
In the Vision for Whitby 2023 consultation, residents declared the bus services inadequate for residents purposes, and that we require a local frequent shuttle bus that covers all areas of town, as well as a bus that connects to local villages.
Everything in this concern comes under the NYC Portfolio of Highways and Transportation, Cllr Keane Duncan.
The health and well-being of Whitby and District residents is dependent on being able to get about their town/villages safely, and with minimal delay. The 2007 Scarborough Borough Council Transport Assessments document states as one of its sustainability objectives “To provide a transport network which encourages the use of public transport, cycling and walking and minimises traffic congestion“. As can be seen from our Active Travel analysis, the objective relating to cycling is not being met now, neither was it in 2007. In this section we analyse the objective from the point of view of public transport and traffic, exploring some issues impacting on the town. If you prefer to see a summary in Powerpoint presentation format, you can access one here.
Walking, cycling, scooting. North Yorkshire must increase cycling by 900% by 2030.
Use of buses and trains to get about, both locally and further afield.
Issues with use of cars on roads, road safety, traffic, parking. North Yorkshire must reduce car usage by 48% by 2030.
We currently have a very limited local bus service in many areas of Whitby and District. The 95, X4 and X93 services are commercially provided services with no contract with NYC as such. The 96 service is subsidised by NYC with NYC defining the route. The Park-and-Ride bus is contracted with NYC for a particular route and particular stops (and so cannot stop at intermediate places for residents).
With an aging population in the town it is essential that there is a bus service close to all residential areas to avoid isolating parts of the community. Local bus routes should reach close to all residential areas, and should also include essential services like Whitby Hospital and local GPs. Consider having a more eco-friendly approach of a regular electric / hydrogen bus on a circular route. Consider also having separate pricing for residents and for visitors. There is a lack of local bus service for the following areas
Longer distance bus/coach services haven’t improved over the years. Whitby to York takes 2:25 minimum, and now the 840 Coastliner is “under threat”; removal of that service would mean there is no direct public transport from Leeds/York to Whitby (yet Scarborough has a direct train and direct bus). This would leave NYC’s carbon strategy in tatters and they would never reduce car usage by 48% by 2030 (instead it would be increased!).
Provision of faster, more direct coach services would have the potential to reduce the number of car journeys and the subsequent traffic load on the town. If the county strategy is not to provide Whitby and District with direct longer distance travel options, then the bus service to Scarborough should be upgraded in standard, as it is currently very uncomfortable, should be coordinated with trains (which it often is not), and have a more direct faster service, so then people can take advantage of the train services far easier. Anything less than that and the public transport strategy of NYC would be deemed inadequate for the district.
Funding plays a massive part in what is achievable, see this report on rural bus funding.
In the Vision for Whitby 2023 consultation, residents declared the bus services inadequate for residents purposes, and that we require a local frequent shuttle bus that covers all areas of town, as well as a bus that connects to local villages.
Bus reliability
For some time the Arriva bus services for the Whitby and District area have been unreliable, and breakdowns are frequent. In June 2023 the company was reported to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). This resulted in 2 visits by DVSA to Whitby bus station, and 8 buses being taken out of service, with 3 having to be towed away (as undriveable). This is the standard of bus public transport being provided for residents. We encourage all residents to report any breakdown to the DVSA (csccomplaints@dvsa.gov.uk) and to our MP.
Rail services to / from Whitby have been eroded since the 1950s, with the sole external service going via Teesside. Take the sample journey of Whitby to York; this takes a minimum of 3 hours to cover 47 miles whereas Scarborough rail services reach York in 50 minutes. The current service is still having cut backs, see this notification from April 2022 where Northern Rail cut a service. As part of the agreement for the Sirius Minerals (now AngloAmerican) potash mine, an amount of S106 money was paid to fund an extra 3 trains per day, making it 8 trains per day on this line. Sadly the reality is somewhat different, and Northern Rail have cut this back contrary to the agreement due to operational / capacity factors. It is hoped (by AngloAmerican and NYC) that this would return to 8 services per day (from the current 5) in the (near) future. The latest we have on that is the hope to get back to 7 per day by the end of 2024!
Having a connection to Pickering/Malton would allow connecting to York and onwards, providing substantially reduced journey times. Provision of faster, more direct and more frequent rail services would have the potential to reduce the number of car journeys and the subsequent traffic load on the town. As mentioned above, if the strategy is not to provide Whitby with faster more direct services then a fast direct bus service to Scarborough needs to be provided so that train connections from there can be utilised.
We are advised by a member of the North Yorkshire Disability Forum that SBC said in February 2022 that NYC would increase the number of wheelchair taxis across North Yorkshire where only 7.7 % of all taxis are accessible. This should be compared with almost 100 national authorities that have all of their taxis as wheelchair accessible eg Bradford & Kirklees with many others like Leeds 52% insisting that all replacement vehicles are accessible. Yet NYCC have since adopted a new 5-year Policy (in February) without requiring an increase!
The North Yorkshire Disability Forum have obtained a commitment from the NYC Executive for an Inclusive Service Plan or survey to assess the unmet needs of wheelchair users, then make recommendations on how the Executive to require more wheelchair taxis to be provided. They have explained to us how difficult it is to get about in the Whitby area with a lack of unaccessible taxis. There is apparently one wheelchair taxi operated by Abbey Taxis but obtaining it by phone or pre-booking it for a hospital or dental appointment is impossible.
Whitby DAG to gather feedback from wheelchair users on their experiences of being unable to get a taxi ?
A rural county like North Yorkshire can have a dependency on use of a car for transport. The road network needs to work for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The road network around Whitby has several locations that are inefficient, and also are not as safe as they could be.
This image displays the road collision data of reported collisions between 2017 and 2021 on Whitby roads. There are some clear hotspots, suggesting issues with road speed and / or road design. An interactive version of this map is available HERE. On this map red signifies FATAL, amber signifies SERIOUS, and green signifies SLIGHT. For reference a fatality costs the UK economy the order of £1.7m, whereas a serious casualty costs around £200k.
The following areas would benefit from an assessment and redesign to work better for the safety of Whitby and District residents.
In the Vision for Whitby 2023 consultation, residents raised significant concerns about the A171 route through Whitby (many dangerous junctions, difficulty in getting out of side roads, speed issues particularly around schools and New Bridge), Love Lane junctions, The Carrs, and Sandsend Road.
We have a proposal to make residential and central zones in Whitby (and potentially all villages) as 20mph. This would make a massive difference in terms of the safety of pedestrians and cyclists (shown on the above road collisions map), and the quality of life for residents, being able to get about by walking, and would make cycling a possibility for many residents and visitors alike.
Whilst those less able-bodied will often need to come into town by private vehicle (in the absence of a decent local bus service), the town should have a policy of aiming to reduce car parking, and give road space across to the pedestrian / cyclist, and to public transport. As part of this strategy of reducing car parking, the council policy of re-purposing of green space to be overflow car parking has to stop. The sheer numbers of tourists in Whitby in busy periods has to be controlled, and restricting use of overspill car parking is one method that could be effective, perhaps with “all car parks full” signage visible when coming in to Whitby.
There have been numerous instances of coaches taking a wrong turn and getting stuck on tight streets (e.g Fishburn Park area), or due to on-street parking. Signage has to be improved, and restrictions put in place to severely restrict the places that coaches can navigate.
During summer months there are very often lines of campervans parked on the Ravine and Sandsend Road overnight. This is contrary to the signage, and was not enforced by SBC. We need a clear policy, and associated enforcement. Providing more camping sites should be investigated if they are currently near capacity. Investigate use of new laws, like those introduced in New Zealand, about restricting “freedom camping”.
The current car park facilities are defined in this table.
Location | Stay? | Total Spaces | Number Disabled | Number Coaches | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cliff Street | Short | 37 | 0 | 0 | |
Marina Front | Short | 96 | 2 | 0 | |
Church Street | Long | 92 | 3 | 0 | |
Abbey Headland | Long | 415 | 6 | 10 | |
Endeavour Wharf | Long | 250 | 0 | 0 | 90-130 to be lost for Maritime Training Hub |
Marina Back | Long | 350 | 0 | 8 | |
Marina Harbour Users | Long | 79 | 0 | 0 | |
St Hilda’s Terrace | Long | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
West Cliff | Long | 424 | 4 | 11 | Includes around 200 spaces on overflow green space |
Pavilion Top | Long | 63 | 0 | 0 | |
Pavilion Drive | Long | 68 | 2 | 0 | |
Whitby Railway Station | Long | 48 | 0 | 0 | |
Sub-Total (Town Centre) | 1942 | 17 | 29 | ||
Park-and-Ride (West) | Long | 450 | 0 | 0 | |
Sub-Total (Out Of Town) | 450 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total | 2392 | 17 | 29 |
In accordance with our transparency policy, this table is downloadable in (XLSX) spreadsheet format.
As seen, even when we consider just dedicated car parks (and ignore on-street parking) the out of town park-and-ride facility is very small relative to the amount of parking required, and is doing little to remove vehicles from the town centre area. Traffic will not be reduced in Whitby until the out of town facilities are much increased, or longer distance public transport facilities are overhauled.
In the Vision for Whitby 2023 consultation, residents registered many problems with the current car parking situation and the need for a car parking review promised back in 2018. This review has to provide ample parking for residents first and foremost, and to aim to move much more visitor parking out of the town centre.
The sole Park-and-Ride facility on Guisborough Road is largely ineffective at reducing the amount of traffic in town centre, or of reducing the demand for town centre parking (it only provides 20% of the total town car parking). Expanding the current site could be an option (subject to national park approval), otherwise a further facility is required, likely on the east side of the town, and the best location for this would probably be towards the Abbey Headland, to take traffic coming from the Scarborough direction. Having data about level of utilisation of the current facility would be a start, but NYC do not keep any meaningful data (from an FOI request)!
The current (SBC) Local Plan (9.12) suggests “provision of cycle facilities at park-and-ride sites” to provide a “modal shift” in transport. NYC (under the NYCC name) obtained funding for just such a scheme in Active Travel Fund (Tranche 2) and then subsequently realised it would only provide a cycle route down Guisborough Road, and then leave its users at the mercy of the traffic due to the absence of any cycle network in Whitby. The Local Plan suggestion would only be of any value should there first be an active travel network that would reach the centre of Whitby, which there is currently not. That “suggestion” should subsequently be deprioritised until a cycle network is in place.
In the Vision for Whitby 2023 consultation, residents expressed a clear desire for expanded Park-and-Ride services, on both sides of Whitby and for the general moving of tourist traffic out of town.
We support any campaign to prohibit pavement parking, such as this one from Living Streets. We want Whitby and District to be pedestrian friendly. Vehicles should always be parked in appropriate places, and sufficient parking should be provided with such as holiday lets for pavement parking to not happen. The current law (2023) states
Is parking a motor vehicle on a pavement legal?
No, it is illegal except
What are the laws that prohibit parking on pavements?