Rural Transport in Ireland – Overview Presentation to the Irish Planning Institute 28 th January 2004

RURAL TRANSPORT ANALYSIS – KEY DATES  Nov 2000 – Inter-departmental Working Group on Rural Transport  template for county rural transport audits and needs assessments  4 counties – Kerry, Laois, Mayo and Westmeath – CDB-assisted  2001/02 – all rural CDBs carry out audits and needs assessments  national database of 12,000 rural residents  Inter-departmental Committee on Rural Public Transport  reported December 2002 (

“To prepare for the Minister for Transport and the Government a policy paper with recommendations on the future provision of public transport in rural areas which addressed the policy issues involved, having regard to the following:  views of the Public Transport Partnership Forum on rural transport policy;  the committee’s assessment of the audit of rural public transport services and assessment of public transport needs by County Development Boards in each county from a nation-wide perspective; COMMITTEE’S TERMS OF REFERENCE

COMMITTEE’S TERMS OF REFERENCE Contd.  the linkage between the provision of transport services and issues of sustainable development in rural Ireland, e.g. avoidance of increased commuting, environment impacts and spatial planning generally;  experience to date as regards rural transport services operated by Bus Éireann and other transport operators and community and voluntary initiatives relating to provision of transport in rural areas;  the current examination of the regulation of bus services outside the Greater Dublin Area being undertaken by the Minister for Public Enterprise”.

KEY FINDINGS – ROLE OF PRIVATE CARS  90% of rural households have at least one car, 10% have no car  83% “always” or “frequently” have a car available  17% “never” or “rarely” have a car available  Those who “always/frequently” have cars make more weekly trips  Key affected groups: older people, women, low incomes, mobility impaired

KEY FINDINGS – ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT  Usage higher among those who “rarely/never” have a car  Of modes, mainly bus travel is used  Nature of rural bus market: low car availability (65%), young (40%), older people (25%), women (60%), low income (50%+)  55% of rural DEDs have some level of scheduled public transport (bus/rail), 45% do not

KEY FINDINGS – PERCEIVED UNMET NEEDS  76% of respondents report no unmet needs, 24% do 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 65+ FemaleIllness/DisabilityLow Income65+ All 18-24All Female65+ Male

KEY FINDINGS – WHERE PEOPLE WISH TO GO  1-2 extra trips on average WorkShoppingLeisureMedical EducationVisiting FriendsOther Purpose County TownOther Large (>5,000) Medium (1,500-4,999)Small (<1,500)Other Destination

RURAL TRANSPORT POLICY – CHALLENGES  Distinctive nature and requirements  Diversity and heterogeneity  Need to link with other evolving policies  Variety of schemes already operating  Limited experience in relation to non-conventional modes  Difficulties of predicting levels of patronage and cost

PROPOSED OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS “To develop a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable approach to transport and settlement patterns in rural areas, via increased use of public transport” “To ensure that, irrespective of car ownership or availability, rural residents are able to make regular (independent) trips” Minimum weekly daytime scheduled services between county/large towns and other towns in the county, with a gradual build-up to daily morning/evening services Minimum weekly service combining scheduled and non-scheduled elements, with priority for people in vulnerable groups with unmet needs Target Objective

OPTIONS  Scheduled approach  Non-conventional approach  “Collect and connect” approach

“COLLECT AND CONNECT”

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DoT lead Department:  policy  regulation  funding Other Departments:  DES re school transport  DHC re health-related  DSFA re Free Travel Scheme  DoEHLG re taxi/hackney, local authorities Community/voluntary:  continued national/local roles  RTI sponsors  stimulate/support scheduled  organise the non-scheduled Sub-national element:  local authority role  regional/local transport planning units?  subject to OGDA outcome

COST ESTIMATES  Per pilot county  Weekly service for priority target groups only, where there is no car and no existing public transport  € 600,000 p.a. per county (mainly subvention, also admin, infrastructure)  Subject to outcome of a pilot phase

RURAL TRANSPORT AND SPATIAL PLANNING Short-term:  increased local authority involvement  more coherent exercising of existing functions  add transport to County Development Plans Medium-term:  dispersed population a transport and settlement challenge  build up rural towns and villages  National Spatial Strategy