Transport Survey...Finance

back to the survey

Community Transport in the upper Rhondda Fawr

- a study for Abergorci Community Hall

Meurig Parri - August 2003

6. Finance

   6.1. The danger in any study of this nature is that by investigating deficiencies in services which people can access, the expectation is raised that those deficiencies will automatically be overcome. 

During this study, it was stressed to all those interviewed that improvements in services – principally CT services but possibly also other transport services – would be recommended, but could not be guaranteed. 

Following news that RCT CB Council intended to conduct a full County Borough wide study with approximately the same brief, subsequent interviewees were also told that the results of this study, including recommendations, would be fed into the wider study.

   6.2. Major factors influencing decisions to implement the recommendations described above will include how they interact with recommendations from the wider study, and whether finance is available to start and sustain them. Few if any CT operations are completely self-sustaining if the cost of the service is to remain within reach of people excluded from other forms of transport by poverty, a major target group for CT.

   6.3. Over the recent past, most capital funding for CT schemes has come from the Community Fund of the National Lottery, with most revenue support coming through local authorities from the WAG LTSG, and from contract work and service level agreements with Social Services and other Local Authority departments. Threats exist to these traditional funding sources;

     • The income of the National Lottery is decreasing, with a consequent decrease in grant aid available through the Community Fund.

     • Whilst LTSG has grown by a rate far greater than inflation in each of the last 3 years, this growth is unlikely to continue. WAG recommends that a minimum of 5% of LTSG be spent on CT as opposed to other public transport schemes. In the case of RCT that means a minimum expenditure of £27,161 in 2003/04. This sum falls a long way short of 55 the revenue support needed by existing CT operators at the moment, leaving no scope for expansion of services or for the other recommendations in this report.

   6.4. Across Wales, it is estimated that CT supply only meets 10% of demand48. There is no reason to doubt that this is as true of RCT as it is of the rest of the Country. Therefore it is almost inevitable that the wider CT study to be undertaken by RCT CB Council will recommend a number of expansions and additions to the CT network in the County Borough, many of which will have cost implications.

   6.5. The operation of free concessionary bus travel for the elderly and people with disabilities, and the extension of the scheme in April of this year to men aged 60 and over, has increased the financial pressures on the Local Authority: “The Council remains concerned that insufficient funding will be made available to meet its statutory obligations to bus operators.”49

   6.6. A potential, mostly untapped source of funds for CT is Objective 1 grant aid50. Priority 6 has not yet been used for CT expenditure, but WAG is investigating the idea of using Priority 6 aid to part fund the establishment of regional fleets of CT vehicles in Objective 1 areas. Working through SWIFT, this proposal could be of great benefit to RCT, removing much of the difficulty of finding the capital costs of vehicle acquisition.

  6.7. Other traditional or possible sources of funds include: 

     • Communities First funds51.

     • Coalfields Regeneration Fund.

     • Local Regeneration Fund.

     • New Opportunities Fund.

     • Private trusts; e.g. Lloyds TSB, Principality BS, Nationwide BS.

     • Charity funds; e.g. Comic Relief, charities for the disabled and elderly, Variety Club.

     • Private businesses, particularly those which stand to benefit in some way from the scheme they are being asked to support. Grant in kind is often more readily available than finance.

     • The Camelot Foundation Community Involvement Programme.

     • Specific WAG grants; e.g. for cycle tracks, SRTS Initiatives.

     • Various grants administered through the WCVA; e.g. the ‘Enfys’ grant scheme which is suitable for CT schemes which have a strong ‘green’ element, and the Social Risk Fund.

     • Occasional small grants available through the CTA.

     • Awards for All Wales.

     • Sports and Arts Foundation.

     • Various funds accessible through Jobs Centre Plus for schemes which help get people into work or vocational training.

     • RCT CB Council General Revenue Account. However other calls on this account invariably leave little for transport expenditure. Public consultation during preparation of the LTP in 1999 showed little enthusiasm for increasing the proportion of public spending on transport52.

     • RCT CB Council support in kind. It is frequently cheaper to provide support in kind, rather than financial assistance. Of interest to CT groups would be;

ï Storage / garaging for vehicles and equipment.

ï Office space and equipment.

ï CRB checks.

ï Vehicle maintenance and checks.

ï Driver and administrator training.

48 TAS Report, para. 16.6.

49 APR 03, Para 5.17.

50 The use or Objective 1 grant aid was foreseen in the LTP, section 14.2.3.

51 However Communities First is a ward-based scheme. CT by its nature crosses ward boundaries and in the study area ( a patchwork of Communities First and non-Communities First areas) Communities First financial support might be problematic for larger schemes.   

* * * * *

return to top of page

please send your news items to - news@Treorchy.net

Publication of surveys does not necessarily indicate any endorsement by Treorchy.net Community Web Site

Treorchy.net aims to provide you with an accurate news section - if you find a factual error, please let us know!