support a conclusion that the RTP has extended
its coverage throughout rural Ireland. While the provision of RTP services in every
County of Ireland suggests a degree of national coverage, overall, the level of data
74
required to supporting a conclusion of increased coverage of the RTP services to the
target groups over the period 2005-2009 is not available.
6.3.3 To extend transport services beyond the needs of older passengers
The key performance indicators identified within the PMS by which to measure the
impact of whether the RTP is fulfilling its role to extend transport services beyond the
needs of older passengers is the age profile of those passengers using the RTP
services. A second indicator would be the purpose of journey, but data is not currently
collected across the RTP groups under this indicator.
The responses from the survey of RTP groups carried out for this Review suggest that
RTP transport services are extending beyond those of older people. Many RTP groups
responses (9) suggested that the extension of access to a wider range of services and
destinations was the biggest improvement to RTP operations and services since 2007,
and some of these RTP group responses (6) referred specifically to diversification of
services for education, school and college. In particular the interview with the RTP
Network as part of the research for this Review, suggest that the RTP groups
themselves have worked at removing the perception that the RTP services are
transport for older people.
However, the data on the age profile of the RTP services, contained in Table 6.9
below, does not support the perception of diversification of RTP services beyond the
needs of older people. It illustrates that the >66 age cohort as a proportion of the total
is steadily increasing year on year with a decline in the other age cohorts. In 2007
there is a one-off increase in 2007 for the school age cohort and in 2009 the 18-65
cohorts increased slightly on the previous year. There is also no breakdown by target
group of the passengers in these age cohorts, particularly, the 18-25 and 26-65 age
cohorts, by which to assess deadweight in terms of provision of RTP services to nontarget group beneficiaries.
Table 6.9: Age profile of RTP passenger journeys
Year
% <5
% School Age*
% 18-25
% 26-65
% >66
2004
1.38
20.46
4.73
20.13
53.30
2005
0.98
21.29
4.44
19.10
54.20
2006
0.89
20.45
4.14
19.40
55.13
2007
0.71
22.22
3.74
17.82
55.52
2008
0.63
21.28
3.51
16.95
57.63
2009
0.49
19.76
4.01
17.93
57.81
*School Age means the age cohort 5-17 years
Source: Pobal
It may not be the case that all RTP groups conform to the age cohort profile of the
Programme as set out in Table 6.9. For example, a case study on Clare Accessible
Transport (CAT) illustrates how an RTP service can provide for a diverse range of
transport needs, i.e. beyond those of older people. The integrated transport services
provided by CAT include; HSE transport to care centres and appointments, Adult
Education and Back to Education Programmes, Youthreach and Clare Supporting
75
Employment Services (CSES). The case study does not provide an age profile of the
CAT RTP services.
In comparison to the age breakdown on RTP services, the % passenger journey
numbers in different age-cohorts of Bus Éireann local/rural/commuter scheduled
services, taken from one-off recent market research as illustrated in Table 6.10 below,
shows that only 13% of the passenger journeys on these services fall within the >60
age cohort, with the 18-40 age cohort making up the bulk of the passenger journeys
on these services. It is acknowledged that Bus Éireann services do not provide the
door-to-door, demand responsive services that would be necessary for many older
people with mobility difficulties. The finding of the market research in terms of the
social impact on older people as indicated by the proportion of passenger journeys
(16%) in the >60 age cohort across all Bus Éireann scheduled services, i.e. including
Expressway and City/Town services, is considered to be high.
Table 6.10: proportion of passenger journeys by age-cohort in 2010 on Bus
Éireann local/rural/commuter scheduled services
Age cohort
%
Passenger
journey
numbers
<18
5.3
18-21
14.8
22-30
28
31-40
17.4
41-50
11
51-60
10
>60
13
Source: Bus Éireann
Given the public service obligation requirement for Bus Éireann services funded
under public service contract, it is expected that there would be a wide variety of
transport users from the different age-cohorts using the services. The one-off market
research on Bus Éireann scheduled services provides an indication of the level of
different types of public transport needs on its local/rural/commuter services, as
illustrated in the Table 6.11 below. While this market research finds that there is a
balance between travel for economic purposes, i.e. work or college, and trips relating
to social connectivity, of the Bus Éireann interurban and commuter services over a
third of these passenger journeys arise from rural locations.
Table 6.11: Reasons for using Bus Éireann (scheduled services) – proportion of
local/rural/commuter services in 2010
Reason for Trip
Travel to work/education
Appointments (Health, etc.)/Personal meetings
Visiting friends/relatives
Socialising
Shopping
Tourism
Source: Bus Éireann
76
% Passenger journeys
35.2
22.3
13
9.5
8.7
11
6.3.4 Unintended consequences - displacement and deadweight
There is a lack of available evidence by which to measure the unintended
consequences of the Programme. These consequences have been identified as the
potential displacement of other transport services and the potential for deadweight
loss.
There is evidence to suggest that RTP services might risk displacing other transport
provision. This includes instances where RTP services are providing transport for the
purpose of employment or education or where RTP services are under contract for
HSE or School Transport services. However, it is the case that some rural school
pupils living in rural areas fall outside the criteria of the School Transport Scheme. In
cases such as these Bus Éireann subcontracts RTP services. The CTTC through the
consultation process for this Review have indicated that RTP services are in some
areas displacing private operator services. However, there is no available evidence to
support the existence or extent of displacement of other transport services by RTP
services.
The lack of data concerning the overall passenger bus transport network in Ireland
does not allow for assessments to be made concerning deadweight loss. Similarly,
there is no available evidence concerning deadweight through duplication of RTP
services in neighbouring areas. The lack of reported data concerning the different
income streams and levels by the RTP groups prevents any analysis around transport
services that might be provided without the RTP involvement in the area. Ideally, an
analysis of travel patterns among beneficiaries prior to introduction of the RTP
services under the Programme or a survey of user beneficiaries may allow for analysis
of deadweight loss.
6.3.5 Conclusion: The effectiveness of the RTP under the social inclusion
objective
With regard to the effectiveness of the Programme in terms of its social inclusion
impact, it is acknowledged that there are difficulties in establishing a causal
connection between the Programme activities and the final social inclusion outcome;
as is common to all social inclusion programmes. Despite the lack of data sources to
support performance indicators of social inclusion impacts, there is some evidence
found in qualitative research and research carried out for this Review through a
survey of RTP groups and interviews with stakeholders, that suggests the RTP has
social inclusion benefits for its passengers, in particular for the target groups of older
people and people with a disability.
However, there is not sufficient available data or evidence to conclude that the
Programme is effective in addressing expected intermediate outcomes of greater
targeting of transport services to the identified target groups of people with unmet
transport needs as identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006); increased
RTP service coverage Nationally; and, meeting target group transport needs beyond
those of older people.
77
Firstly, regarding the targeting of the identified target groups, it cannot be assumed
that the application of the accessibility and deprivation index by the RTP groups
during service planning ensures that all beneficiaries fall within the socio-economic
cohort of people on low incomes, as this is not being verified independently.
The level of people with a disability using the service is not known as a result of a
lack of availability of demand side data. Transport supply side data concerning the
level of accessibility of RTP services is not at the level required in terms of specifying
the level of accessibility of the services such as in terms of physical, sensory or
intellectual disability. In any case transport supply side data is not a strong indicator
of the targeting of people with different disabilities who have unmet transport needs.
Data on women using the RTP services show a positive trend in terms of maintaining
a higher proportion of women than men among Programme beneficiaries but
qualitative research since 2002 indicates that the gender-based targeting within the
65+ age cohort may need to be reviewed. There is also no significant trend indicating
greater targeting of younger people by the Programme, with older people still
representing over half of all Programme beneficiaries.
The available evidence concerning targeting through service type in terms of the level
of demand response services is not a strong indicator of the targeting of services to
specific groups and may be more meaningful in terms of unit cost analysis for the
measurement of Programme efficiency. Also there are acknowledged problems
concerning the categorisation of demand responsive, semi-flexible and fixedscheduled services by the RTP groups and Pobal. This issue is to be addressed under
the PMS1 IT system.
Secondly, data concerning the national coverage of RTP services also needs to be
strengthened by performance indicators that show the expected outcome in terms of
increase in passenger journeys and services in a geographic or demographic context
for example by EDA. It cannot be concluded that the Programme is more effective as
a result of increased number of RTP groups, increased passenger journeys or services
alone.
Thirdly, in terms of diversification of RTP services beyond the transport needs of
older people, the lack of available data concerning the purpose of journeys undertaken
by passengers presents a difficulty in terms of analysis of whether RTP services are
meeting transport needs of people beyond those of older people. However, the
analysis of passenger journeys by age cohort over the years indicates that the
Programme still caters more for older people, despite any perceptions that this is
changing.
In addition, there is a lack of data by which to measure displacement of other
transport services by the RTP or to assess the level of deadweight loss that might be
occurring as an unintended consequence of the Programme. Better information on the
income streams of the RTP groups as identified under Chapter 5, „Costs and
efficiency of the Programme‟ will assist in the assessment of displacement that might
be occurring as a result of greater diversification of RTP services and greater
integration of State funded transport provision through service contracts and, will also
78
assist in an assessment of potential deadweight loss in terms of transport services that
might operate without the Programme funding.
79
CHAPTER 7
CONSIDERATION OF POLICY AND ORGANISATIONAL OPTIONS
7.1 Introduction
This Chapter will consider the continued relevance of the Programme in terms of a
range of the other available policy, administrative and organisational options giving
ride to a preferred option, with due regard to the findings in the previous Chapters
concerning the objectives, effectiveness, efficiency and continued relevance of the
Programme.
7.2 Consideration of options
The policy options within which the Programme is to be considered in this Chapter
are set out in the Table 7.1 below, and a discussion concerning each option follows. It
should be noted that the options outlined below are not mutually exclusive and that
options 2 and 3 are related in terms of the achievement of efficiencies with regard to
Exchequer funding.
Table 7.1: Policy options
7.2.1. Discontinue the RTP in favour of other policy interventions under a social
inclusion objective through alternative administrative arrangements for funding, e.g.
direct payments or vouchers, or through non-transport policy mechanisms
7.2.2. Continue the RTP on the basis of increased efficiency
7.2.3. Continue the RTP on the basis of increased efficiency within the context of a
scheme for local integrated transport
7.2.1 Discontinue the RTP
With regard to the policy option of discontinuation of the Programme, the key
considerations include the findings of Chapter 6, „Effectiveness of the Programme‟,
concerning the lack of data by which to measure the effectiveness of the Programme
and the findings of Chapter 5, „Cost and Efficiency of the Programme‟, concerning
inefficiencies in Programme delivery.
It is noted that the value for money of this Programme relative to other transport or
social inclusion programmes has not been fully tested under the methodology of this
Review, an analysis which could be facilitated by future Government expenditure
80
assessments. However, the key findings of this Review raise serious questions
concerning the Programme value for money, as set out in the following sub-section a).
Other considerations, with regard to the policy option of Programme discontinuation
are set out in sub-section b) below. These considerations include the social inclusion
policy rationale of the Programme and the underlying connection made between
unmet transport needs in rural areas and social exclusions (Fitzpatrick Associates,
2006). This is echoed in a range of social inclusion and other public policy
programmes which have the provision of rural transport as a key element within the
programme success. However, there are acknowledged difficulties in establishing a
causal connection between transport provision and social inclusion and in the
measurement of social inclusion impacts. These difficulties extend to the
measurement of co-benefits in other sectoral areas as a result of changes in transport
provision, or as a result of any changes in other related factors such as car ownership
levels. Nevertheless, there is a consensus of perception among those consulted for this
Review that there have been social inclusion benefits for users of RTP services.
There is also some available evidence, as set out in sub-section c) below, of a
persistence of transport and access problems for rural dwellers generally and older
people in rural areas in particular.
a) Value for money considerations
There is a lack of available evidence concerning whether the Programme has been
effective in achieving a final impact in terms of its social inclusion objective. There is
also lack of available data concerning whether the expected intermediate outcome has
been achieved in terms of addressing the unmet transport needs associated with social
exclusion, i.e. addressing unmet transport needs through extending the target group
coverage, increasing national coverage of the Programme, and, diversify its services
provision beyond the transport needs of older people.
Purely, on a value for money basis there is a strong argument for discontinuing the
Programme. There are key findings of on-going inefficiencies in Programme
administration and delivery, in particular, recurring findings of high administration
costs which were highlighted in the review of the RTI and the review of the Rural
Transport Night Scheme, which was subsequently discontinued. This Review
identifies a realistic benchmark for Programme administration expenditure based
upon comparison with another transport based funding programme – the School
Transport Scheme.
The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 requires an assessment of public expenditure
on a Sectoral basis. It is not possible at this juncture to comment on the relative value
for money of this Programme within the context of Government expenditure generally
under the National Recovery Plan outside the framework for assessment of Sectoral
expenditure. With regard to the cross-cutting dimension of this Programme involving
transport provision and social inclusion it would be appropriate that any such Sectoral
review could involve comparisons with both other transport expenditure programmes
and other social inclusion programmes.
81
b) Unmet transport need and social exclusion
The Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2002) identifies the policy problem as a „rural
transport problem‟. While the market failure of transport in rural areas has been
acknowledged (Steer Davies Gleave, 2002; Fitzpatrick Associates, 2006), the
identification of market failure in itself is not a rationale for public policy
intervention. However, the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) goes further to
conclude that the serious levels of unmet transport needs for many people living in
rural areas has been identified as a key factor underlying levels of social exclusion in
rural areas. Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) puts forward a case for a policy to address
unmet rural transport needs under a social inclusion objective.
There is, however, a lack of available objective evidence which might enable us to
establish a causal connection between transport provision and social inclusion.
Similarly, there is no analytical framework available within an Irish context which
would enable us to measure changes in the levels of social exclusion, or inclusion,
arising as a result of changes in the level of transport provision. It is acknowledged
that both the measurement of social inclusion and co-benefits to other sectors arising
from social inclusion Programmes is a more general issue for analysis and one not just
for this Programme, i.e. requiring qualitative and quantitative indicators that could
translate social impacts into value for money outcomes.
Similarly, there is no available evidence by which to estimate the potential negative
social exclusion impacts on existing or potential Programme beneficiaries, e.g. in
terms of quality of life, health and autonomy, that might result following a decision to
discontinue the Programme. As part of the Review it was not possible to source
evidence or research in other Countries that might suggest any potential impacts for
costs arising elsewhere in the economy, such as the cost of residential health care,
which might arise as a result of discontinuation of a programme of transport provision
such as this Programme.
In this regard also, it is not clear the extent to which car ownership is a significant
factor in terms of the social inclusion of rural dwellers that are the target beneficiaries
of this Programme. Overall there is an increase in car ownership in rural areas as
indicated in CSO census statistics over the period 2002-2006. In 2006, 11.4% of rural
households in the State did not have a car compared to 13.8% in 2002. A further
examination of Census 2006 household and car ownership data for all areas of the
country outside the cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Dublin City and
County, shows that of the 64,368 single resident households in aggregate rural areas
with no car in 2006 there were 26,755 households where the single resident is aged
65+ years situated in aggregate rural areas (i.e. 13% of the 203,971 people aged 65+
living in aggregate rural areas in the State in 2006). However, there is no evidence
connecting the people within this statistic with the target group of this Programme of
people who are socially excluded as a result of unmet transport needs or indeed the
beneficiaries to date of the scheme.
However, some qualitative evidence in this Review suggests that the Programme has
social inclusion benefits in particular for older people and people with a disability.
This evidence includes the consensus of perceptions of stakeholders interviewed for
this Review, i.e. among the RTP groups and representive bodies for some of the target
82
group, such as, older people and people with disabilities. However, this evidence is
based on the perceptions of individuals and is not statistically representative, therefore
it holds a risk of bias. Other evidence includes the testimonials of passengers in the
Pobal Programme Performance Monitoring Reports and a qualitative study by Intel
(2009) on rural transport and older people.
c) The persistence of transport and access problems for rural dwellers
There is evidence suggesting transport and access problems in rural areas which
supports the policy for rural transport under a social inclusion objective, as follows,
-
-
-
research by the Vincentian Partnership for Justice and data from CSO
concerning the relative difficulty of rural dwellers, in comparison with their
urban counterparts, in accessing public transport and other social services;
UCD/UU ethnographic research of older people and rural transport (Ahern, A.
and Hine, J., 2010) suggesting that older people, particularly females, in rural
areas are an at-risk group in this regard.;
and, the review of public transport service in County Louth 2010.
There are also many social inclusion and rural and community policies placing
transport as a key element involved in social inclusion in rural Ireland. The policy
rationale for this Programme is framed in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006)
within a context of policies for rural and community development (While Paper,
1999) and social inclusion (National Anti Poverty Strategy, 1997) and the Department
of Transport policies concerning accessibility. The National Action Plan for Social
Inclusion (NAPSI, 2007-2016) and in the area of community health and older people,
the advice of the National Council for Aging and Older people, (2001) state that
transport is a key factor in independent living for older people.
Notwithstanding the above, the impact of discontinuation of the Programme may not
be significant for the State funding programmes connected with this Programme
under the social inclusion objective. For example, only a small number of RTP groups
are in receipt of CSP (8 RTP groups in 2009) and RSS (3 RTP groups in 2009, with a
combined total annual equivalent of 1.9 FTE‟s attributable to RTP) and it is likely that
placements could be found elsewhere for any recipients of CSP and RSS currently
involved in the RTP activities. Furthermore, regarding the FTP, it is not the intended
objective of this Programme to support the Free Travel Scheme which was intended
to better utilise existing public transport capacity through incentives for older people
to travel.
In conclusion of this Section 7.2.1, concerning the policy option of discontinuation of
the Programme, it is clear that there is a lack of evidence to support a conclusion of
Programme effectiveness in meeting its objective in terms of the social inclusion
impacts of the Programme or its impact on unmet transport needs.
There is some evidence supporting the continued relevance of the policy objective to
address unmet transport needs of target groups in rural areas under a social inclusion
objective. Firstly, the connection between unmet transport need and underlying
83
problems of social exclusion made in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) is
supported by a range of public policies including social inclusion, rural and
community development, health, transport accessibility, etc., which place transport as
a key factor in policy intervention towards greater social inclusion of at-risk rural
dwellers. Secondly, there is available evidence suggesting the persistence of transport
and access problems in rural areas, in particular for older people and people with
disabilities or mobility difficulty. This concurs with the 2002 data findings of unmet
transport needs in rural areas in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006).
Notwithstanding the significant findings of this Review concerning inefficiencies
which raise serious concerns over the value for money in continuing the Programme,
and the lack of evidence as to whether the Programme is effective, the consideration
as to whether or not to discontinue the Programme is finely balanced. There is a
consensus of perception among those consulted for this Review suggesting social
inclusion benefits for some users of RTP services in particular concerning the target
groups of older people and people with a disability. Furthermore, given the lack of
available data or evidence supporting the analysis of alternative administrative
mechanisms, it is not possible with any degree of certainty to recommend a viable
alternative administrative mechanism, either transport-based or non-transport, by
which to address the unmet transport needs of target groups in rural areas under a
social inclusion objective.
Consideration of the policy option for discontinuation of the Programme also gave
rise to consideration to a number of alternative transport and non-transport
administrative options for targeting funding to address social exclusion as a result of
unmet transport needs. The following sections, 7.2.1.1, 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3 provide an
outline the alternative options considered.
Based on the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) analysis of levels of unmet
transport needs in 2002 the key „at risk‟ target groups in terms of social exclusion are
people on low incomes, women, older people, people with a disability and young
people. More up-to-date available evidence suggests persistent levels of accessibility
and unmet transport needs in terms of rural dwellers generally and among older
people in particular. Consideration of any alternative administration option would
have regard to addressing the social inclusion and transport needs of these beneficiary
target groups.
7.2.1.1 Direct financial support to Programme beneficiaries for transport
services
Direct payment, credits or vouchers could be administered to people in the 65+ age
cohort, for example, in rural areas based on beneficiary criteria and the type of
transport services purchased. This type of funding scheme with a focus on the social
inclusion of older people might be more appropriate to the Department of Social
Protection in line with its current funding programmes for this age cohort, or by the
Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in line with other social
inclusion funding programmes targeted at rural beneficiaries.
84
The clear issue with this option is determining the level of Exchequer funding
required to meet demand from beneficiaries and for administration, monitoring and
enforcement of the Scheme. In addition, without more data concerning the level of
public transport services in rural areas, in the absence of the RTP, it might be the case
that SPSV is the only transport option for some target group beneficiaries, which
could give rise to affordability issues.
Similar funding schemes relating to transport costs for hospital appointments to assist
people with low incomes or with a disability include the Supplementary Welfare
Allowance Exceptional Needs Payment and the Mobility Allowance Scheme. The
advantage of these schemes is that the target beneficiaries may been identified in
advance through Supplementary Welfare Allowance or Disability Allowance,
therefore may already be subject to means-testing. A disadvantage of the
establishment of a funding scheme, for example, for direct payments for transport to
older people under a social inclusion objective is the risk of duplication with other
parallel services to this cohort and such a scheme would require identification of the
target group beneficiaries. The establishment of such a scheme would involve the
setting up costs of a system of means testing of the 65+ age cohort to assess among
other things how rurally located the individual applicants are and whether they have
other transport options available to them.
7.2.1.2 Supporting the transport services of existing social inclusion programmes
A further transport-based method of administering the funding is through other
existing social inclusion programmes. For example, to cover the transport costs of
projects targeting these specific target group beneficiaries under the CLAR (Ceantair
Laga Árd-Riachtanais) Programme. However, it is not clear the extent of cross-over
of many of the RTP existing and potential beneficiaries with beneficiaries of the
CLAR project activities. It would also not provide for transport by the target group
beneficiaries to non-project destinations, such as, for shopping or health
appointments.
Therefore, this administrative option may not have the reach of the RTP in terms of
the targeting of beneficiaries with unmet transport and social inclusion needs across
the rural population.
7.2.1.3 Other non-transport policy mechanisms under a social inclusion objective
Other policy mechanisms for addressing the social inclusion problem experienced by
those within the target 65+ age cohort or people with disabilities or mobility problems
in rural areas and their lack of access to key service might involve a community-based
scheme combining outreach and e-solutions, as more public and commercial services
are now available on-line. This could be combined with a scheme for greater social
supports for this target group through existing community and voluntary organisations
and initiatives.
E-solutions will have more relevance in terms of future policy as IT literacy and
availability improves in the population generally, as the age generations with IT
85
literacy move into the 65+ age cohort and with further national expansion of IT
networks and capacity. A thorough analysis is required concerning the potential for IT
and other non-transport policy measures to address the social exclusion problem as a
result of unmet transport needs, before a conclusion is made as to the feasibility or
VfM of this option.
7.2.2 Continue the RTP on the basis of greater efficiencies
As concluded in the previous Section 7.2.1, the consideration of whether to
discontinue the Programme is finely balanced. There is a lack of evidence to support a
conclusion concerning the effectiveness of the Programme in meeting its objective.
This lack of evidence relates, firstly, to achievement of the final outcome of social
inclusion impacts and, secondly, in terms of intermediate outcomes in addressing
unmet transport needs through extending the target group coverage nationally or
diversify its services provision beyond the transport needs of older people. There are
also significant findings of this Review concerning inefficiencies in Programme
delivery which raise serious concerns over the Programme value for money, and
which need to be addressed if the Programme is to continue.
In support of Programme continuation, there is a consensus of perception among
those consulted for this Review concerning social inclusion benefits to Programme
beneficiaries. There is also some available evidence to support the continued
relevance of the Programme policy objective to address unmet transport needs of
target groups in rural areas under a social inclusion objective.
Finally, there is a lack of available data by which to support a recommendation for an
alternative administrative mechanism for policy delivery.
In support of the current method of Programme delivery through community-based
transport, the Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) review of the RTI concluded that the
demand responsive, door-to-door services by the RTI augmented in some cases by
passenger assistance was suitable for rural dwellers and target groups with mobility
difficulties and that locally planned and designed transport services based on a „no
one size fits all‟ principle was successful.
The organisational options for continuation of the Programme are identified in Table
7.2 below and are discussed in the following sections.
Table 7.2: Organisational Options for continuation of the Programme
7.2.2.1 Delivery by Local Authorities procuring transport from private operators
or RTP groups
7.2.2.2 Delivery by Pobal and Programme restructuring on a sub-regional basis
7.2.2.3 Delivery by NTA following Programme restructuring on a sub-regional
basis
86
7.2.2.1 Delivery by Local Authorities procuring transport from private operators
or RTP groups
Local Authorities do not traditionally have a role in the provision of public transport
operations. Their role is the planning and provision of roads and some other transport
infrastructure locally to addresses the local transport service requirements. It is,
however, acknowledged that a greater Local Authority role in the area of transport
delivery at County level could be part of Smarter Travel policy or other policies with
regard to local service delivery. This Programme might also be considered within
such a context, but these are longer-term policy considerations. It is also
acknowledged that other jurisdictions such as the UK use local authorities for service
delivery. However, this is in the context of a much greater degree of devolved local
governance than is currently the case in Ireland.
Notwithstanding the above, consideration of the option for Local Authority delivery
of the Programme in the short- to medium-term might require, on the demand side, a
liaison function for the Local Authorities to support County level of unmet transport
and social inclusion needs assessment including, where possible, maintaining the
voluntary RTP group Board structures to support this function.
On the transport supply side Programme delivery by the Local Authorities might
involve,
Procurement of private operated transport services directly
Procurement of transport services from RTP groups that have separated in
terms of transport operations
A coordination/dispatch function for the Local Authorities in matching
individual beneficiary transport needs with service procurement
Management, administration and reporting function might be provided within
the existing Local Authority capacity, and,
In Counties where local development companies already are involved in
coordination of RTP services and these might continue to fulfil this role on
behalf of the Local Authority.
The benefits of Local Authority delivery of the Programme might include,
Savings in terms of reducing the management costs associated with 36 RTP
groups,
Optimising and building upon the local voluntary needs assessment structures
at County level directly by the Local Authorities that are located in each
County, including Community Development Boards and Local Development
Companies,
Savings in terms of administrative efficiencies and use of Local Authority
capacity
Minimum disruption to beneficiaries in terms of service levels and demand
responsive service availability through the new dispatch and transport
coordination functions of the Local Authority, and,
87
Procuring RTP and private operated transport services directly.
There are a number of caveats attached to this option. Firstly, public land transport
services are provided nationally in Ireland under the remit of the NTA as provided for
by the Transport Regulation Act 2009, albeit in consultation with the Local
Authorities where decisions for new transport services are concerned. Therefore,
giving responsibility to the Local Authorities for provision of transport services
locally would require an amendment to the legislative basis for these national
structures.
Secondly, there are structural considerations which could militate against Programme
delivery by the Local Authorities. Individual Local Authorities are organised within
County boundaries, a spatial organisation which does not lend itself to transport
provision across County boundaries. There would therefore be a requirement for a
high degree of cooperation between the different Local Authorities in terms of needs
assessments and on a day-to-day basis in terms of coordination and dispatch of
transport services. In practice, issues might arise in relation to the co-ordination and
delivery of services that would cross a number of County boundaries. There could be
related issues of apportionment of fare income or funding for services crossing
County boundaries. While the management of infrastructure across County borders,
such as, river-basin management is dealt with on an ongoing basis by the Local
Authorities, the management of transport services across county borders may hold
more challenges to be addressed exclusively under this option for Programme
delivery.
Finally, there could be additional staff costs involved in the establishment of Local
Authorities Programme delivery functions for coordination or transport needs and
dispatch functions. Although the requisite skills may exist in Local Authorities such
establishment may possibly involve additional public sector posts. In the short- to
medium-term at least, employment control framework constraints would militate
against additional recruitment within the Local Authorities.
As with the other options considered in this Chapter there is no available cost
appraisal concerning any potential additional costs that might be associated with
Programme delivery by Local Authorities. In addition, in order for the Local
Authority option to be viable in terms of transport delivery for this Programme the
regulatory and structural concerns would need to be addressed.
7.2.2.2 Delivery by Pobal and Programme restructuring on a sub-regional basis
Continued delivery of the Programme under the current organisational structures
would be contingent upon improved data concerning Programme effectiveness and
the achievement of efficiencies identified in this Review, in the short-term. The
findings in Chapter 5, „Costs and Efficiency of the Programme‟, also suggest that the
large number of RTP groups is a factor in the high administrative costs of the
Programme and this should be addressed within an organisational restructuring to
achieve greater efficiencies through shared services and better use of existing capacity
88
including IT capacity. Currently there are 36 RTP groups or operational centres, with
7 counties having two or more operational centres.
This option therefore involves Programme delivery through a rationalisation of RTP
structures and the continuation of Programme management by Pobal with a view to
bringing about efficiencies through,
greater shared services achieving economies of scale,
consolidation of the cost base across the RTP groups through greater
standardisation of practices and activities across the RTP groups, and,
greater use of existing IT systems, i.e. GIS and PMS1, to target resources
better, reduce duplication of activities involved in paper based recording and
reporting would support the new structures.
The outline for organisational restructuring would involve retaining community needs
driven identification with a more practical and cost effective approach to operations
supply, thereby splitting the operational (supply) side of RTP from the
community/needs identification (demand) side. This would not affect the service on
the ground except where greater efficiencies and targeting of services can be
achieved. Similarly, under this new operational centre structure many RTP groups
might continue to carry out work in their communities, but in a voluntary capacity
without overheads to the Programme. Full management of the transport supply would
be vested with the RTP operational centres.
The restructuring would take place over a period of 6-12 months and would involve
the following,
-
-
rationalising existing RTP groups into a maximum of 18 sub-Regional
operational centres (the optimum number may be as few as 12 operational
centres)
where there is fleet ownership, disengagement through social enterprise or
other means;
Staff restructuring to fulfil key functions of transport management, assessment
and co-ordination of transport needs and dispatch
Maintaining the voluntary county level RTP group Boards and county level
community structures for needs identification, planning and coordination.
The benefits of the re-organisation of current structures would include,
-
-
Supporting further necessary reductions in Programme administration costs
toward the achievement of a total proportion administration costs to of 13% of
overall Programme costs by 2013,
transition costs of restructuring like legal fees, set up costs recruitment etc.
would be met from within the Programme budget;
reduced direct staffing costs and management functions and greater
standardisation of salaries and wages for comparable posts;
89
-
-
-
facilitate better coordination, needs assessment and planning on a Programmewide basis and assist in targeting transport services and the reduction of
potential for service duplication;
structures organised to optimally provide for greater local integrated transport
systems with potential wider efficiency savings to the State in terms of the
other State funded transport provision; and,
the achievement of efficiencies through shared services, joint tendering and
procurement.
It should be noted that there is currently no available appraisal of this option for
organisational re-structuring and proceeding with this option would be contingent on
consideration in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport of a detailed
cost/benefit appraisal and implementation plan.
7.2.2.3 Delivery by NTA following Programme restructuring on a sub-regional
basis
As stated in the previous section the NTA has responsibility for the regulation and
oversight of public transport in Ireland under the 2009 Act and for the award of public
service contracts (PSC) on behalf of the Minister for Transport Tourism and Sport. In
the light of its regulatory role the NTA would also be well placed to take on the
regulatory responsibility for the public transport services under this Programme. The
European Regulation 1370/2007 provides for public transport services to be funded
by the State under PSC either by means of competitive tendering or in some cases by
direct award for a limited period. There may also be potential for adapting the
Programme services to a regulatory model such as in the UK whereby community
transport services on a not-for-profit basis in rural areas operate under a permit
scheme. Appendix O provides an illustration of the different aspects of regulation in
the Irish and UK passenger bus transport markets. The issues with regard to policy
and legislative options and requirements need to be explored further with regard to the
above.
Some the benefits arising from involvement of the NTA with the Programme include,
-
-
-
-
further ongoing Programme efficiencies and savings in terms of transport
supply side through the utilisation of NTA capacity and expertise in transport
provision,
the NTA to build on the current tools for needs assessment developed by
Pobal, in particular improvements in the level of data inputs to strengthen the
accessibility and deprivation index used by the RTP groups and in conjunction
with the NTAs social impact methodology, thereby improving the targeting of
„at risk‟ groups in terms of social exclusion in rural areas,
the NTA adding value to the information and IT systems currently operated by
Pobal in the areas of needs assessment and performance delivery through NTA
data holdings and better access to other operators in the market,
Better information on and management of issues of deadweight and
displacement in the overall passenger bus market in the assessment of the
90
-
-
effectiveness of rural transport services in addressing the Programme
objective,
The RTP services to be included in any review of rural/local public transport
carried out by the NTA thereby facilitating more comprehensive strategic
network planning by the NTA, longer-term planning of the network will result
in reduced costs,
Enabling wider efficiency savings to be achieved through more coordinated
and integrated public transport across the network,
The application and enforcement of standards across the passenger transport
market, including health and safety, accessibility and, in terms of competition,
to ensure a „level playing-pitch‟ for competition between passenger transport
providers with regard to transport services on routes that are compensated by
means of State funding as a consequence of a public service obligation.
However, it is not clear, given the current or restructured organisational arrangement
of the Programme how the NTA might reconcile its regulatory functions with
managing and administering the Programme. In particular, under the employment
control framework in place for public bodies, it is not clear what internal resources of
the NTA would be available in the short-term to deliver the Programme. Secondly,
while under this option the local needs assessment to continue to be carried out at
County level supported by the RTP boards on a voluntary basis, on consultation with
the NTA attention was drawn to a current capacity gap with regard to this type of
social needs assessment expertise. Therefore a more thorough analysis of this option
could be considered by the Department on the basis of a detailed proposal by the NTA
concerning bringing the Programme delivery within its remit.
Therefore, the option of delivery of the Programme by the NTA, in the short-term,
was not considered by the Review Steering Group to be feasible, not least with regard
a specific capacity deficit identified by the NTA with regard to the required expertise
in social inclusion needs assessment under the Programme and given the current
employment control framework context on public sector recruitment. As with the
other options there was no available cost appraisal of the various elements making up
this option for Programme delivery by the NTA and there was no business case set
out addressing how the NTA might deliver the Programme.
This option for Programme delivery by the NTA is considered by the Review Steering
Committee to be of a medium-term nature and could be considered by the Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport on the basis of a business case and better information
provided by the NTA. However, it was considered that there is scope to develop a
cooperative involvement of the NTA with the Programme in the interim period.
7.2.3 Continue the RTP within a scheme for local integrated transport services
A number of initiatives are currently underway to develop the potential for greater
integration of local transport services, involving the RTP and other transport providers
under the LITS pilots. The development of local integrated transport falls under a
sustainable transport objective in line the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Smarter Travel Policy (2009). In tandem, under the Smarter Travel transport policy a
91
pilot IT system that might have potential to assist as a support for local integrated
transport co-ordination is being developed in conjunction with RTP in Sligo. While
there is a perception among stakeholders interviewed as part of this Review of the
potential for Exchequer savings through the greater integration of State funded
transport services, including the RTP, the estimate of these savings has not been
quantified. There are also significant identified barriers to integration.
Among the potential barriers for the RTP within a scheme for local integrated
transport services is the integration of transport services that operate on a private, notfor-profit basis with public passenger transport services. The RTP currently falls
between these categories, providing public transport on a not-for-profit basis. The
RTP transport services as currently provided would benefit from a regulatory status
that acknowledges its unique characteristics within the passenger transport market,
particularly with regard to the potential to compete for transport contracts.
Within the sectors of private and public transport there are also barriers to integration.
For example, brokerage of vehicles between charitable groups could have insurance
implications, implications with regard to vetting of the driver, for example as required
for SPSV drivers, and must take account of availability and maintenance of the
vehicle for its primary purpose. Concerning integration of public bus transport
services and infrastructure an example of a key barrier is the location information,
accessibility and availability of bus stops for use by all bus operators, this is being
addressed by the NTA.
Furthermore, with Bus Éireann , the RTP and the NTA, in the case of licensed routes,
involved in the separate coordination of their respective sectors of the passenger
transport market, this does not readily lend itself to the integration of these transport
services locally. Local Bus Éireann branches and the RTP groups co-ordinate their
transport services locally, with some ad hoc co-ordination with other local public and
private transport services occurring. Private operators are co-ordinated at a national
level through the passenger bus route licensing system administered by the NTA and,
similarly, SPSV (not including dispatch) licensing is administered on a national rather
than local basis by the NTA (CTR).
The evaluation of the LITS pilot process to date has demonstrated the potential in
integrating services at a local level, however success in achieving integration has been
limited due to a number of factors, not least, the need for strategic drivers to create
change which would result in more integrated transport on the ground, a factor
identified through the LITS pilot process. These drivers for potential change towards
greater integration include, co-ordination at a strategic level between the funding
Departments and other key stakeholders, co-ordinating structures to set standards and
service requirements, a standardised approach to facilitate joint procurement of
tendered and contracted services, integration of fares and ticketing, a common journey
or network planner for all transport services, allowing all possible journey option to
be visible and optimised and the supporting legal framework to ensure transport
service integration.
Greater integration of local transport services is aligned to the key goals and targets in
the Smarter Travel Strategy, which identifies actions in relation to Rural Transport
and School Transport in particular. Developments under the IT pilot project in Sligo
92
funded under Smarter Travel could have potential use within the context of an Irish
based IT support system for the local coordination of transport services. In terms of
wider economic policy and the driver for savings under the National Plan for
Recovery 2010-2014, the experiences to date on the pilot LITS and the cross-border
rural transport pilot reflect the scale of the task involved in achieving local integrated
transport and the level of ongoing work required in this area before wider efficiency
savings can be realised.
The community-based model of the transport provision under this Programme, i.e. for
the identification of transport needs locally and for transport service provision through
pre-booked demand responsive services, as well as the range of transport service
modes that they incorporate, bus, SPSV and community car, are all factors that would
lend themselves to a Scheme for local integrated transport provision. However, the
organisational structures of this Programme may not be the best available option with
regard to integration given the key findings of this Review concerning the
inefficiencies in Programme administration and operations.
Furthermore, the lack of data concerning possible displacement or deadweight with
regard to RTP services suggests that not all RTP services as they currently operate
may have a strategic role or benefits within a local integrated transport system.
Furthermore the transport services for the general public provided under a scheme of
locally integrate transport with a sustainable transport objective would not necessarily
cross over with transport services with a social inclusion objective, i.e. catering for
very specific and sometimes specialised transport needs and requirements.
7.3 Continued relevance of the Programme – the preferred policy option
This Review concludes that while there is a lack of available data to support a
conclusion of Programme effectiveness in meeting its objective, there is some
evidence that supports the continued relevance of the policy objective to address
unmet transport needs of target groups in rural areas under a social inclusion
objective.
This Review contains key findings concerning inefficiencies in Programme
administration and delivery which need to be addressed if the Programme is to
continue. Furthermore the lack of available evidence supporting the effectiveness of
the Programme needs to be addressed, both in terms of social inclusion impacts in
terms of meeting expected intermediate outcomes, i.e.
-
addressing unmet transport needs through extending the target group coverage,
increasing national coverage of the Programme, and,
diversifying its services provision beyond the transport needs of older people.
Any recommendation of this review concerning a preferred organisational option for
programme delivery must be predicated upon these identified value for money issues
being addressed in the short-term.
In addition, it is acknowledged that under any of the options for Programme delivery
considered in this Section, the status of the transport services provided under the
93
Programme needs to be clarified within the context of the system of public transport
regulation in Ireland and the wider policy context of State funding of passenger
transport requiring regulated competition in the market.
Concerning the option for delivery of the Programme by Local Authorities within the
short- to medium-term, notwithstanding the regulatory and structural issues identified
on the transport supply side, the Review Steering Committee view was that there is
scope for greater alignment of the Local Authorities with the Programme on the
demand side, in terms of a role in transport planning and the requirement for transport
needs assessment under the RTP. Many RTP groups already have involvement with
the Local Authorities in their areas to varying degrees around the country for the
purposes of transport planning and needs assessment, as set out in the table at
Appendix S.
To support the policy option of continuation of the Programme delivery by Pobal and
the RTP groups it would be expected that data and reporting systems are in place to
support the evaluation of the Programme achievement of expected intermediate
outcomes, within a very short timeframe within 2011, by which to make an
assessment concerning the Programme‟s effectiveness and continued relevance.
Continuation of Programme delivery by Pobal and the RTP groups would also be
predicated on an achievement of the efficiencies identified in this Review, as well as,
a detailed appraisal by Pobal of the further efficiencies to be achieved through
organisational re-structuring on a sub-regional basis. The organisational structures
under this option would potentially have greater fit-for-purpose in terms of
Programme delivery and in terms of integrated local transport and the achievement of
combined costs savings for a range of State funded transport provision.
The consideration of the option for NTA delivery of the Programme by the Review
Steering Committee it was concluded that this was a medium-term organisational
option. However, it was considered that in the interim period the NTA could
potentially have a greater involvement with the Programme in terms of regulation and
greater transport integration. On the transport supply side there is potential for added
value through Programme delivery by the NTA involving,
monitoring of Programme deadweight and displacement of transport services,
strategic planning for the whole public passenger transport network,
the application and enforcement of standards including ensuring a „level
playing-pitch‟ in terms of market competition, and,
co-ordination and integration of public passenger transport operations and
infrastructure.
However, the medium-term policy option of Programme delivery by the NTA would
require a more robust consideration by the Department of Transport Tourism and
Sport based on a detail proposal by the NTA.
With regards to the policy option for continuation of the Programme within the
context of local integrated transport systems, work is ongoing in terms of potential
delivery options for more sustainable and integrated local and rural transport
provision and the potential for achievement of wider efficiency savings in terms of a
94
range State funded transport provision. However, the Review Steering Committee
view is that within the scope of this Review there were no specific value for money
recommendations arising for the Programme with regard to LITS or Smarter Travel
Policy.
95
CHAPTER 8
KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out the main findings of the Review with regard to the degree to
which the Programme is efficient an effective in the achievement of the Programme
objectives as examined in the previous Chapters 4, 5 and 6, as well as, the Review
conclusion following the discussion in Chapter 7 concerning the preferred policy and
organisational option for public policy intervention.
8.2 The Programme objective and its continued relevance
A key finding of the Review is that the connection between the high-level social
inclusion objective through to the Programme targets and supporting performance
indicators is not clearly made. The Programme‟s cross-cutting high-level social
inclusion objective is not specifically mentioned within the Department of Transport
Strategy Statement. Similarly, within the agreed MoU between the Department of
Transport and Pobal and other relevant Programme documentation, including the
principles for the RTP groups, there is a need for a clearer connection to be made
between stated objectives and aims, targets and key performance indicators, linking
them to the high-level social inclusion objective.
While a key finding of this Review concerns the lack of available data to support
Programme assessment, as set out in Section 8.4, the continued relevance of the
Programme objective is supported by a number of factors. Firstly, by the connection
between unmet transport need and underlying problems of social exclusion made in
the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006). This is supported by a range of public
policies including social inclusion, rural and community development, health,
transport accessibility, etc., which place transport as a key element within policy
intervention towards greater social inclusion of at-risk rural dwellers. However, that
there is no available evidence in an Irish context to suggest a connection between
changes in transport provision and levels of social inclusion. Secondly, there is some
available evidence suggesting the persistence of transport and access problems in
rural areas, in particular for older people and people with disabilities and mobility
difficulties.
While the levels of car ownership have increased in rural areas, the impact of this
trend on levels of unmet transport needs or on social exclusion among the target group
beneficiaries of this Programme is not clear.
8.3 Effectiveness of the Programme
Notwithstanding the difficulties in measuring improvements to social inclusion as a
final outcome of this transport-based Programme, the perception of some stakeholders
96
involved in the research carried out for this Review suggests that this Programme has
social inclusion benefits for people in rural areas who use the RTP services and in
particular those people in the target groups, i.e. older people and people with a
disability. However, these views were not taken from beneficiary level and are based
solely on the views of individuals within RTP groups and representative organisations
concerning some categories of the beneficiary passenger target groups. Supporting
this view are some testimonials from RTP users contained in the Programme
Performance Monitoring Reports (Pobal, 2008 and 2009) and some available
independent ethnographic research (Intel, 2009) (Ahern, A. and Hine, J. 2010).
However, it should be noted that this evidence reflects the views of some beneficiaries
and, therefore, may not be representative.
With regard to the expected intermediate outcome of the Programme, i.e. greater
transport provision targeted at people living in rural areas who are socially excluded
as a result of unmet transport needs, a key finding of this Review concerns the need
for quantitative data by which to measure the current level of social exclusion as a
result of unmet transport needs, and the extent of improvements, if any, that have
been made which can be attributed to this Programme. Table 8.1 below contains key
findings of this Review with regard to Programme effectiveness.
Table 8.1: Key findings of Programme effectiveness in achieving the expected
intermediate outcome
Expected
Findings
Chapter 6
Intermediate
Reference
Outcome
Increase in
target group
coverage
Impact on the level of unmet transport need:
6.3.1
The number of actual RTP users in 2009 has not seen
an increase to the extent envisage by estimates for
2011 in Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006)
There is no up-to-date actual data on unmet transport
need or travel frequency of RTP passengers
There is scope to review the high-level target for
social inclusion for 1 trip per week per person
recommended in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report
(2006). This target is out of date and should be
redesigned to take account of current demand and
service delivery patterns
It is not possible to assume all services on routes with
a high ranking in terms of the Pobal deprivation and
accessibility index target beneficiaries within the
identified target social-economic group of people on
low incomes.
There is no available data on passenger journeys
taken by people with disabilities, physical, sensory or
intellectual
Data on the level of accessibility of RTP services
including availability of passenger assistants is not
detailed enough
97
The high level of passenger journeys by women on
the RTP services has been maintained relative to
men, this is also reflected in the high levels of women
using FTP
Findings of qualitative research carried out since
2002 is that rural men could be a target group under
this Programme, suggesting scope to review the
original target groups identified in the Fitzpatrick
Associates Report (2006)
There has been a slight downward trend by two
percent in the proportion of passenger journeys by
younger people between 2004 and 2009, while the
actual numbers of journeys has doubled over the
same period
Trends supported by available data show levels of
passenger journeys within the age cohorts, by gender
and FTP users but it is not clear whether these
passenger journeys addressed unmet transport needs
The proportion of flexible or demand-responsive
services is not clear due to differing interpretation by
the RTP groups concerning the categories of service
model. The level of flexible or demand-responsive
services is not a strong indicator of better targeting of
services.
Increase in
national
coverage
Necessary data on the number of Electoral District 6.3.2
Areas with RTP services was not available
Output data on increase number of passenger
journeys and services indicate an expansion of RTP
services but not in a demographic or geographic
context
There is an increase over the period of the review in
the number of RTP groups, to cover every County.
This however is not in itself an indicator of greater
national coverage by the Programme in terms of the
target group beneficiaries.
Greater
diversification
of RTP
services
Necessary data on the purpose of RTP passenger 6.3.3
journeys was not available
The RTP services cater for passengers across the age
cohorts but trends between 2004-2009 show over half
of passenger journeys remain in the 65+ age cohort
Perceptions of some respondents consulted for this
review among the RTP groups is that RTP services
have diversified beyond the transport needs of older
people, but this perception is not supported by the
quantitative data
98
8.4 Measurement of the effectiveness of the Programme - findings concerning
lack of data
The lack of the necessary data by which to measure the effectiveness of the
Programme in meeting the social inclusion objective or in achieving the intermediate
expected outcomes, is a serious gap in the evaluation evidence required to support a
rationale for Programme continuation.
8.4.1 Unmet transport needs
Initial baseline quantitative data concerning the levels of unmet transport need in rural
areas generally and for socially isolated target groups specifically can be found in the
2006 Fitzpatrick Associates study based on a national rural transport survey in 2002
compiled by the Community Development Boards of the Local Authorities. A
preliminary analysis has been set out in this Review with regard to an estimate for
2009 RTP users against Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) projected estimates for 2011.
However, the estimates and assumptions underlying the data cannot be verified by
actual data and trends, i.e. of unmet transport needs and of travel patterns of RTP
passengers and frequency rates of usage.
8.4.2 Connecting to high-level targets
While there is a system of Programme performance monitoring in place, a key
weakness of the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy is with regard to the
measurement of the Programme effectiveness in achievement of the social inclusion
objective. The above Strategy does not provide for the connection between the targets
for Programme delivery and the high-level targets relating to the social inclusion
objective. While the targets in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report (2006) may be based
on assumptions relating to growth in Programme funding and levels of unmet
transport need, there is also a paucity of necessary data sources to support conclusions
in this area, e.g. data relating to travel patterns, connectivity and purpose of trips. This
highlights a failure within the context of the MoU and to establish and maintain an
agreed monitoring framework for the Programme.
8.4.3 Unintended consequences
In addition, there is no available data concerning deadweight loss with regard to,
the extent to which the transport services under this Programme might have
occurred through non-State funded community and voluntary efforts,
the extent of use of the transport services under this Programme by non-target
group beneficiaries, and,
whether RTP services are overlapping with rather than connecting with other
transport services.
99
The private bus operator‟s representative group, as part of the consultation for this
review, suggested that there is displacement of private bus services by RTP services.
The necessary financial data on the various income streams of the RTP groups has not
been recorded centrally under the Programme and therefore was not available for
analysis under this Review. This is particularly important as some RTP services are
providing transport for HSE clients or for school transport under contract. While the
principles of the RTP services are to complementing rather than compete with
existing or other commercial or State transport services, this needs to be subject to an
objective analysis. Despite the lack of data there is a clear risk that the existence of
multiple funding streams for RTP groups may facilitate cross-subsidization of
services and displacement of other private and public transport services.
An underlying concern with regard to the potential for displacement of other public
transport services by transport services under this Programme needs to be addressed
in terms of the overall status of the transport services provided under this Programme
within the existing public passenger transport regulatory framework.
8.4.4 Programme impact on beneficiaries
There were identifiable data gaps with regard to data sources supporting the
performance indicators of impact i.e. thematic impact research, under the Programme
performance and monitoring strategy, which were not in place, as a consequence of
the high resource demands involved in carrying out such research. There are also
acknowledged difficulties with measurement of social inclusion impacts. The need for
quantitative and qualitative data to support performance indicators of social inclusion
impacts that can be translated into value for money assessments is not specific to this
Programme.
8.4.5 Programme output
There should be better alignment between the information and data reported by the
RTP groups and the reporting requirements of the Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport. For example, the range of sub-categories under the output indicator of
model of service that is notified to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,
i.e. scheduled service, demand responsive service and occasional service, is different
to those requested from the RTP groups and Pobal envisage further changes to the
sub-categories and greater clarity for the RTP groups concerning the definition of
each sub-category. The subcategories under accessibility, i.e. fully accessible and
partially accessible do not provide sufficient information concerning the level of
vehicle and service accessibility.
Consideration should also be given to the usefulness of other output indicators for
comparative and reporting purposes. Recording the number of unique passengers/
users of RTP services would be a more meaningful indicator than the number of
passenger journeys. Having passenger/kilometres as an indicator would be useful as a
key measure of geographic coverage and for the purpose of making comparisons with
100
alternative public transport services. More data concerning travel patterns and purpose
of travel, capacity of services, times and frequency of travel, and connecting trips
could also be useful in terms of decision-making for Programme management and
service delivery across the RTP groups, as well as, a measure of the overall extent and
coverage of the RTP services.
On the transport demand side there is a need for better data on the target groups, e.g.
on the level of women, young and older people with unmet transport needs who are
benefiting from the Programme. Data on the levels of people with disability whether
physical, sensory or intellectual should also be collected. The assessment of needs,
including the socio-economic targeting of people on lower incomes, using the
accessibility and deprivation index should be strengthened with the necessary data
inputs. The GIS IT capability should be used to assist in the objective verification of
the local assessments made at County level.
In addition, the online integrated GIS and PMS1 data systems, which might have
allowed for easier access to relevant output data concerning, for example, to indicate
increased coverage in demographic or geographic terms, were not in place in time for
this Review.
8.5 Costs and efficiency of the Programme in meeting its objectives
The following Review findings on cost and efficiency raise serious concerns about the
efficient delivery of the Programme and identify specific areas where cost efficiencies
could be achieved by Pobal and the RTP groups. It is clear that certain inefficiencies
have worsened since the Programme became mainstreamed. These Programme
inefficiencies represent an opportunity cost elsewhere in the economy not least in
terms of the potential lost social inclusion benefits to rural dwellers in other parts of
the country where there is also identified unmet transport need
It should be noted that costs analysis contained in this Review uses data up to and
including 2009 figures and does not include 2010 data. However, this should not
materially affect the relevance of the Review findings concerning Programme
efficiency or the recommendations arising. It is also noted that the financial data
concerning the different income streams of the RTP groups, which was not available
for this Review, affected both the findings relating to the cost ratio of inputs to
outputs and the outcome of preliminary unit cost data analysis carried out under the
Review.
8.5.1 Programme costs
There has been an increase in passenger journeys and RTP services over the period
2004-2009. However, this has been exceeded by an increase in State funding over the
same period and by the rate of increase in RTP group administration costs in
particular over the period 2007-2009. In 2005, the subvention for Rural Transport was
less than 50% that of the Regional Airports whereas in 2009 it amounted to 80% of
the per passenger journey subvention for the Regional Airports. In addition, when
compared to Bus Éireann costs, the findings for the RTP are not favourable. As a
101
direct comparison this would indicate that the value for money on the RTP is
decreasing. This shows that the Programme is inefficient and in particular that
inefficiencies exist in the cost control of the RTP groups.
Analysis of the breakdown of RTP group (gross) costs suggest that the high level of
salaries and wages, rather than an increase in staff numbers, make up the largest
amount of the costs increase, this indicates that RTP groups are not efficient in terms
of staffing resources. With regard to operational costs and costs for salaries and wages
in particular it is reasonable to expect that a greater number of services will require a
greater number of drivers, however, with regard to dispatch operators and
administrative staff it would also be expected to see economies of scale occurring in
terms of a smaller increase in associated costs.
In addition, within the operational costs breakdown the greatest increase is for subcontracting of RTP services to the private operator transport sector, which is expected
given the high growth in service numbers and the limited sources for capital finance
for the RTP. However, the increase is much higher than would be expected relative to
passenger journey numbers, e.g. 30% versus 20%. It was not possible to assess the
total revenue relating to capital expenditure, as to date only revenue associated with
Programme expenditure is reported on by the RTP groups.
8.5.2 Administration costs
Taken together the administration costs for the Programme are high. High
administration costs has been a persistent concern with this Programme as indicated in
the Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) review of the RTI Group costs and highlighted in
the review of the Rural Transport Night Service carried out by the then Department
for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (2009). Since 2008, there has been a
decrease in Pobal administration costs through staff cuts and other cost savings but
there is further significant scope for streamlining these costs.
Administration costs as percentage of total costs of the RTP groups has also decreased
since 2008, however in 2009 still made up 22% of total costs. This figure would still
appear to be too high and is an area where further savings are possible. By reducing
the RTP group administration cost by a 10% from 22% proportion of total costs a
saving of approximately €1.2m based on 2009 figures would be achieved.
The above savings would result in that total administration costs as a percentage of
Exchequer funding for the Programme falling to 15%. This figure is still in excess of
the administration cost level for other Exchequer funded transport programmes. For
example on the School Transport Scheme, the comparable administration costs in
2008 amounted to 14% with a further reduction recommended in the Review of the
Scheme in 2010. For this Programme it is recommended that a further €300k of
savings on administration costs is made. Assuming there are no further savings to be
made from the administration budget from the RTP groups themselves, then this
further reduction should come from Pobal‟s own administration budget. Based on
2009 figures this would reduce Pobal‟s administration spend to €800k and would
result in total administration expenditure of the Programme amounting to €1.8m,
102
down from €3.3m in 2009 and achieving 13% total administration costs as a
proportion of total Exchequer funding.
It is clear that although savings have already been made there remains a lack of clarity
and transparency as to where savings were made within reported RTP group accounts.
There are a number of areas where efficiency savings can be made, e.g. at
management and administration levels and through the cessation of inefficient
services.
8.5.3 Operating costs
The analysis of RTP group level data on cost per passenger journey and per service
show an extreme range of costs from €22.00 to €364.00 per service. There are a
number of factors to which this broad range of costs could be attributed, for example,
population density, journey distances, number of demand-responsive services, number
of FTP passengers and efficiency in operating costs. A number of these factors are
related to inefficiency of some RTP services, in particular where there is excessively
low service capacity utilisation or low „load factor‟.
To draw conclusions regarding the relative cost efficiency of the services provided by
RTP groups would require cognisance of the range of variable factors. However, a
preliminary review of per service and per passenger journey operating costs suggest
that there is scope to achieve greater efficiency at the level of Programme activity
across the RTP groups through greater use of cost control mechanisms and incentives
for performance, e.g. load factor and unit cost benchmarking.
The effect of unit cost may be underestimated as it is not clear if all costs and
expenditure by RTP for Transport activities have been included. Similarly, the RTP
groups do not report on all other non-State sources of revenue and income by source
type. The lack of information on sources of income has represented a serious
drawback to the work of this Review. An analysis of funding is a basic pre-requisite
for unit cost analysis and this data gap needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.
8.5.4 Fare Income
As illustrated in the previous analysis of unit costs and the level of RTP services and
passenger journeys, there are issues of capacity utilisation that need to be addressed in
order to increase passenger numbers and related fare income. This can be achieved
through better planning of services, matching service mode to passenger demand,
alternative scheduling, different routes, as well as, better information and promotion
on services locally and targeting services to the key beneficiary groups.
Income per passenger journey for RTP is low when compared to Bus Éireann, which
has commercial services and carries significantly less proportion of FTP passenger
journeys on its local/rural/commuter scheduled services than the RTP as a percentage
of its total passenger journeys. However, income per fare paying passenger journey on
RTP services is similar to Bus Éireann income per passenger journey levels. In the
absence of any comparative analysis on the price elasticity of demand as it might
103
apply to the RTP services, the effect on passenger demand of raising RTP fares
cannot be concluded. However, a negative impact on the affordability of the RTP
services would certainly be counter to the equality of access principle under the social
inclusion objective of the Programme. Affordability impacts might be greater for
some RTP groups more than for others, as there appears to be a variety of fare levels
and structures in operation across the RTP groups based on available data from 2007.
There is no fares policy being applied across the RTP services and the absence of onboard ticketing makes the control of fares difficult in particular for „hail and ride‟.
However, „hail „n ride‟ makes up only a small proportion of RTP passenger journeys,
13% in 2008. There is scope for standardization of fares across the RTP groups and
services, taking account of the variety of transport modes and models in operation, as
a first step towards exploration of the options for increasing fare levels and in doing
so increase the potential for raising revenue and thereby achieve a reduction in State
funding of the Programme.
8.5.5 Free Travel Pass (FTP)
There are more FTP than fare paying passenger journeys on RTP services. In
comparison to the proportion of FTP passenger journeys on Bus Éireann
local/commuter/rural services there are a significantly higher proportion of FTP
passenger journeys on the RTP services. The cost to the Department of Social
Protection for FTP passenger journeys on the RTP services has been far below the
cost to the Department of Transport. Comparison with Bus Éireann services with
regard to this division of funding concerning FTP passenger journeys was not possible
due to the necessary data sets not being available.
8.5.6 Discretionary free travel
The „other free‟ category of RTP passenger journey comprises of clubs and groups
who are provided with transport but do not make a contribution towards it, as well as,
for children, who travel for free. The number of „other free‟ passenger journeys has
grown over the period of the RTP at a greater rate than fare paying passenger
journeys, which has declined over the same period. Similarly, the cost burden
associated with the „other free‟ category is also increasing year-on-year, particularly
in relation to fare income available from RTP services. The „other free‟ passenger
journey category amounted to 5.9% of Programme passenger journeys in 2009. With
an operational spend by the RTP groups of €7,569,501, this indicates an estimated
potential cost saving calculated on a per passenger journey basis of up to €450,000 if
this category of travel was terminated.
8.5.7 Summary of key findings concerning cost and efficiency of the Programme
The following Table 8.2 provides a summary of the key findings contained in Chapter
5, ‟Cost and efficiency of the Programme‟.
104
Table 8.2: Summary of findings concerning costs and efficiency of the
Programme
Cost/Revenue
Key Findings
Chapter 5
Category
Reference
Programme
5.2
Of the four State funding streams to the RTP over
Costs
the period 2002-2009 the Department of Transport
has contributed to the largest proportion of costs of
the Programme
Programme administration costs have increased as a 5.2.1 &
percentage of total spend over the 2005-2009 period 5.9.4
5.9.5
While there has been a reduction in Pobal
administration costs in recent years, i.e. since 2008,
further work is required to continue to reduce these
costs
5.9.2
Pobal continues to play a role in supporting
individual RTP groups rather than support delivery
at a Programme level, placing further demands on
administrative resources available to Pobal and
raising questions concerning residual
underdevelopment of capacity in some RTP groups.
This is not consistent with growth in salary levels
across staff in RTP groups
It is not clear whether the optimal interface between 5.9.6
Pobal and the RTP Network of RTP groups is being
achieved. Also, there is a lack of clarity with regard
to the RTP Network role and with regard to the
funding source through RTP group membership fees
and any conflict of interest or value for money issues
arising.
5.9.2 &
Cost efficiencies through economies of scale for
5.9.3
example in terms of joint procurement or shared
service cannot be achieved within the current
organisational structure and the large number of RTP
groups
Exchequer subvention makes up the vast majority of
5.3
reported RTP groups receipts. The full estimate of
RTP group income is not available centrally. The
lack of data on the different income sources of the
RTP groups is a major deficiency in financial
reporting.
5.6
The increase in State funding of the Programme over
the last six years has not seen an equivalent increase
in passenger journey numbers or service numbers
A direct comparison with the Regional Airports
5.7
regarding the subvention per passenger journey and
total percentage subvention indicates that value for
105
money is not being achieved by the RTP in relative
terms and is worsening in comparative terms5.
Volunteerism at all levels of Programme activity 5.9.5
(1,160 volunteers in 2009) from Board membership,
as Community Car drivers, Passenger Assistants and
in many other operational, administrative and
advocacy areas contribute significant cost savings,
estimated by Pobal up to €350,000 based on 2008
figures
RTP group
Administration
Costs
RTP group
Operating Costs
As a proportion of overall RTP group expenditure
from Department of Transport funding,
administration costs increased sharply by 51% over
the period 2006-2007 when the Programme was
mainstreamed, but has declined in subsequent years.
Notwithstanding the reduction in administration
costs since 2008 the level of administration costs for
the Programme remains high
Based on 2009 figures, there is a wide variance in
the proportion of administration costs for individual
RTP groups above the 22% identified for total RTP
group administration costs, and in some newer RTP
groups the proportion administration costs were
over 40%.
Clarity and transparency is required concerning
recent reported cost reductions and going forward in
terms of reported projected and actual costs
The increase in the wages and salaries costs of the
RTP groups does not indicate that the RTP groups
are being sufficiently efficient in terms of resources
The large number of RTP groups does not facilitate
administrative cost efficiencies or beneficial
economies of scale through shared services.
5.9.1
While some increases would be expected due to the
increase in passenger services over the 2004-2009
period, it is outweighed by the increase in
operational expenditure
Operating costs has seen the largest increase as a
percentage of total RTP group costs between 20072009
Wages and salaries have more than doubled between
2007-2009 as a result of increase in levels of wages
and salaries rather than the increase in staff numbers
The cost of sub-contracting services has increased by
39% between 2007 and 2009 and there is little scope
5.9.1
5
5.9.1
5.9.1
5.9.1
5.9.2
5.9.3
5.9.3
5.9.3
5.9.3
It is accepted that a comparison of aviation and rural transport may not be like-for-like comparison
due to the differing nature of the transport services provided. Nevertheless, the different trends in the
proportion of State subvention required for both types of service is worth noting.
106
for cost efficiency through joint procurement within
the current RTP group structures, whereby each RTP
group tenders separately for services
The increase in RTP operational expenditure over
the period 2007-2009 has far outweighed the
increase in operational expenditure of Bus Éireann
over this period
Some RTP groups are getting far better value for
money in terms of unit costs per passenger journey
and per service
At the extreme end cost per service of some RTP
groups is unusually high and utilisation of capacity
in terms of number of passenger journeys per service
is unusually low in some cases indicating a
requirement for a maximum cost per service and
minimum number of passengers or passenger
journeys per service
There is an unusually high number of services in
proportion to the total number of passenger journeys
being delivered by some RTP groups
There may be other factors effecting unit cost
analysis and these should be reviewed by Pobal and
reported to the Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport
There is scope for incorporating cost control
incentives and performance targets for operation
within the contract between Pobal and the RTP
groups and enforcement of these.
5.9.3
5.9.8
5.9.8
5.9.8
5.9.8
5.9.8.3
RTP group
Capital Costs
If RTP groups have received funding from other
sources for capital expenditure, it is not reflected in
financial reports to Pobal. Best practice in
accounting terms would require disclosure of all
costs and sources of funding relating to the
Programme
5.9.1
Fare Income
The numbers of fare paying passenger journeys has
decreased over the period 2004-2009
Based on comparison with Bus Éireann average fares
are not exceptionally low or high
Analysis of 2007 fares shows a wide disparity in fare
structures and levels across the RTP groups, e.g. fare
levels ranging from €2 to €5 for a single journey
Standardisation of fares is not helped by the absence
of on-board ticketing on the majority of RTP
services
There is an absence of an overall fares policy for the
Programme
5.5
107
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Free Travel
Pass
Discretionary
free travel
Over half of RTP passenger journeys are FTP each
year over the period 2004-2009
The cost to the Department of Social Protection of
the FTP on RTP services has been far below the cost
to the Department of Transport.
The „other free‟ category has increased year-on-year
over the period 2004-2009
5.5
5.8
5.5
8.6 Continued relevance of the Programme and alternative policy and
organisational options
Notwithstanding the complexities and difficulties with regard to identifying and
measuring the final social inclusion impacts relating to transport provision under the
Programme, there is some evidence for a conclusion that the social inclusion objective
of this Programme has continued relevance. This is based on the acknowledged
market failure of commercial public transport in rural areas due to low population
densities and the higher costs involved,, as well as, based on some limited qualitative
evidence regarding social inclusion benefits for the Programme. The Programme is
also providing increasing transport services to target groups, in particular the over 65
age cohort.
However, it should be noted that the arguments relating to continuation of this
Programme are finely balanced and there are also strong arguments in favour of
discontinuation of the Programme. These include the lack of evidence on
effectiveness as well as the serious ongoing concerns over Programme efficiency and
cost effectiveness. Notwithstanding the latter, which raises serious concerns over the
value for money in continuing the Programme, a subsidised public transport scheme is
a standard supply side approach to the rural transport problem in many jurisdictions.
In addition, it is uncertain if other policy alternatives such as direct payments or
measures targeting the underlying social inclusion needs such as social services
outreach, would constitute a better solution. The Review has concluded that the
Programme should continue but that significant improvement in performance
measurement, efficiency and performance management by Pobal is necessary. In
order for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to justify the Programme
these improvements must be delivered in the short-term.
A number of alternative organisational options for Programme delivery were
considered in Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy and organisational options‟. It is
acknowledged that the lack of data and evidence concerning current levels of unmet
transport need, Programme effectiveness and what works in terms of Programme
delivery, also, did not support the comparative analysis of alternative organisational
options. Therefore it has not been possible to conclusively assess the merits of the
alternative organisational delivery options to address the efficiency issues. The main
alternatives considered were:
Delivery by Local Authorities procuring transport from private operators or
RTP groups,
108
Delivery by Pobal and Programme restructuring on a sub-regional basis, and,
Delivery by NTA following Programme restructuring on a sub-regional basis.
Considerations of the option for Local Authority delivery of the Programme in the
short- to medium-term concluded that the significant regulatory and structural
concerns militated against this option. It is concluded, however, that while these
obstacles raise some concern over Local Authority delivery on the transport supplyside, the Local Authorities should have a greater alignment with the Programme on
the demand-side in terms of the County-level assessments concerning transport needs.
Policy considerations for a greater role for Local Authorities in transport service
provision under Smarter Travel or within a wider policy for local service delivery,
might also involve this Programme, but these are longer-term policy considerations.
Similarly involvement of Local Authorities in delivery of rural transport may be a
viable option in the long-term once regulatory and structural concerns have been
addressed.
It is acknowledged that there may be added value brought about through NTA
involvement with the Programme in term of overall regulation, coordination and
planning of the public transport network in Ireland, particularly with regard to
integrated transport systems. However, there may be capacity issues concerning the
NTA taking on the administration of the Programme. In particular this applies to the
County-based social inclusion needs assessment, for which the NTA has stated it has
no current expertise. However, there is an acknowledgement that the capacity and
expertise within the NTA on the transport supply side may have potential to drive
greater Programme efficiency savings through reduced overall Programme
administration costs, as well as, facilitating the achievement of wider efficiency
savings through greater integration of existing public transport provision.
On consideration of option of Programme delivery by the NTA the Review Steering
Committee concluded that potential for staged transfer of the Programme within the
remit of the NTA could be a medium-term policy option. In the interim, there is an
acknowledgement of the potential in some policy areas of mutual interest for NTA
involvement with the Programme, for example, with regard to the ongoing policy
development for local integrated transport services.
On consideration of all the policy options therefore, the preferred policy option is for
significant restructuring on a sub-regional basis of the current organisational
arrangements for Programme delivery by Pobal and the RTP groups, pending
provision of a sufficiently robust business case by Pobal in this regard. This would
aim to achieve greater efficiencies as recommended in this Review. In the short-term
the question of the continued relevance of the Programme must be addressed in terms
of supplying evidence of identifiable positive trends supporting the Programme
effectiveness and meeting unmet rural transport needs of target groups under a social
inclusion objective.
Continuation of the Programme should also have regard to the need, as identified in
Chapters 2, „The Policy Context of the Programme‟, concerning the risk of transport
service displacement, to address the status of the transport services provided under the
Programme within the context of the current public transport regulatory system and
109
the wider policy context of State funding of passenger transport requiring regulated
competition in the market.
In addition, the option for continuation of the Programme within the context of a
scheme for local integrated transport was considered. The potential for synergies
between the transport provision under this Programme with other transport providers
has been a key focus for policy development in the area of local integrated transport
systems. Notwithstanding any identified structural or regulatory barriers to greater
local transport integration, the potential for savings achievable through greater local
integration of State funded transport provision has not been estimated or quantified.
The Review Steering Committee considered the option of Programme delivery within
a scheme for local transport services. The conclusion was that while wider
efficiencies for State funded transport, (e.g. Rural Transport the School Transport
Scheme or the HSE transport services), could be achieved through local transport
integration systems, there are no specific value for money recommendations arising in
this Review for the Programme, as the quantification of the wider integration savings
fell outside the scope of the VfM examination of the Review.
Furthermore, although the Review Steering Committee noted the „Smarter Travel‟
(2009) objectives for greater sustainable and integrated local and rural transport, it
was concluded that there are no specific value for money recommendations currently
arising for the Programme.
110
CHAPTER 9
REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Introduction
Following on from the analysis, findings and conclusions in the preceding chapters of
this Review, this Chapter sets out the recommendations arising from the key findings
identified in Chapter 8, as well as, setting out the key performance indicators to
monitor and evaluate any future public expenditure.
9.2 High-level Programme objectives, targets and progress reporting
The findings of this Review highlight the need for a clear statement of objectives,
targets and performance indicators for the Programme. A clearer identification of the
high-level, cross-cutting, objective of social inclusion of this Programme could be
included within the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport overall high-level
strategic framework. The Programme objectives and aims need to be set out in the
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport Memorandum of Understanding with
Pobal, linking them to the high-level social inclusion objective. This also needs to be
drilled down to the level of Programme principles, to be adhered to by the RTP
groups.
A clearer connection between the high-level policy objectives of social inclusion with
the objectives for Programme implementation in terms of addressing unmet transport
needs of the target groups in rural areas is required to facilitate evaluation of the
Programme within a wider social inclusion policy context. The re-articulation of the
Programme objectives should also facilitate the on-going progress reporting for the
monitoring of the Programme frontline delivery by the RTP groups and by Pobal.
Targets need to be developed that are meaningful in terms of the high-level social
inclusion objective and that are realistic in terms of the expected Programme
achievement in addressing unmet transport needs. These targets should be drilled
down to the individual key performance indicators relating to Programme
effectiveness and efficiency.
This Review proposes the following re-articulation of the Programme objective to be
considered in the development of the next MoU:
“The achievement of social inclusion through transport provision, nationally,
targeted at specific groups of people, i.e. women, older people, people with
disabilities- sensory, cognitive and physical, and people on lower incomes, who
are living in rural areas and who are socially excluded as a result of unmet
transport needs.”
The associate Programme aims include,
111
Better targeting of transport to the target groups of people with unmet
transport needs, including women, older people, people with disabilitiessensory, cognitive and physical, and people on lower incomes
Greater spatial coverage of RTP services in rural areas where there is
identified unmet transport needs
Greater diversification of RTP services to cater for transport needs of other
socially excluded groups beyond those of older people
The principles within which the RTP groups operate would also fall from the
programme objective and these could also be re-articulated to include first principles
such as value for money, equity, partnership, volunteerism, innovation, etc.
9.3 Continued relevance of the Programme
The key finding of this Review concerns the lack of data and information on levels of
social exclusion of rural dwellers as a result of unmet transport needs. This Review
recommends that this information is sourced to support analysis and to inform policy
decision-making concerning,
-
the extent of the underlying policy problem and the continued relevance of the
Programme objective,
the review of high-level targets concerning social inclusion and unmet
transport needs in rural areas,
the Programme‟s effectiveness in achieving the policy objective,
any future assessment with regard to policy and organisational options for
Programme delivery.
With regard to the consideration of policy and organisational options in the previous
Chapter 7, „Consideration of policy and organisational options‟, this Review
recommends the continuation of the Programme. However, with regard to the Review
findings concerning Programme inefficiencies and the lack of evidence to support an
evaluation of Programme effectiveness, continued Programme delivery by Pobal and
the RTP groups, based on an organisational restructuring, relies upon these findings of
the Review being addressed,
1. sufficient evidence of Programme effectiveness in meeting its objective in terms
of expected intermediate outcomes, in the first instance, and
2. the achievement of the minimum efficiency savings as identified in this Review
recommendations.
Should fulfillment of the above conditions support the continuation of the
Programme, a restructuring of the current organisational structures for Programme
delivery by Pobal and the RTP groups is recommended as a means to deliver further
Programme efficiencies through greater shared services. These efficiencies could
achieve the further reduction in Programme administration costs recommended by this
Review towards a target of 13% of Programme costs. It could also result in savings
112
for other State funded transport service provision through facilitating potentially
greater integration locally. The proposed organizational restructuring would be based
upon consideration by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport of a detailed
appraisal by Pobal setting out the costs and benefits of restructuring, including how
the transition costs of organisational restructuring would be met from within
Programme budget as well as a detailed implementation plan.
This Review also acknowledges the need, within a reasonable timeframe, to address
the status of the transport services provided under the Programme within the context
of the system of public transport regulation in Ireland and the wider policy context of
State funding of passenger transport requiring regulated competition in the market.
It is also recommended, should the Programme continue, that there should be a
greater alignment of the Local Authorities with the County-level assessment of needs
under the Programme on the transport demand-side. Consideration should also be
given to a staged involvement of the NTA with the Programme in the short- to
medium-term, building an involvement by the NTA with the Programme, in
particular, within regard to ongoing policy development for local integrated transport
provision, as well as, ongoing cooperation on matters of mutual interest between the
NTA and Pobal. It is recommended, should the Programme continue, that in 2012 the
NTA provide the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport with its detailed
strategy regarding the Programme transitioning toward delivery under the NTA remit
by 2013.
The following Table 9.1 sets out the key elements of the recommendation concerning
the future policy and organisational structure of the Programme.
113
Table 9.1: Recommendation for continuation of the Programme under a social inclusion objective, involving continued Programme
delivery by Pobal and the RTP groups.
Recommendation:
Responsibility for
implementation
Suggested
timeline for
implementation
1. Provision of evidence of Programme effectiveness in terms of expected intermediate Pobal and the RTP
outcomes, reported under performance indicator as set out in Tables 9.6 in particular.
groups
By end-Q3 2011
2. Evidence of the achievement of baseline efficiency savings as identified in Table 9.2 (1.2 and Pobal and the RTP
1.6) below.
groups
By end-2011
3
Commencing
immediately
To address the status of the public transport services provided under the Programme within The Department of
the context of the system of public transport regulation in Ireland. In addressing these matters, Transport, Tourism
relevant policy and/or legislative options and requirements to be considered.
and Sport
4. A detailed appraisal and implementation plan submitted for consideration by the Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport for an organisational restructuring, to achieve greater
programme efficiencies and beneficial economies of scale through shared services and
establishing greater Programme-wide standardisation. The appraisal and plan to address
specific issues including:Setting out clearly the proposed efficiency savings, showing clearly the added value
achievable through organisational restructuring, in particular the achievement of the
114
Pobal in consultation
with the Department
of Transport,
Tourism and Sport
By end-Q3 2011
and a further 6
months for
restructuring to
be completed,
i.e. by end-Q1
2012
reductions in administration costs recommended in this Review. In addition, showing
the transition costs of restructuring, e.g. for the release of contracts, to be met from
within Programme budget,
The rationalisation of funding to RTP groups and identifying the number and location
of the operational centres and their catchment areas
Performance monitoring and how services would continue to focus on the transport
needs of the target groups and the achievement of expected intermediate outcomes
through the transition period,
How RTP groups owning and operating services would achieve separation of their
operational functions in order to engage in rural transport services under the
restructured organisational arrangements, and,
How the restructuring would achieve the expected re-allocation of staff to fulfil
essential roles required by the new structures including transport management,
coordination and dispatch.
5. Better alignment to be established between the voluntary county-based RTP Boards involved Pobal and the RTP
groups
in needs assessment and the Local Authorities,
6. Better data and indicators concerning levels of unmet transport needs and social inclusion to
be sourced, as set out in Table 9.2 (2.1) below, with regard to the need for evaluation of the
continued relevance of the Programme objective and establishing future targets for public
policy intervention in this regard.
115
The Department of
Transport, Tourism
and Sport in
consultation with the
Stakeholders as
required, including
Pobal, RTP groups,
NTA,LAs
Commencing
immediately
By mid-2012
Exploring options and potential for staged transfer of the Programme to the NTA by 2013,
pending continuation of the Programme:
7. The NTA to submit, within its strategic plan and on request of the Department, a plan for the The Department of
staged transfer of the Programme under its remit, to be achieved within NTA resources and Transport, Tourism
budget. The NTA plan to address inter alia the following:and Sport in
consultation with the
- The potential for greater responsibility for the Programme with regard to funding,
NTA
performance monitoring and intervention in Programme delivery;
- How the Programme administration and management be provided for under the new
organisational arrangement with NTA oversight;
- How the NTA would fulfil the demand-side social inclusion needs assessment
functions of the Programme;
The extent to which the NTA to add value in terms of greater Programme efficiencies
through utilising NTA capacity and expertise on the transport supply-side of the
Programme; and,
How the NTA oversight of the public transport services of this Programme would add
value to the wider public transport network, such aspects as,
-
greater public transport integration,
network planning and coordination,
regulation and enforcement of standards and of competition in the passenger
transport market, and,
the coordination of national public transport data holdings, IT systems and
analytical frameworks to support decision-making.
116
Commencing
2012
Finally, the acknowledged potential for savings is the key driver for policy
development for local integrated transport systems. This could achieve better use of
combined excess capacity and elimination of any duplication across schemes.
However, the estimate of savings achievable under a scheme for local integrated
transport has not been quantified and the process of addressing identified obstacles
and testing potential opportunities for integration is ongoing through the local pilot
projects.
The quantification of potential savings arising from integration of RTP services with
other State funded transport services (HSE, School Transport, etc.) was outside the
scope of this Review and therefore there are no recommendations regarding possible
Programme efficiencies in this regard.
The possible savings arising from the integration of State funded local transport
schemes should be considered additional to the efficiency measures recommended in
this Review and are not a substitute for the savings arising from the recommendations.
Notwithstanding any further integration activities, due regard should also be had for
the key recommendations of this Review, in particular,
-
-
the social inclusion objective of the Programme,
the need to address the status of the transport services provided under this
Programme within the context of the current public transport regulatory
regime, to ensure fair competition in the passenger transport market, and
avoiding the risk of displacement of other public transport services, and,
the requirement for greater Programme cost efficiencies concerning, in
particular, the control of the costs associated with service delivery across the
RTP groups and the need for a reduction in RTP group administration costs.
Similarly, there are no value for money recommendations for the Programme arising
from this Review in the context of „Smarter Travel‟ objectives for rural transport.
9.4 Recommendations concerning costs, efficiency and effectiveness of the
Programme in meeting its objectives
There is significant supporting evidence set out in Chapter 5, „Cost and efficiency of
the Programme‟ giving rise to the conclusion as set out in the previous Chapter 8 of
this Review that there is scope to achieve significant improvement in the cost
efficiency of the Programme.
With regard to Programme effectiveness, notwithstanding the difficulties associated
with measurement of the final outcome of the Programme in terms of social inclusion
impact, the lack of available data necessary for evaluation of the expected
intermediate outcome of the Programme must be addressed immediately, as set out in
the conclusion in the previous Chapter 8 of the Review and in Chapter 6,
„Effectiveness of the Programme‟.
With regard to the unintended consequences of the Programme, in particular, potential
displacement of other public transport by RTP services, the status of the RTP services
117
funded under this Programme needs to be examined within the context of the system
of public transport regulation in Ireland. This examination should address any issues
for the RTP public transport services with regard to the principles of regulated
competition. In particular to ensure a „level playing-pitch‟ for passenger transport
services on routes that are compensated by means of State funding, for example, as a
consequence of a public service obligation as provided for under the European
Regulation 1370/2007.
With regard to the conclusions of this Review concerning the costs, efficiency and
effectiveness of the Programme under the social inclusion objective, the following
Table 9.2 sets out the list of specific individual recommendations and responsibilities
and suggested timeline for implementation with regard to the recommendations.
118
Table 9.2: Recommendations for Programme costs, efficiency and effectiveness
Recommendation
1.
Costs and efficiency of the Programme:
1.1
Programme Costs
Overall Programme costs need to be reduced, as recommended in this Review, in terms of State
funding per passenger journey and per service. The need for a reduction in Programme
administration costs is specifically addressed in the recommendation for a staged reduction of
these costs as set out in point 1.2 below. The recommendation for organisational restructuring for
Programme delivery will facilitate greater Programme cost efficiency in both administration and
operations through greater standardisation of wages and salaries, reducing duplication of activities,
greater shared services, joint procurement, etc.
1.2
Responsibility
for
implementation
Suggested
timeline for
implementation
Pobal, RTP
groups and the
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport
Effective
immediately and
on-going in
2011
Administration costs of the Programme
There is scope for greater administration cost reduction by both Pobal and the RTP groups, as
follows. Within this context any funding arrangements of the RTP Network also needs to be
addressed.
1.2.1 Reduction in RTP group administration costs
A 5% reduction in the administration expenses of the RTP groups as a proportion of their total Pobal and the
expenditure (bringing the level of 22% as it was in 2009 down to 17%) is recommended in the RTP groups
short-term and would equate to a saving of approximately €700k based on 2009 figures. Also,
bearing in mind the wide variance in administration spend in 2009 cross the RTP groups it is
119
By end- 2011
recommended in the short-term to ensure that this level of 17% administration costs as a
proportion of RTP group expenditure is applied as an upper threshold for each individual RTP
group.
The above recommended leveling of RTP group administration spending to 17% of total RTP Pobal and the
group expenditure would bring to 18.8% (from 24% in 2009) the total proportion of administration RTP groups
expenditure of the Programme with regard to total Department of Transport funding, based on
2009 figures. There is scope for a further 5% reduction in overall Programme administration costs.
This further cost reduction would be supported through the proposed organizational restructuring
in 2011 which will facilitate cost efficiency through greater standardization of wages and salaries,
greater shared services, joint procurement, etc. This would bring Programme administration costs
to within 15% of overall Programme costs, with efficiency savings equivalent to approximately
€500k based on 2009 figures. It is envisaged however that any savings that might be achieved in
2011 may be absorbed by transition cost of organisational restructuring.
1.2.2 Reduction in Pobal administration costs
Further administration savings equivalent to €300k (based on 2009 figures) from Pobal‟s own Pobal and the
administration budget are also recommended. This would bring total administration savings to RTP groups
€1.5m (based on 2009 figures), from €3.3m of expenditure down to €1.8m and would mean that
administration expenditure on the Programme as a percentage of total funding for the Programme
would equal 13% in line with other exchequer funded transport programmes.
By end-2012
By 2013
Options to reduce the administrative budget further could potentially be achieved with the transfer
of the Programme to the NTA, subject to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
consideration of this proposal as set out in Table 9.1.
1.3
Operational costs of the Programme
1.3.1 Reduction in the cost of sub-contracting
With regard to the extent and high cost of subcontracted transport services, a reduction in these Pobal and the
120
In 2011
costs through the tendering process is recommended. Restructuring and consolidation of RTP groups
procurement functions across the RTP groups will assist in getting better value for money. The
practice of RTP groups establishing in advance the cost parameters for proposed services in
advance of tendering should be implemented across the RTP groups. The online GIS and PMS1 IT
system will facilitate assessments of budgeting information on projected and actual costs at service
level.
1.3.2 Improve transport service utilisation and cost efficiency
The RTP groups also need to address the unusually high cost per service in some cases and also Pobal and the
the utilisation of capacity in terms of the numbers of passengers per service, which is unusually RTP groups
low in some cases. Across the RTP groups there is a requirement for greater planning of services
to ensure greater use of existing services capacity.
In 2011
Based on the preliminary RTP group level analysis of unit costs carried out as part of this Review,
it is recommended that a maximum cost per service limit be applied. Notwithstanding the
identified need on a social inclusion basis for single passenger services where an SPSV or
community car might be the appropriate transport mode, a minimum number of passengers per
service or minimum level of capacity utilisation for each transport mode or vehicle type is applied.
The maximum cost per service and minimum number of passengers per service to be set by Pobal
for the RTP groups.
Services which are uneconomic in terms of the maximum cost and minimum passenger rules
should be ceased and related funding cancelled.
1.4
Targets and benchmarking for performance within the Pobal-RTP group contract
The potential for introducing performance targets or benchmarks within the contract between the Pobal
RTP groups and Pobal is to be explored by Pobal as a mechanism for achieving greater control
over cost-efficiency and performance. Pobal should review unit costs for service delivery across all
RTP groups, for example in terms of per passenger kms, per service and per passenger, and to
121
In 2011, within
the context of
the next RTP
groups strategic
identify and quantify any other variable factors. Pobal to report on its findings to the Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the context of its ongoing Programme performance monitoring.
This information will assist in the setting of targets or benchmarks at an agreed level or range with
due regard given to the different transport modes and types in operation over the RTP group areas.
1.5
Financial accounting and reporting by the RTP groups to Pobal
1.5.1 Full financial reporting – income sources and capital expenditure
Ensure a more robust and transparent system of accounting and reporting is in place in the RTP RTP groups and
groups, and that Pobal provides on-going guidance and direction to the RTP groups concerning Pobal
required financial systems and standards. In particular with regard to the reporting of all income
sources and amounts and the full disclosure of capital expenditure by the RTP groups. This should
also encompass the provision of audited financial accounts.
1.5.2 Reporting on a projected Vs actual cost basis
In particular, it is recommended that there be greater transparency in the financial reporting by the RTP groups and
RTP groups on a projected and actual cost basis, with a view to achieving greater cost control in Pobal
terms of administration and operational expenditure.
1.6
planning phase
under the
Programme
Initiated
immediately
Initiated
immediately
Discretionary free travel
The use of discretionary free travel on RTP services identified in the output data as „other free‟ is Pobal and the
to cease. In the case of child travel a reduced rate could be considered in line with child fare rates RTP groups
on other public bus passenger transport services. The „other free‟ passenger journey category was
5.9% of Programme passenger journeys in 2009, incurring an operational spend by the RTP groups
of €7,569,501, indicating an estimated potential cost saving calculated on a per passenger journey
basis of up to €450k.
122
Initiated
immediately
1.7
Free Travel Pass
Department of
The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Department of Social Protection to jointly Transport,
review the levels of financial support with regard to FTP passenger journeys on the RTP services Tourism and
and apportionment of Exchequer funds.
Sport and
Department of
Social Protection
1.8
In 2011
Income from fares
1.8.1 Establish a Programme-wide fares policy
With a view to establishing a Programme-wide fares policy and the standardisation of fares across Pobal
the RTP services, the fare structures and levels are to be reviewed by Pobal. This should serve to
increasing Programme revenue and reduce net cost to the Exchequer. Notwithstanding the absence
of data from on board ticketing systems on RTP services, the high proportion of pre-booked
journeys (87% in 2008) should provide sufficient baseline information in this regard. Fare
standardisation should have regard to the different modes and types of RTP services in operation
across the RTP group areas.
1.8.2 Setting fare levels or parameters
Fare levels or parameters of fares should be introduced. These fare levels and parameters should be Pobal
related to the composition of RTP group costs and unit costs data per passenger journey, per
service and per km. Both improvements in systems under the proposed restructuring of Programme
delivery and the improved data for analysis under the GIS and PMS IT systems should assist in
this process.
1.8.3 Potential for increasing fares
The standardisation of fares is envisaged as a first step towards increasing fares across the RTP Pobal
groups. Any future increases in fares needs to have regard to changes in RTP costs or increases in
prices elsewhere in the economy, i.e. fare increases by other transport providers or increases in
123
In 2011
In 2011
In 2011
consumer price index.
1.8.4 Increasing fare income through better service utilisation
An increase in utilisation is a key strategy for increasing overall fare income per service. This can Pobal and the
be achieved in a number of ways through better planning of services, matching service mode to RTP groups
passenger demand, alternative scheduling, different routes, as well as, better information and
promotion on services locally and through targeting the key beneficiary groups.
1.9
In 2011
Reporting on performance indicators for the achievement of efficiencies
1.9.1 Implement an agreed reporting framework
Within the context of the MoU, Pobal and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is to
agree on a framework of KPIs to measure the achievement of Programme efficiencies. This will
also guard against the risk that costs under organisational restructuring do not increase further. A
draft monitoring framework is recommended at Table 9.4 and 9.5 below.
1.9.2 Further develop the reporting framework
It is also envisaged that these efficiency KPIs as set out in Table 9.4 and 9.5 will be built upon
within the context of the wider reporting framework suggested under Appendix U to be developed
between Pobal and the National Sustainable Transport Office of the Department of Transport,
Tourism and Sport, with implementation for the RTP groups, facilitated by piloting of the
additional recording and reporting requirements. This wider reporting framework is discussed
further in relation to the recommendation 2.1 of this Table below.
124
Department of
Transport
Tourism and
Sport and Pobal
Commencing in
2011
Department of
Transport
Tourism and
Sport and Pobal
Commencing in
2011
2.
Effectiveness of the Programme:
2.1
Measurement of social exclusion of people and target groups related to unmet transport need
in rural areas
To build a body of quantitative evidence by which,
1.
2.
3.
4.
Department of
Transport,
to support the social inclusion policy objective of the Programme in terms of identifying Tourism and
the level of unmet transport needs in rural areas generally and for at-risk target groups Sport and Pobal
specifically,
as a basis for a review of the target groups as identified in the Fitzpatrick Associates Report
(2006),
to assist in establishing appropriate high-level Programme targets, and
as a basis for any further assessment of the continued relevance of the Programme
objective or the alternative policy or organisational options for Programme delivery.
2.1.1 A bottom-up research strategy for data gathering, recording and reporting
A bottom-up research strategy is recommended involving the RTP groups supplying data under a
range of indicators on an annual basis by which a national picture of unmet transport needs and the
gap in transport provision for rural dwellers can be developed over time. In this regard a set of
suggested data and indicators is attached at Appendix U. It is also recommended that this proposed
system for data recording and reporting is piloted over a reasonable period by one or two RTP
groups before being applied Programme-wide. With regard to any data sourced through the
subjective assessments carried out by the RTP groups, for example in terms of local needs
assessments should be, where possible, objectively verified by available national level data
supported by data holdings in the GIS systems.
125
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport and Pobal
By mid-2012
By mid-2012
2.1.2 Combined use of national data holdings
A national data repository on unmet transport needs development through this bottom-up strategy
and could be combined with other national data collected through, for example, CSO Census 2011
and Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) questions. The inclusion of further questions
in the CSO Census or SILC, that might be useful in establishing the levels of unmet transport
needs should be pursued by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Appendix T contains
a submission by Pobal to the CSO suggesting potential census questions for consideration. This
research should also identify and source data for measurement of factors, other than the RTP, that
might affect the level of unmet transport in rural areas such as, car ownership at electoral district
level and availability of, or level of connectivity with, other public transport provision.
2.2
By mid-2012
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport to take the
lead role, and
Pobal
In the period
2011/2012
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport and Pobal
Commencing
2011
High-Level objective targets to be agreed
High-level targets under the social inclusion objective to be agreed and reviewed between the
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal within the context of the MOU. These
targets should have regard to the actual performance of the Programme and any further availability
of information and data concerning social exclusion of rural dwellers as a result of unmet transport
needs, including through the research recommended in the previous Section 2.1 of this Table.
2.3
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport and Pobal
Targets for Programme implementation
Targets for the implementation of the Programme to be set out in the Programme Performance
Monitoring Strategy, linking them to the high-level targets under the social inclusion objective.
Targets under specific KPIs to be set with regard to monitoring of year-on-year improvements in
cost efficiency and Programme effectiveness in terms of the expected intermediate outcomes. All
targets to be agreed between Pobal and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the
context of the MoU.
126
2.4
Monitoring of deadweight or displacement of public transport services by the RTP
Issues concerning the displacement of public transport bus passenger services or SPSV services by Pobal
the RTP, and relevant deadweight or duplication within the public transport network involving
RTP are to be monitored and dealt with by Pobal.
2.5
Commencing
immediately
Improved Performance monitoring and reporting
2.5.1 Monitoring and reporting on Programme impact
Quantitative data sources required for measurement of Programme impact where possible to be Pobal
incorporated into the Programme performance monitoring reports as these are developed.
2.5.2 Monitoring and reporting on Programme expected intermediate outcomes
A framework for reporting under key performance indicators for Programme effectiveness in terms
of the achievement of Programme expected intermediate outcomes to be agreed between Pobal and
the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport within the context of the MoU, as set out in the
draft framework at Table 9.5 and 9.6.
Pobal and the
Department of
Transport,
Tourism and
Sport
Pobal and the
2.5.3 Improving measures of output - KPIs and the data supporting them
The output performance indicators in the Programme Performance Monitoring Strategy to be RTP groups
improved with regard to categories within existing indicators and the addition of some new output
indictors, including the following,
-
Clearer categorisation of accessible vehicles and services, drawing where possible on
currently available UK DPTAC specifications until Irish specifications become available.
Clarification of the categories of service type concerning semi-flexible and scheduled RTP
services
Reporting of transport mode under the different categories, i.e. community car, SPSV,
LPSV
The level of Programme beneficiaries from rural areas and from the target groups, e.g.
127
Commencing
2011
Commencing
2011
Commencing
2011
-
-
women, older people, people with disability and young people with unmet transport needs
being targeted
The percentage of passenger trips used to access other public services including, health,
education, social welfare, social/community, employment, retail and other non-RTP
transport services
Frequency of passenger trips and services
Capacity utilisation of services
Period of time during which the services operate
2.5.4 Agreed reporting requirements in the MoU
The monitoring and reporting requirements established by the Department of Transport in 2007, Pobal and the
i.e.
Department of
Transport,
- Good corporate governance and accountability,
Tourism and
- Meeting the social inclusion objective of the Programme,
Sport
- Impact on the level of unmet needs,
- Broadening geographic coverage, and,
- Increase in service levels and frequencies,
to be incorporated into the MOU between Pobal and the Department of Transport Tourism and
Sport. The level of necessary reporting requirement under key performance indicators and
corresponding agreed targets for Programme performance to be reviewed and incorporated into the
MOU between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Pobal. Recommended
quarterly reporting of performance by Pobal to the Department could be supported at some future
time by access in the Department to e-reports and raw data under the PMS1 systems.
128
Commencing
2011
2.6
The GIS and PMS1 IT Systems
2.6.1 Further development and use of the GIS and PMS1 IT systems
Continuing refinement of the online GIS and PMS IT systems is recommended concerning data Pobal
sources to support performance indicators of output and outcome in the Programme Performance
Monitoring Strategy. A list of the data streams that these systems can provide over and above what
is currently available in electronic format is set out at Appendix P of this Review. In addition,
more data inputs, such as bus stops data, should be included in the methodology for the Pobal
Transport Deprivation and Accessibility Index which is used as the basis to rank RTP group
services in terms of levels of deprivation and accessibility of the areas in which they operate.
2.6.2 To support planning and more objective needs assessment
The GIS and PMS1 IT systems to be used to support more objective assessment of transport and Pobal
social inclusion needs by the RTP Groups by ensuring standardised assessment practices and
decision-making across the RTP groups, in particular for strategic planning b y the RTP groups.
Within this process there needs to be greater validation of needs assessments, examination of route
efficiencies and checking adherence to Programme guidelines.
129
In 2011
In 2011
9.5 Estimated savings as a result of the recommendations in Section 9.4 above
Table 9.3: Estimated savings
Table
Recommended efficiency:
9.2 Ref.
Saving equivalent,
based on total
Exchequer funding
of the Programme
in 2009
€450,000
1.6
Immediate discontinue discretionary free travel
1.2
Reduction in RTP group administration costs by
10% to 12% of total RTP expenditure by 2013
€1,200,000
1.2
Reduction in Pobal administration costs bringing
total administration costs to 13% of overall
Programme funding by 2013
€300,000
Total estimated recommended saving:
€1,950,000
It has also been identified in Chapter 5, „Cost and efficiency of the Programme‟, that
there is scope for further reductions of total Programme administration costs. It is
acknowledged that there is a requirement for transition costs associated with the
recommended Programme organisational restructuring and it is recommended that
these costs be met from within the Programme budget. However, following the
organisational restructuring it is envisaged that there would be further savings as set
out in the above Table 9.3.
It should be noted that further savings could be achieved, over and above those
estimated in the above Table 9.3, in terms of reduce administration costs arising
through the potential transfer the Programme to the NTA subject to the Department of
Transport, Tourism and Sport consideration of this proposal as set out in Table 9.1
above.
9.6 Performance Indicators
The following tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 below outlines the proposed template of
performance indicators for monitoring the RTP across three different headings:
Income and Funding
Outputs and Efficiency
Effectiveness
These templates should be populated by Pobal using data provided by RTP groups to
enable oversight of the Programme by the Department of Transport. Tourism and
Sport. It is envisaged that collection of the required performance data will commence
130
immediately to allow for completion of the templates as referred to in Tables 9.1 and
9.2 above. Thereafter performance reporting to the Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport should take place on a quarterly basis. Some of the performance indicators
contained in the Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 below are already being collected by Pobal.
Other indicators are new and these are highlighted in brackets.
All the indicators below would also benefit from being presented at national as well as
individual RTP level to allow for benchmarking of services and promulgation of best
practice.
Targets should be set by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport as part of
the MoU agreement process.
It is envisaged that the key performance indicators set out on Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6
would be built upon in line with the reporting framework to be developed by Pobal
and the National Sustainable Transport Office of the Department of Transport,
Tourism and Sport. Piloting of new data streams in a limited number of RTP groups
may assist the Programme-wide implementation of the of the required reporting
framework, suggested at Appendix U, for the ongoing assessment of transport
provision and unmet transport needs in rural areas, as recommended in Table 9.2,
Section 2.1.
In particular efforts should be made at the earliest opportunity to incorporate the
unique passenger data into the ongoing PMS1 recording and reporting. This would
provide necessary data on Programme users for future evaluation of Programme
effectiveness.
131
Table 9.4: Key measures of Programme inputs
Category of
Performance Indicator
Indicator:
Baseline
Annual
target
Data Sources
Responsibility for
data collation
2010
Inputs: Income and
Funding
[Total income by type of income
stream]
RTP financial accounts
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
[Total fare income]
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
[Fare income per passenger carried]
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1 and Department of
Transport funding
information
Pobal
Department of Transport
HSE
DCEGA
DOES
DSP
Other
[Fare income per fare paying
passenger]
[Department of Transport
subvention per km travelled]
132
RTP performance data /
PMS1 and Department of
Transport funding
information
[FTP funding per FTP passenger]
133
Pobal
Table 9.5: Key measures of output and efficiency
Category of KPI:
Performance Indicator*
Baseline
Annual
Target
Data Sources
Responsibility for
Data Collation
2010
Outputs
[Number of passenger journeys by
target group]
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
Disabled
65+
Unemployed
<18
Women
Low income
Other (specify)
[Number of services by model]
Scheduled
Semi scheduled
Fully demand responsive
[Number of services by type]
Hail n‟ Ride
Pre-booked
Number of passenger journeys
134
[Total passenger km delivered by
RTP services]
[Number of passenger journeys by
purpose of journey]:
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
/ Sample analysis via survey
Pobal
Health appointment
Shopping
Connectivity to another
town/city
Entertainment
Efficiency
[Administration costs as a % of total
RTP costs]
[Ratio of administration related WTE
to passenger km]
[Ratio of administration WTE to
operational WTE]
Total unit cost (all expenditure) per
RTP service provided
RTP and Pobal
Pobal
financial/staffing information
RTP performance data /
Pobal
PMS1
Pobal and RTP staffing data Pobal
RTP performance and
financial data
RTP performance and
financial data
RTP performance data /
PMS1
[Total Unit cost per passenger km]
[Average load factor per service
provided categorised by passenger
capacity of vehicle/ vehicle mode]
135
Pobal
Pobal
Pobal
Table 9.6: Key measures of effectiveness
Objectives
Performance Indicators
Baseline
Annual
Target
Data Sources
Responsibility for
Data Collation
2010
1. to meet the
transport needs of
socially excluded
people within the
target groups
[Number of passenger journeys by
target group]
Pobal
Disabled
65+
Unemployed
<18
Women
Low income
Other
RTP performance data /
PMS1
Actual passenger journeys
compared to estimated needs per
needs assessment
2. Extend transport
coverage to (socially
excluded rural
dwellers with unmet
transport need)
throughout rural
Ireland
RTP performance data /
PMS1 / GMS
% of passenger journeys connecting
to another public transport trip
Pobal
Pobal
RTP performance data /
PMS1
136
Pobal
Number of actual passenger journeys
by electoral district area
RTP performance data /
PMS1 / GIS
Pobal
Geographic coverage in sq km of
passenger journeys by electoral
district area
RTP performance data /
PMS1 / GIS
Pobal
Number and capacity of services by
electoral district area
RTP performance data /
PMS1 / GIS
Pobal
3.extend transport
services beyond the
needs of older
passengers to other
social inclusion
groups
Ratio of passenger journeys
undertaken by 65+ to passenger
journeys undertaken by <65
RTP performance data /
PMS1
137
Appendix A
Bibliography
Ahern, A. and Hine, J. (2010), Transport for Older people in Rural Areas, UCD/UU
and Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland
Bus Éireann, Annual Accounts, 2005-2009
Citizens Information Board (2009), Getting There, Transport and Access to Social
Services, A Citizens Information Board Social Policy Report, Social Policy Series
2009
CSO (2002), Census 2002, Principal Socio-economic Results
CSO (2006), Census 2006, Principal Socio-economic Results
CSO (2007), EU SILC (Housing Module 2007) – Table 3.2, Difficulty accessing basic
services by type of service and household characteristics, 2007
CSO (2009), EU SILC – Table 3.13 Percentage of the population reporting other
types of deprivation, by year
Cavan Area Rural Transport (CART) (2009), Case Study: RTP Adding Value to HSE
Services in Cavan
Clare Accessible Transport (2009), Case Study
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1999), A White Paper on Rural
Development, Ensuring the Future, A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland
Department for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (2008), Statement of
Strategy 2008-2010, Department for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Department of Finance (2007), Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative
Guidance Manual, Central Expenditure Evaluation Unit, Department of Finance,
Dublin.
Department of Transport (2006), Transport Access for All – the Transport Sectoral
Plan under the Disability Act 2005, Department of Transport
Department of Transport (2008), 2008 Edition of Sectoral Plan for Accessible
Transport under the Disability Act 2005, Department of Transport
Department of Transport (2008), Statement of Strategy 2008-2010, Department of
Transport.
Department of Transport (2009), Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future. A
New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009-2020,
Department for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs (2009), Review of the Pilot
Rural Transport Night Scheme
Department for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs and Pobal (2008), A Social
Cost Benefit Analysis of the Rural Social Scheme
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2007), National
Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012, Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government
Fitzpatrick Associates (2006), Progressing Rural Public Transport in Ireland
Fitzpatrick Associates (2002), Availability, Access and Choice. Report to the InterDepartmental Committee on Rural Public Transport, December 2002,
Fitzpatrick Associates (2010), Review of Passenger Transport Services in County
Louth, Louth County Council
Pobal and Gamma and Truz Haase (2008), Towards the Development of a Transport
Accessibilty Index, An analysis of Geographical Remoteness to Support the Rural
Transport programme in the Republic of Ireland, Pobal
Intel Corporation (2009), Report on the impact of mobility on the quality of life of
older people
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and
Gaeltacht Affairs: Report on Rural Transport Provision, January 2010, Houses of the
Oireachtas
Mc Carthy, C., (2009), Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and
Expenditure Programmes, Department of Finance
Mc Caul, T. (2010), Rural Transport Programme Strategy 2011-2016, Rural
Transport Network
MacMahon D.C., B., Weld, G. and Thornton, R. (2010) „Minimum Essential Budgets
or Six Household Types in Rural Areas’, Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice
Milward-Brown and PAN Research, Market Research on Bus Éireann, 2010
Mulreany, M. (2002), Cost-benefit Analysis, Readings, Chapter 1, IPA
National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020, Government Publications Office
National Council on Ageing and Older People (2001), Care and Case Management
for Older people in Ireland, Department for Health and Children
National Development Plan 2000-2006, Stationary Office
National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016, Stationary Office
National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, Government of Ireland
National Transport Authority (2010) Social Impact Estimation Methodology
Pobal (2008), Performance and Impact Report (2008\2009), Pobal
Pobal (2009), Performance and Impact Report (2009), Pobal
Pobal (2008), Rural Transport Programme (RTP) Programme Guidelines 2008-2010,
Pobal
Pobal (2010), Value for Money Guidelines, Rural Transport Programme
Pobal Strategic plan 2006-2008
Pobal Strategic Plan 2010-2013
Steer, Davies, Gleave, (2002) Regulation of Bus Services Outside the Greater Dublin
Area
Smith, N., Davis, A and Hirsch, D., (2010), Minimum Income Standards for Rural
Areas, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Department of Education and Skills, Value for Money and Policy Review of the
School Transport Scheme, 2010, (Table 5.1 and 5.2)
Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (2009), Passenger transport provided under
Section 19 or Section 22 permits, VOSA An executive agency of the department for
Transport
Weir, L.J. and McCabe, F., 2009, Towards A Sustainable Rural Transport Policy,
Comhar Sustainable Development Council
Appendix B
Terms of Reference of the Review
The Value for Money and Policy Review of the Rural Transport Programme will:
1) Identify Programme objectives.
2) Examine the continuing validity of those objectives and their compatibility
with Government policy.
3) Define the outputs associated with the Programme services and identify the
level, unit cost and trend of those outputs.
4) Examine the extent that the Programme‟s objectives have been achieved,
and review the effectiveness with which they have been achieved.
5) Quantify the level and trend of costs, staffing resources and income supporting the
Programme (including grant assistance from all State sources and revenue from
user charges) and review the efficiency with which the Programme has achieved
its objectives.
6) Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of public
funding on a continuing basis, examine the scope for alternative policy or
organisational approaches to achieving these objectives on a more efficient and/or
effective basis (e.g. through international comparison) and examine the scope (if
any) for making the Programme more self financing.
7) Specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to better
monitor the performance of the Programme.
Appendix C
Membership of the Review Steering Committee
Chairperson of the Steering Committee:
Brian Mullen (Retired Principal Officer Department of Health & Children)
Secretary to the Steering Committee:
Noel Singleton
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, National
Sustainable Travel Office Area B
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport representatives:
John McCarthy
National Sustainable Travel Office Area B - Division
responsible for Programme
Jim Ellis (to September 2010)
National Sustainable Travel Office Area B - Division
responsible for Programme
Derek McConnon
VFM Co-ordinator (to September 2010)
John Dowling
Financial Advisor
Ciaran Whelan
Internal Audit Unit
Andrea Lennon
Lead Reviewer
Department of Finance representatives:
Ronan Gallagher
Eoin Dormer
Transport Vote Section
Central Expenditure Evaluation Unit
Department of Social Protection representative:
Christopher McCamley
Free Travel Policy Section
Representative from Pobal, the body administering the Programme:
Bernie McDonnell
Programme Manager
Appendix D
Membership of the Working Group for the Review
Andrea Lennon
Lead Reviewer, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
(Chairperson)
Pádraig Ó‟Ruairc
Transport Advisor, Pobal
John Dowling
Financial Advisor, Department of Transport
Noel Singleton
NSTO Area-B, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Appendix E
Schedule of meetings of the Review Steering Committee and Working Group
Steering Committee meetings:
20 July 2010
28 September 2010
19 October 2010
16 November 2010
11 January 2011
31 January 2011
15 March 2011
The work of the Steering Committee on the Review and draft Report was completed
and signed-off via e-mail by 13 May 2011.
Working Group meetings:
8 July 2010
26 July 2010
13 August 2010
1 September 2010
20 September 2010
1 October 2010
15 October 2010
Appendix F
Letter to RTP groups and Board of Management and attached Survey
Questionnaire
July 2010
Value for Money and Policy Review of the Rural Transport Programme
Dear,
When the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) was inaugurated in 2007, a commitment
was made to a carry out a review of the Programme in 2010, which is now underway.
Among other things, the Review will assess the extent to which the RTP is achieving
its objectives, as well as, evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Programme. The terms of reference for the Review are outlined at Appendix A.
Your input to the Review would be welcome given your key role in the delivery of
RTP services and a short questionnaire to assist in that regard is at Appendix B.
A response by 13 August 2010 would be greatly appreciated to allow for the collation
and analysis of the responses from the 36 RTP groups. Completed questionnaires can
be returned by post to Mr. Noel Singleton, NSTO-Area B, Ground Floor, Transport
House, 44 Kildare Street, Dublin 2 or by e-mail to [email protected].
Please ensure that the name of your RTP group and your name and contact details are
included on the questionnaire form, in the event that you may need to be contacted
further in this regard.
If you have any queries concerning the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at
Tel: 01 6041063 or E-mail: [email protected].
Yours sincerely
Andrea Lennon
Policy Analyst
c.c. Chairperson, Board of Management of the RTP group
(Appendix B)
Value for Money and Policy Review
Rural Transport Programme
Questionnaire for RTP group Coordinator/Transport Manager
Name of RTP group__________________________________________________
Name of RTP group Coordinator/Transport Manager and contact details:
Please note the following list of questions is to be completed by the RTP group
Coordinator/Transport Manager and seeks responses that relate to the operation and
delivery of the Rural Transport Programme over the period from February 2007 to
end-2009. The use of this information is intended for the purpose of the above Review
of the RTP, however, it could be made available subject to a request under freedom of
information.
Q1. In terms of the RTP objective for social inclusion what would you say has been
the key positive impact of the RTP services that your RTP group delivered in your
area?
Q2. What aspect of the RTP operation and services that your RTP group provides has
seen the most improvement since February 2007?
Q3. With regard to the improvement in the operation and service delivery identified at
Q2. above what key change(s) in the activities of your RTP group in your opinion
have contributed to these improvements?
Q4. In the experience of your RTP group what has been the most useful measure of
improvement to the quality of the RTP services that you provide?
Q5. With regard to the cost of service delivery and revenue sources available for the
delivery of RTP services in your area, can you identify the key area where in your
opinion your RTP group have achieved efficiencies?
Q6. What in your view have been the two key challenges for the development of RTP
operation and service delivery in your area?
Q7. If you could suggest one change to improve the operation and /or delivery of the
RTP in your area, what would it be, and why?
Q8. What in your opinion has been the most significant benefit to the users
/passengers of the RTP services you provide?
Appendix G
Schedule of interviews with stakeholders:
Name of stakeholder
Bus Route Licensing Division, D/Transport
D/Social Protection
D/Community, Rural & the Gaeltacht
D/Education & Science
Coach, Tourism & Transport Council
Office for Local Authority Management
NSTO (Statistician), D/Transport
NSTO (Rural Transport), D/Transport
Pobal, Financial Advisor
National Transport Authority
Bus Éireann
Age Action
Irish Wheelchair Association
National Disability Association
Health Service Executive (Ambulance Service & Hospitals)
Rural Transport Network
National Disability Federation of Ireland
Pobal – RTP Manager
Public Transport Division, D/Transport
National Transport Authority
Community Transport Association UK
Date
28 July 2010
29 July 2010
30 July 2010
30 July 2010
30 July 2010
10 August 2010
11 August 2010 &
14 March 2011
11 August 2010
16 August 2010
19 August 2010
20 August 2010
23 August 2010
26 August 2010
27 August2010
10 September 2010
20 September 2010
30 September 2010
15 October 2010
8 October 2010
10 February 2011
29 September 2010
Comments:
By telephone
By telephone
Telephone & e-mail
Written Submission
Telephone & e-mail
Telephone & e-mail
By telephone
Telephone & e-mail
*Note all interviews were followed up with an e-mail seeking relevant data and information and where
further clarification was required in some cases a telephone call.
Interviews for Review of RTP - question topic areas:

The scope and extent of involvement in rural transport or related transport
services, i.e. as a funding body, transport service provider or representative of
beneficiaries.

Views on the benefits of the RTP

Where improvements could be made to the RTP in meeting its objective

Perceptions of the benefits and potential obstacles/barriers to greater integrated
transport services for rural areas
Appendix H
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transport and
Pobal 2010 - reporting schedule
Report
Annual Cashflow Forecast & Budget Summary
Technical Assistance Budget
Business Plan for 2010
Business Plan Output Report for 2009
Annual programme report on performance and impact for
2009.
Monthly performance monitoring information.
Quarterly programme update on progress and developments.
Business Plan Output Report for 2010.
Deadlines
End February 2010
End February 2010
End February 2010
End February 2010
1st July 2010
One month in arrears
March 31st; June 30th;
September 30th; December 17th
17th December 2010.
Appendix I
Description of changes to the number and organisation of RTP groups 2002-2009
Period
Jan-03
No. of
Groups
34
Nov-03
34
Mar-04
34
Jan-07
Jan-08
34
33
Comment
While some RTP groups commenced service provision in 2002, the majority of the
RTP groups became operational in mid to late 2003.
Name Changes: MFG Teo. now Siob Teo. and South West Donegal now Seirbhís
Iompair Tuaithe Teo.
Name Change: Co-operational now North Fingal Rural Transport Company
Name Change: Waterford Rural Transport Working Group now Deise Link
North Tipperary LEADER Partnership took over the contract for RTP delivery when
the contract with Borrisokane Area Network Development was not renewed. North
Tipperary LEADER Partnership already had a contract for RTP delivery in the
Kilcommon Upperchurch area.
Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teoranta took over the contract for RTP delivery
when the contract with Siob Teo was not renewed.
Name Changes: West Cork Transport now Bantry Rural Transport Partnership, East
Clare Accessible Transport now Clare Accessible Transport, Laois Rural
Regeneration Partnership now Laois Transport for Rural Integration Programme,
Monaghan Partnership now Latton Social Services & Development Ltd., Oak
Partnership (Offaly/Kildare) now Offaly/Kildare Community Transport, South Kildare
Rural now South Kildare Community Transport, Wexford Area Partnership now South
West Wexford Community Development Group and West Offaly Partnership now
West Offaly Integrated Development Group.
Jul-08
37
4 new RTP groups: South & East Cork Area Development, Galway Rural
Development, Inishowen Partnership and Louth Leader.
Nov-09
36
New RTP group: Ardcarne Kilmore Roscommon Rural Transport Ltd. as a result of
the amalgamation of Aughrim Kilmore Development Association Limited and Tumna
Shannon Development Company.
Appendix J
List of Rural Transport Programme groups (position at end 2009)
COMPANY NAME
Ardcarne Kilmore Roscommon Rural Transport Ltd
Avondhu/Blackwater Partnership
Bantry Rural Transport Partnership Ltd
Bealach Pairtneireacht Iompair Aitiuil Chonamara
Teoranta
Carlow, Kilkenny and South Tipperary Rural Transport
Ltd
Comharchumann Chleire Teo
Community of Lough Arrow
County Limerick and North Cork Transport Group Ltd
Deise Link Ltd
Clare Accessible Transport
South and East Cork Area Development Partnership Ltd
The Galway Rural Development Ltd
Inishowen Partnership Company Ltd
IRD Duhallow Ltd
Kerry Community Transport Ltd
Kilnaleck and District Community Co-op Society Ltd
Laois Transport for Rural Integration Programme Ltd
Latton Social Services and Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Ltd
Louth LEADER Partnership
Meath Accessible Transport Project Ltd
TRADING NAME
Ardcarne Kilmore Roscommon Rural Transport Ltd
Avondhu/Blackwater Partnership
West Cork Rural Transport
Bealach
COUNTY
Roscommon
Cork
Cork
Galway
Ring-a-link
Carlow, Kilkenny
& St Tipperary
Cork
Sligo
Limerick & Cork
Waterford
Clare
Cork
Galway
Donegal
Cork
Kerry
Cavan
Laois
Monaghan
Longford
Louth
Meath
Comharchumann Chleire Teo
Community of Lough Arrow - CLASP
Rural Bus
Deise Link
Clare Accessible Transport
South and East Cork Rural Community Transport Programme
North and East Galway Rural Transport Programme
The Inishowen Rural Transport Programme
IRD Duhallow
Kerry Community Transport Ltd
Cavan Area Rural Transport (CART)
Laois Transport for Rural Integration Programme Ltd (Laois Trip)
Bawn and Latton Rural Transport Initiative
Longford Community Resources Ltd
Louth LEADER Partnership
Flexibus
Mayo North East Leader Partnership Company Teoranta
Meitheal Forbartha Na Gaeltachta Teoranta
North Fingal Rural Transport Company Ltd
Offaly & Kildare Rural Community Transport Ltd
Rural Lift Ltd
Seirbhis Iompair Tuaithe Teoranta
County Sligo LEADER Partnership Company Ltd
South East Galway Integrated Rural Development Ltd
South Kildare Community Transport Ltd
South West Wexford Community Development Group
Westmeath Rural Community Transport Association Ltd
North Tipperary LEADER Partnership
West Offaly Integrated Development Partnership Ltd
Wexford Area Partnership Ltd
Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd
Mayo Rural Transport Programme
MFG Teo Donegal
NIFTI
OK Transport
Rural Lift
Seirbhis Iompair Tuaithe Teoranta (SITT)
Sligo Rural Transport Programme
South East Galway Integrated Rural Development Ltd
South Kildare Community Transport Ltd
The Rural Bus (SWW CDP)
South Westmeath Rural Transport Association Ltd
North Tipperary Rural Transport Programme
West Offaly Partnership
The Rural Roadrunner
Wicklow Rural Transport Programme
Mayo
Donegal
Dublin – Fingal
Offaly & Kildare
Leitrim & Cavan
Donegal
Sligo
Galway
Kildare
Wexford
Westmeath
Nth Tipperary
Offaly
Wexford
Wicklow
Appendix K
Costs by RTP group in 2009, per service, per passenger journey and administration as a percentage of Dept. of
Transport
RTP
group
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
6
Number
of
Number
Passenger of
Journeys Services6
20,834
3,477
9,332
10,309
26,117
23,345
16,373
21,200
20,784
29,433
36,436
30,448
52,428
18,416
7,796
1,798
792
1,025
4,362
2,770
2,406
2,168
2,693
2,819
2,948
5,074
2,735
2,008
Average
Number of
Passenger
journeys
Total
Cost Per
per
Expenditure Service
Service
€
€
3
2
12
10
6
8
7
10
8
10
12
6
19
9
172,343
102,837
183,545
158,049
393,773
267,432
183,723
230,730
208,319
286,062
350,422
281,219
476,302
163,769
22
57
232
154
90
97
76
106
77
101
119
55
174
82
Cost Per
Passenger
Journey
€
8
30
20
15
15
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
„Services‟ includes a mix of fixed scheduled, semi-schedules and fully demand-responsive models of service
RTP group
Admin
€
73,787
75,690
58,603
70,884
117,733
49,321
56,466
40,805
58,962
23,260
85,627
77,536
41,852
63,151
Administration
as % of total
Dept. of
Transport
funding to
RTP group
RTP groups
OPEX €
43
74
32
30
30
18
31
18
28
8
24
28
9
39
98,556
27,147
124,942
167,165
276,040
218,111
127,257
189,925
149,357
262,802
264,795
203,683
434,450
100,618
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
II
JJ
KK
LL
39,403
41,832
42,915
37,363
16,351
31,219
42,913
9,239
22,822
50,024
26,630
11,156
49,969
50,856
32,318
41,175
45,042
46,749
13,394
39,719
78,432
129,855
59,154
o/s
6,961
4,470
5,591
4,026
1,550
3,476
3,918
948
5,727
2,537
5,352
692
5,850
5,069
4,112
4,620
7,628
4,512
1,138
2,190
14,540
12,698
6,607
o/s
6
9
8
9
11
9
11
10
4
20
5
16
9
10
8
9
6
10
12
18
5
10
9
o/s
323,112
342,734
330,372
286,475
124,471
234,576
319,572
66,667
157,613
342,033
181,910
251,963
322,015
319,559
197,239
244,570
256,273
257,143
68,853
199,637
381,782
605,611
227,612
167,107
46
77
59
71
80
67
82
70
28
135
34
364
55
63
48
53
34
57
61
91
26
48
34
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
23
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
54,762
54,716
57,074
83,353
36,838
63,538
81,517
13,976
36,072
14,943
42,009
82,330
42,779
86,314
51,718
57,005
63,668
47,611
22,530
49,991
49,930
116,222
22,811
52,739
17
16
17
29
30
27
26
21
23
4
23
33
13
27
26
23
25
19
33
25
13
19
10
32
268,350
288,018
273,298
203,122
87,633
171,038
238,055
52,691
121,541
327,090
139,901
169,633
279,236
233,245
145,521
187,565
192,605
209,532
46,323
149,846
331,852
489,389
204,801
114,368
1,256,628
147,810
9
9,495,081
64
8
2,104,336
22
7,470,945
Appendix L
RTP group (gross) costs - operational cost breakdown 2007-2009
Operational Costs
Wages & Salaries
Pensions
Travel & Subsistence
Staff & Operator Training
Sub-Contracting
Rent/Leasing
Insurance
Repairs & Maintenance
Fuel
Advertising & Marketing
Technical Support
IT Hardware & Equipment
Computer Maintenance &
Software
Sundry
Total
2007
867,964
0
0
0
4,888,674
231,160
103,571
227,166
214,493
137,239
213,476
9,840
6,374
5,907
6,905,864
2008
1,390,837
9,169
79,802
51,171
6,275,294
194,726
96,450
322,106
311,795
139,494
96,390
16,927
21,465
21,757
9,027,383
% Change
60%
N/A
N/A
N/A
28%
-16%
-7%
42%
45%
2%
-55%
72%
237%
268%
31%
2009
1,991,237
21,305
99,508
162,291
6,818,300
40,953
101,454
329,404
276,146
133,265
108,919
54,499
44,809
97,954
10,280,044
% Change
43%
132%
25%
217%
9%
(79%)
5%
2%
(11%)
(4%)
13%
222%
109%
350%
14%
Appendix M
RTP group (gross) costs - administration cost breakdown 2007-2009
Administration Costs
2007
2008
2009
% Change
1,598,579
49,751
15,538
49,169
159,268
16,559
137,308
5,130
15,755
1,826
%
Change
25%
1%
41%
-80%
-23%
-29%
-2%
-16%
-15%
-82%
Wages & Salaries
Pensions
Recruitment
Training
Travel & Subsistence
Board Expenses
Rent
Rates
Insurance
Repairs
&
Maintenance
Heat, Light & Power
Telephone & Fax
Postage & Courier
Office Supplies
Printing & Stationary
Legal,
Audit
&
Consultancy
Computer
Maintenance
&
Software
Office
Equipment,
Furniture & Fittings
Sundry
Total
1,277,883
49,267
11,032
239,850
208,085
23,223
140,287
6,082
18,457
10,334
1,956,784
65,068
78
16,206
115,633
21,840
172,230
5,705
18,113
6,679
22%
31%
-99%
-67%
-27%
32%
25%
11%
15%
266%
16,469
91,872
15,146
45,595
38,842
134,655
18,714
94,706
15,250
44,765
40,294
217,698
14%
3%
1%
-2%
4%
62%
30,525
120,098
21,998
49,324
32,180
98,143
63%
27%
44%
10%
-20%
-55%
39,316
21,717
-45%
25,936
19%
21,566
31,993
48%
29,165
-9%
48,799
2,436,760
44,706
2,578,726
-8%
6%
72,438
2,858,143
62%
11%
Appendix N
Map showing RTP group distribution and list of LDCs operating RTP
Map of RTP group Locations
Source: RTP Mapping System, Pobal 2010
List of Integrated Local Development Companies with RTP Contracts in 2009
Avondhu Blackwater Partnership Limited
Co. Wicklow Community Partnership
County Sligo LEADER Partnership Company Limited
Galway Rural Development Company
Inishowen Development Partnership
IRD Duhallow Limited
Longford Community Resources Limited
Louth Leader Partnership
Mayo North East Leader Partnership Company Teoranta
Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teoranta
North Tipperary LEADER Partnership
Offaly Integrated Local Development Company Limited
South & East Cork Area Development Partnership Company Limited
Wexford Local Development
Appendix O
Comparative analysis of Irish and UK bus passenger transport regimes
Some comparative analysis was carried out as part of this Review to illustrate how the
regulatory structure in another jurisdiction, i.e. the UK, caters for community based,
not-for-profit transport services. The table below sets out some characteristics of the
Irish public transport bus passenger regulatory regime against those of the UK. The
UK is under similar European obligations concerning public service contract for State
funded transport services. The bus passenger market is less regulated than in Ireland
generally. The Section 22 permit enables community-based, not for profit, public
transport to compete for commercial contracts, thereby decreasing their dependence
on State funding and to compete for non-commercial contracts, thereby increasing
their competitiveness in terms of accessing State funding. A caveat with this type of
analysis is that differences in the underlying structural and organisational contexts
within each jurisdiction can often determine the regulatory options that are available,
for example, there is a greater level of devolved governance to Local Authorities in
the UK compared to Ireland.
Table: Comparison of some elements within the Irish and UK transport regulatory
regimes
Ireland
UK
Competent Authority
NTA
Local Authority
for award of PSC
Current characteristic of PSC direct award to the
Tenders for local bus services
PSC regime for bus
internal operator servicing
passenger services
the national network
including local bus
services
Model of commercial
Regulated competition
bus market
Regulation of
Licensed bus passenger
commercial bus services routes by NTA under the
Public Transport
Regulation Act 2009
Bus Operators Licence
RPTOL (includes PSV
requirement)
Not-for-profit, private
No current regulatory
transport by
provision – category might
bodies/organizations
include IWA, Enable
(including educational) Ireland, Vantastic, ACTs
for own clients
and school transport
Not-for-profit, public
No current regulatory
transport by community provision
groups
Open competition
Registered services, enforced
by VOSA/Traffic
Commissioner
PSV Operators Licence
(COIF/COC)
S.19 Permit – also allows
public transport in designated
areas where there is no
alternative transport.
S.22 Permit – also allows for
tender for transport contracts
where it does not effect the
not-for-profit characteristic of
the services
Appendix P
RTP performance monitoring and mapping system
The new RTP performance monitoring system enables RTP groups to submit data to
Pobal through an on-line system. It aims to collate the existing performance
monitoring information of passenger journeys, FTP usage and service details more
efficiently and accurately compared to the previous excel file approach. However,
while ensuring a more technical efficient monitoring system than the previous system,
it also expands on data collection, as it collects additional information on service
journeys and accessibility of services in particular. The table below outlines the
additional information that can be provided through PMS1.
Furthermore, the RTP Performance Monitoring System is integrated with a Mapping
System developed for the RTP. The RTP Mapping System is an online system which
enables RTP groups to map their services along with other additional local features
(pick-up points, local services etc) through the web. It is possible for RTP groups to
visually display socio-demographic information and boundary data which provides
RTP groups with a greater understanding of the needs and characteristics of the areas
they operate within. The table below also outlines the additional information available
through the RTP mapping system for the Programme.
Additional Information Available
Performance Monitoring System (PMS1)
Service information
Vehicle Type
including :
Operational Models
Capacity
General Propose of Services
Services in Agreement with other Organisations
Transport Schedules
Kilometres
Accessibility features of
Low Floor
services including for
Hand Rails
example:
Lifts
Passenger Assistants
Generates Yearly and
Passenger Journeys (including gender cohort, age
Monthly Reports of the
cohort, ability requirements, fare type, door to door
following:
journeys.
Service Reports (including service type,) scheduled or
once off services, accessibility)
FTP Passenger Journeys (including FTP Pass Type,
Age, Gender and Ability Cohort)
Mapping System
Boundary Data relevant for RTP group Boundaries
RTP groups
Townlands
Electoral Divisions
Counties
Detailed Discovery Series Map
Transport Infrastructure
Roads ( all types)
Rail
Public Services
Available through OSI
Socio-Demographic Data
RTP Facility to Input
Service details
Persons Per Sq Kilometre
% of Households without a Car per ED
% of Population by ED
% of Population Living alone and over the age of 66
per ED
% of Population with Disabilities per ED
Accessibility Index per ED
Deprivation Index per ED
Service Types (Fixed, DRT & Flexible)
Transport Pick Up Points
Local Services
Appendix Q
Excerpt concerning the difficulties and complexities around a definition for
Rural, taken from Rural Poverty and Social Exclusion on the Island of Ireland –
Context, Policies and Challenges, Scoping Paper prepared for the Pobal AllIsland Conference “New Ideas, New Directions” on 21st October 2010 in the
Boyne Valley Hotel, Drogheda, (Dr. Kathy Walsh, KW Research & Associates
Ltd, 2010)
“1.3 Defining Rural
While there is no single agreed definition of „rural‟, most people believe they know
what rural is, defining it by geography and by social and imagined constructions – in
that sense rural is often linked to the existence of what is often referred to as the rural
idyll. Geographical approaches used to categorise the rural vary from restrictive to
inclusive. The Irish Census of Population for example designates all those living in
settlements of less than 1,500 inhabitants as the „rural population‟. Thus, the category
of „aggregate rural areas‟ includes villages of fewer than 1,500 residents, together
with those living in the „open countryside‟. The Northern Ireland Statistics and
Research Agency (NISRA) in their 2005 study7 proposed that settlements with a
population of 4,500 or less should be defined as rural, although they did also stress
that this definition should not be used in a prescriptive way and that government
departments and other users should consider defining urban and rural areas in ways
that are appropriate to the specific programmes and projects under consideration.
Alternative method of defining “rural” used in Northern Ireland include designating
local government districts as either rural or urban. An additional classification of rural
areas – “accessible” and “less accessible” could also be applied - there are for
example very clear differences between the more accessible east and the less
accessible west of Northern Ireland.
With no one agreed EU definition of a rural area, the concept is applied in different
ways in different member states. A 2008 EU study8 has proposed that a definition of
rurality be applied to all territorial units at Regional Authority region level
(Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 3 level) combining
population density, size of the largest urban centre and the share of employment in the
primary sector (agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing). At international level, the
most frequently used approach to defining the rural is that proposed by the
Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD)
who classify regions as Predominantly Rural (PR), Intermediate (IR) and
Predominantly Urban (PU). The Regional Policy division of the European
Commission who are concerned with the lack of consideration of the issue of
accessibility in rural areas are working to divides IR and PR regions into 2
subcategories ("remote regions" and "regions close to a city"), according to their
distance from a large urban centre, expressed as the time required to get to the centre
by road.
Current rural typologies used on the island include consideration of population
density, land use (particularly agriculture), employment patterns and distance from
urban settlements/service centres. (The population density of the Republic of Ireland
was 60.3/km² and 122/km2 in Northern Ireland in 2006). Changes in any of these
factors can in turn have an impact on levels7 of poverty and exclusion in rural areas.
For example peripheral rural areas with declining population levels can have
particular difficulties accessing and indeed maintaining services (both public and
private). In many of these kinds of areas there has indeed been a decline in the
availability of local services. Shops, schools, banks, post offices and police stations
have closed or indeed been closed in response to market forces and rationalisation
programmes There is also often a lack of facilities (particularly for young people) in
these areas.
Papers9 prepared as part of the development of the National Spatial Strategy in 2000
identified a series of six distinct “rural area types” covering 2,716 rural DEDs, with
the remainder of Ireland classified as urban. Commins10 in his work identified the
existence of up to eight rural areas types. The concept of rural11used in Northern
Ireland is also broken down into a number of categories/ bands as follows:
• Band F Intermediate settlement: populations of 2,250 or more and under 4,500
(outside of the Belfast Metropolitan Urban Area (BMUA) and Derry Urban Area
(DUA)),
• Band G Village: population settlements of 1,000 or more and under 2,250 (outside
of BMUA and DUA)
• Band H Small Village, hamlet and open countryside: population settlement of 1,000.
Interestingly, the Rural Development Council (RDC) in their various rural baseline
reports12 concluded that there is no single definition of rural but a pattern of areas
with similar characteristics. What is clear from a review of the various approaches to
defining the rural is that socio-economic problems clearly differ by area, with the
clearest geographical contrasts between areas within the sphere of influence of an
urban centre, on the one hand and, at the other extreme, the remoter western districts
or in the uplands. The population of almost all rural areas grew over the last decade.
This expansion is most evident in the east where extensive residential development
took place but with deficits in physical infrastructures and in social provision (e.g.
schools and recreational facilities), public transport and in services such as childcare.
The key to tackling rural poverty and exclusion in particular, is therefore linked to the
issue of accessibility of services and opportunties and the creation of a more equitable
balance between areas and regions.
The absence of an agreed definition of rural, poses challenges because the way in
which rural is defined has the potential to impact on the scope and focus of policies
concerned with the development of rural communities (Definitions that include
consideration of distance from service centres are more likely to facilitate broader
focused development policies, than definitions that focus exclusively on population
density and land use).”
6 Townsend (1993) The International Analysis of Poverty. Harvester Wheatsheaf. London.
7 NISRA (2005) Report of the Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition Group Statistical
Classification and Delineation of Settlements, NISRA Belfast.
8 European Commission (2008) POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN RURAL AREAS,
FINAL STUDY REPORT. Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities Unit E2
Appendix R
Analysis of the data
This Review draws on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative data, to be
used separately and in combination. A systematic approach to the analysis of data and
indicators under the VFM criteria was carried out. Quantitative data and analysis is
supported by qualitative data and findings where these were available.
The objectives of the RTP are assessed both in terms of their alignment with delivery
of the Programme over the period of the Review and the Programmes continued
relevance is assessed with regard to its effectiveness in achievement of its objective
and within an evolving policy context. Reports and policy statements, as well as,
responses to interview and survey questions form the basis for this analysis. The
efficiency of the Programme is evaluated in this Review on the basis of analysis of the
available data on inputs and outputs of the Programme, and comparative analysis is
used against other transport operations of funding Programmes where it is relevant
and appropriate. The effectiveness of the Programme is evaluated on the basis of
relevant output data, and data on outcomes and impacts, including available tertiary
case study reports and user/beneficiary studies, as well as, relevant qualitative primary
data from interviews and the questionnaire survey carried out under this Review.
The analysis of the data and findings in the Review also gave consideration to the
measurement issues concerning valuation of the social impact of the Programme, as
well as, issues for comparative analysis, the absence of a counterfactual and issues
concerning attribution of causality. The key issue for this Review is the data gap in
terms of unmet transport needs by which to measure the Programme‟s effectiveness in
fulfilling its objective for social inclusion through the provision of transport where
unmet transport needs exist in rural areas.
Appendix S
Table showing the level of interface between RTP groups , Local Authority and
other County-based bodies.
Monitoring & Impact Report Responses for 2009
Involvement in County Structures such as
the County Development Board structure?
CDB Sub
RTP group
Committees
Ardcarne Kilmore Roscommon Rural Transport Ltd
Avondhu Blackwater Partnership
Yes
Bealach
No
Carlow, Kilkenny & South Tipperary South
Riding Rural Transport (ring a link)
CART (South West Cavan Rural Transport)
No
Clare Accessible Transport
Yes
Comharchumann Chleire Teo
0
Community of Lougharrow Social Project
No
(CLASP)
County Limerick and North Cork Transport
Yes
Group (rural Bus)
County Sligo LEADER Partnership Company Yes
Ltd
Deise Link
Yes
South and East Cork Area Development
Yes
Galway Rural Development Co Ltd
No
Inishowen Partnership Co
Yes
IRD Duhallow Ltd
Yes
Kerry Community Transport Ltd
Yes
Laois Transport for Rural Integration
Yes
Programme Ltd
Latton Social Services and Development Ltd
Yes
Longford Community Resources Ltd (County Yes
Longford Rural Transport)
Louth LEADER Partnership
Yes
Meath Accessible Transport Project Ltd
Yes
Mayo North East LEADER Partnership
Yes
Company Teoranta
MFG Teo
Yes
North Fingal Rural Transport Company Ltd
No
Offaly and Kildare Community Transport Ltd No
Rural Lift Ltd
No
Seirbhís Iompair Tuaithe Teoranta
Yes
CDB
SIM
Group
LA
SPCs
Yes
No
No
No
Other
County
Transport
Forums
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
South East Galway Integrated Rural
Yes
Development Ltd
South Kildare Community Transport Ltd
No
The Rural Bus RTP (SWW CDP)
Yes
North Tipperary LEADER Partnership
West Cork Rural Transport
Offaly Integrated Local Development Company
Westmeath Rural Community Transport
No
Association Ltd
Wexford The Rural Roadrunner
Yes
Co Wicklow Community Partnership
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Appendix T
Extract from submission by Pobal to the CSO in September 2008 concerning
census questions.
A. Car Ownership
The current census question asks how many private cars or vans are available per
household. Although this is useful information, it would be more beneficial to ask this
car ownership question at an individual level rather than at household analysis level.
At present, if there is one car per household, and someone uses this car for work
proposes, other members of the household maybe left without access to a car. While
this isn‟t necessarily a major issue in urban areas where public transport is more
accessible, it can be a much greater problem in rural areas. Access to a private car is
often deemed a necessity in many parts of rural Ireland. In this regard, it would be
useful to set a question which provides information on individual access to a car.
Sample Question(s) set at individual level, rather than household level analysis.
Option 1: Do you have access to a car?
• Always
• Often
• Rarely
• Never
Option 2: Do you have access to a car? Which of the following applies to you?
• There is a car in your household that is primarily driven by you (that is: not driven
by someone else)
• There is a car/are cars in your household, but primarily driven by other family
members
• There is no car in your household
B. Ability
While having a car is useful to rural dwellers where public transport is not available,
using a car for transport proposes is not always a solution for those who cannot afford
it or who do not have the ability to drive due to age ( too young/ too old) or ability.
Sample Question:
In relation to Question 16 in the current questionnaire (an individual level question),
would it be possible to split part „E‟ of the question, so that the question asks does
your condition limit you from (a) driving and (b) using public transport?
C. Access to Public Transport?
Access to public transport is extremely important for rural dwellers, particularly for
those most in need (who cannot afford a car or who do not have the ability to drive).
However, public transport is also a more sustainable mode of transport compared to
the private car and so should be encouraged as an alternative to the private car in both
rural and urban areas. It is also important to note that transport although it‟s a service
3 in itself, it is also a means of connecting people to other essential services such as
health care, education, etc.
Sample Question(s)
Option 1: How far do you have to travel to access the nearest bus stop? (provide
suitable measurement options 100 meters, 500 meters, 1 KM etc.)
How far do you have to travel to access the nearest train stop? (Provide suitable
measurement options)
Option 2: Is public transport available to you for basic essential services? Yes/ no
D. Current Travel Modes
While currently the travel to work/ college information provided by the census
(POWCAR data) is beneficial for transport data analysis, it would also be beneficial
to examine what modes of transport people use for other accessing other services
apart from traveling to work/ college and what distances they have to drive to key
services.
Sample Question
Option 1: How do you travel for other basic essentials (health, shopping etc.)? A list
of
services could be presented here – health, retail, finance, education, sporting/ leisure
facilities etc.
Also it would be useful to know the distance traveled for basic services. e.g. What
distance is your journey from home to primary health care (GPs), education/ local
retail outlet/ financial institutions etc.
Option 2: What is the main mode of transport that you use for your daily non-work
activities?
- Car
- Public transport
- Walking
- Cycling
- Motorbike
- Other
- [no daily / regular mobility]
In addition, in terms of modes of transport, it is our experience that the census in its
current form underestimates the amount of transport mobility across the country. At
present, it asks people to tick their usual mode of transport, and yet often people use a
number of modes of transport as part of their journey to work e.g. park & ride,
cycle/walk to train/ bus station etc. It would be more beneficial if this question
allowed people to tick a multiple of transport modes.
Furthermore, the current policy arena encourages more flexible working practices
through decentralisation of public services and working from home practices and this
along with improved technology means people can work from various locations
outside of the urban centers. However, as people may categorise themselves on the
current census form as working from home or working in remote rural areas with
short distances to travel to work, the experience is that often these people have to
travel long distances to urban centers for work proposes a couple of times a week.
This is often the case where people are using public or private transport to attend
meetings (conferences/ training etc) on a regular basis. This level of transport
movement is not accounted for in the current questionnaire and we recommend that
the questionnaire is adapted to factor the changes in this transport dynamic.
Appendix U
Suggested data and indicators to support annual assessments concerning transport provision and unmet transport needs in rural areas.
This suggested recording and reporting framework contains data and indicators many of which are already gathered or being developed for use
by the RTP groups and Pobal. The additional data and indicators aim to build upon locally developed statistical data and estimates to form a
national picture of unmet transport needs and transport provision in rural areas. The following points should be noted:
-
In applying this recording and reporting framework, the risk of subjectivity in the generation of localised estimates should be diminished
through verification against national data, where available, or data built-up centrally by Pobal in the GIS and PMS1 systems.
The proposed system of recording and reporting on unique passengers may pose issues for the RTP groups and this should be
implemented in such a way so as not to incur any data protection issues.
Where data cannot be collected on a per trip basis for practical or other reasons an annual passenger survey should be undertaken to
source this data, for example a service wide survey carried out in the same two separate weekdays of a specified week.
These new recording and reporting system may benefit from piloting by one or two of the RTP groups over an agreed period and any
improvements needed should be addressed in consultation between Pobal and the NSTO of the Department of Transport, Tourism and
Sport in advance of any roll-out across all the RTP groups.
Key Indicators:
% funding from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport of the total Programme income
% administration costs of the total costs
Estimated area of RTP services in Km2
Index rating of the area for accessibility and deprivation
Number of unique customers
Number of unique customers as % of the estimated target market
Total number of services operated
Total number of accessible services used by those needing service
RTP
group 1
RTP
group 2
Etc.
Total number of passenger journeys
Average passengers per service
Estimated passenger kilometres
Average distance of vehicle journey
% of passengers age 65+
% of passengers requiring assistance
Heading
RTP Income
Grant aid, direct funding etc.
Revenue
Data
Funding from D/Transport
Funding from HSE
Funding from D/Social Protection
Funding from other sources, list…
Fare Revenue
Other Revenue, list….
Costs
Vehicle costs (hire, maintanence, loan repayment etc.)
Fuel costs
Wages and salaries for direct service provision
Administration costs (need for a list here, staff, IT, materials...)
Other costs (list…)
Passenger numbers and service
provision
Service area and customer base
Population of serviced area
Annually
%
change
from
previous
year
Service provision and uptake
Population of serviced area over 65
Area/size of serviced area (square km)
Estimated target market net of deadweight
Total number of unique customers
Number of unique customers over 65
Number of unique customers under 65
Number of unique customers with special needs under defined categories
Number of unique customers, male/female
Number of unique customers with low incomes
No of vehicles in service
No of vehicle journeys in service
Vehicle kilometres travelled in service
Seat kilometres in service
Average number of passengers per journey
Total number of passenger journeys
Total number of demand responsive journeys
Total number of accessible services operated
Total number of accessible services used by those needing service
Total passenger kilometres travelled
Total requested journeys
Total journey requests met
Target population within walking distance (10-15 minutes) of services by
electoral district area
Target population in the target groups within walking distance (10-15
minutes) of services by electoral district area
Vehicle journey distance
Total number of vehicle journeys (of which)
0-3km
3-5km
5-10km
10-15km
15-20km
20-30km
30km+
Average distance of a vehicle journey
Passenger journey distance
Total number of passenger journeys (of which)
0-3km
3-5km
5-10km
10-15km
15-20km
20-30km
30km+
Average distance of a passenger journey
Passenger journeys by passenger type
Total number of passenger journey (of which aged)
0-18
18-25
25-40
40-55
55-65
65+
Male
Female
People with disability – categories
People from socio-economic groups with low incomes
Passenger journeys by income/revenue
type
Type 1 Fares
Type 2 FTP
Type 3 HSE contract
Type 4 School Transport contract
Type 5 etc.
Purpose of journey
Total number of journeys (of which)
purpose1
purpose2
purpose3 etc.
Annual journeys per unique customer
1-5 journeys
5-10 journeys
Etc.
Average journeys per customer
Appendix V
Glossary of Terms
Community Services Programme (CSP): This Programme aims to support local
community activity to address disadvantage and provide local employment
opportunities for certain groups of people. It provides funding to community services
and community businesses including community services for older people and those
with disabilities, rural transport initiatives and environmental projects. It is managed
by Pobal for the Department of Social Protection.
Community Transport: This is the term used to describe a range of non-profit
passenger transport services, which are developed by local people in response to a
transport need in their area. Community transport usually operates flexible, demandresponsive or semi-scheduled services, tailored to individual needs on the basis of prebooking by registered individual members of the scheme. These services are typically
demand-responsive or semi-scheduled, using smaller vehicles (mini-buses, taxis,
private cars or state/community and voluntary sector vehicles), which can collect rural
residents directly from their homes, bring them to local service centres or transport
hubs, and return them home afterward. Such services are more easily accessible to a
wider range of user groups because of their ability to facilitate door-to-door access
and passenger assistance for people with mobility, sensory and cognitive impairments
and older people. Community transport is an increasingly important and an additional
mode of transport, supplementing the other local transport services of public and
private bus operators and taxi/hackney services. Such transport schemes play a
centrally important role in combating social exclusion and enabling access to services
and facilities.
Conventional bus-based scheduled services: These services typically link rural
areas to important urban centres or link major urban centres while also servicing rural
areas situated on their routes. They operate on fixed routes, with fixed departure and
pick-up points and their service in rural areas of Ireland is patchy, varying widely in
coverage and frequency. The most recognisable service providers in the conventional
sphere are Bus Éireann, private bus operators and Iarnród Éireann (for rail services).
County/City Development Boards (CDB): These were established in each county
and city in Ireland in early 2000. The CDBs are led by local government and are also
representative of local development bodies together with the State agencies and social
partners operating locally. For the first time, CDBs brought together the key players at
local level to engage in a process of long-term planning for each county or city.
County Enterprise Boards: 35 County Enterprise Boards, were established in
Ireland in 1993 to provide support for small businesses with 10 employees or less, at
local level. They provide direct grant-support to new and existing enterprises and
promote entrepreneurship, capacity building and women-in-business at local level, to
micro enterprises in the commercial sphere.
Deadweight: occurs when part of a public expenditure programme confers benefits
on recipients other than those intended. (Mulreany, M., .2002)
Door-to-Door Service: A Door-to-Door Service is a service that picks up and drops
off a passenger at wished locations.
Demand-Responsive Transport: Demand Responsive Transport (abbreviated as
DRT) is an intermediate form of public transport, somewhere between a conventional
service route that uses low floor buses and special transport services that typically use
a single or shared taxi mode. DRT services are scheduled and offered to customers
according to their individual needs, generally only stopping where passengers request
pick-up or drop-off. DRT route models are defined according to the level of
flexibility, the type of stop points and the degree of linearity or area coverage offered
by the service. [Source: CONNECT EU Project].
Displacement: occurs when the creation of a positive project or programme output
leads to a loss of output elsewhere. (Mulreany, M., .2002)
Electoral District (also known as a constituency, riding, ward, division or
electoral area): This is a distinct territorial subdivision for holding a separate
election for one or more seats in a legislative body such as the Dáil or County
Council.
Flexible Route: A scheduled service between two end stop points which has fixed
departure times, but with a more or less flexible route, which responds to the actual
needs for pick-up and drop-off on the route.
Free Travel Pass: The Free Travel Scheme allows People aged 66 or over and
permanently living in the Republic of Ireland to travel for free on all State public
transport (bus, rail and Dublin's LUAS service). Free travel is also available on
services funded under the Rural Transport Programme and on a limited number of
services that are operated by private bus transport companies. Certain people with
incapacity under age 66 may also travel for free. In addition, some people who are
unable to use the pass because they are unable to travel alone may get a Companion
Free Travel Pass. This allows the holder to be accompanied by any person over 16
years of age, free of charge.
Geographical Information System (GIS): This is a system for capturing, storing,
analyzing and managing data and associated attributes which are spatially referenced
to the earth.
Greater Dublin Area (GDA): This encompasses Dublin City and County together
with counties Kildare, Meath and Wicklow.
Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Transport: An inter-Departmental
Committee, chaired by the then Department of Public Enterprise, was established in
2001 to consider options for the development of a rural transport policy. The report on
the study commissioned by the group incorporated the results of a nation-wide survey
(a total of 12,000 households) of rural transport needs and services which was
conducted by each County Development Board at the end of 2001.
LEADER Programme (Liaisons Entre de Development de l'Economie Rurale):
An EU-wide initiative for rural development. The Programme is designed to support
local businesses, farmers, foresters, community groups, those involved in tourism and
a range of rural enterprises.
Local Community Development Programme (LCDP): This is the successor to the
Local Development Social Inclusion Programme and the Community Development
Programme and forms part of the National Development Plan 2007-2013. It aims to
tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement
between Government and its agencies and people in disadvantaged communities.
Local Development Social Inclusion Programme (LDSIP): This was a series of
measures designed to counter disadvantage and to promote equality and social and
economic inclusion. The programme came to an end on 31 December 2009 and has
been superseded by a new programme, the Local and Community Development
Programme (LCDP).
MIDAS: MIDAS is the MInibus Driver Awareness Scheme, organised by the
Community Transport Association UK, which promotes a nationally recognised
standard for the assessment and training of minibus drivers. It is a membership based
scheme that has been designed to enhance minibus driving standards and promote the
safer operation of minibuses.
NAPS: National Action Plan for Social Inclusion details how Government plans to
combat poverty and social exclusion.
National Spatial Strategy (NSS): This is a national planning framework for Ireland
for the period 2002-2020 . It aims to achieve a better balance of social, economic and
physical development across Ireland, supported by more effective and integrated
planning.
National Transport Authority (NTA): This is a statutory body established by the
Minister for Transport on 1 December 2009. At a national level, the NTA has
responsibility for securing the provision of public passenger land transport services.
This includes the provision of subvented bus and rail services by Bus Éireann, Dublin
Bus and Irish Rail. It is anticipated that the National Transport Authority will take
over responsibility for the licensing of commercial bus services and the regulation of
the small public service vehicle sector (i.e. taxis, hackneys and limousines) during
2010. Provisions to enable this were included in the Public Transport Regulation Act
2009.
Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the best alternative
forgone.
Passenger Assistance Training Scheme (PATS): This scheme provides for modular
training designed to improve the skills of, and give confidence to, passenger
assistants/escorts when dealing with different situations involving the supervision and
welfare of passengers travelling by road – in minibuses, cars, taxis or large buses.
Pobal [formerly Area Development Management Ltd.] (1992-2005): A not-forprofit company with charitable status that manages social inclusion, reconciliation and
equality programmes on behalf of the Government and the EU.
Pre-booking: A confirmed reservation where the order has been recorded in the
transport dispatch centre and a pick-up time has been agreed between the customer
and the dispatcher before the trip.
Public Transport Partnership Forum: The PTPF was established in 2000 “ … to
provide an opportunity for consultation (among the social partners) on public
transport matters and for the development of ideas for improvement of the sector”.
Rural: Rural areas may be defined as comprising the people, land and other
resources located in the open country and small settlements outside the immediate
economic influence of major urban centres (see also Appendix Q concerning the
difficulties and complexities around a definition for Rural).
Rural Social Scheme (RSS): This scheme allows low-income farmers and fishermen
who are unable to make a living from fishing or farming to earn a supplementary
income. It also supports projects which are benefit to rural communities.
Rural Transport: Local transport services concentrated in rural areas, as opposed to
urban or inter-urban transport.
Rural Transport Initiative (RTI): This pilot Initiative (2002 - 2006) arose from a
commitment in the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The aim was to encourage
innovative community-based initiatives to provide transport services in rural areas
with a view to addressing the issue of social exclusion in rural Ireland caused by lack
of access to transport.
Rural Transport Programme (RTP): The RTP was officially launched in 2007
following a pilot action research initiative (i.e. the Rural Transport Initiative). The
aim of the programme is to encourage innovative community based initiatives to
provide public transport services in rural areas with a view to addressing social
exclusion in rural Ireland caused by lack of access to transport. The programme
mission statement is „to provide a quality nationwide community based public
transport system in rural Ireland which responds to local needs‟.
Semi-flexible Routes: Is a form of Demand-Responsive Transport offering flexible
route services, allowing deviation from fixed routes.
Small Public Service Vehicle (SPSV): A public service vehicle with seating for up
to eight people. Small Public Service Vehicles in Ireland include taxis, wheelchair
accessible taxis, hackney cabs and limousines.
 Taxi: An SPSV for which a taxi licence has been granted. Taxis may stand for
hire at a taxi rank and ply for hire on the street.
 Hackney: An SPSV for which a hackney licence has been granted. Hackney cabs
should be pre-booked on a private hire basis and cannot be hailed down in a public
place.
 Limousine: An SPSV for which a limousine licence has been granted. A
limousine must be suited by its style and condition to be used for ceremonial
occasions or for corporate or other prestige purposes. A limousine should be prebooked on a private hire basis and cannot be hailed down in a public place.
Transport Deprivation Index: The index provides an important input in
determining relative accessibility to transport in Ireland. It has a number of potential
uses for the RTP including its use as a needs assessment tool and secondly, as a
potential tool in forward planning, to identify future transportation requirements at the
local level.