Demand Responsive Transport

[PG]

Which is hardly a surprise - as I've said before, these DRT schemes are little more than a heavily subsidised taxi service.

A further apposite point from the article:


Perhaps such a survey might have been more usefully conducted before inflicting Ready2Go upon the citizens of Insch?

Amazingly (or not ) 5 months ago came the news that the service was being extended to run for a further year with the usual grandstanding by local councillors. I won't quote the whole thing, anyone who is that interested can read it themselves! I suspect that the funding referred to back at the beginning of August last year suddenly evaporated with the subsequent changes in PM

An analysis by consultants Stantec, commissioned by the Council and Nestrans to evaluate the pilot, found that the DDRT service has been performing well compared with the previous timetabled fixed route supported bus services.

In particular, there are indications that the service has reversed falling passenger numbers and is better catering for what would be otherwise unmet travel needs.

In doing so, the service is also delivering wider benefits, including reduced social isolation and loneliness, improved personal independence, greater employment opportunities and physical and mental health benefits. There are also indications that a shift from car to bus travel is being achieved.

Ewan Wallace, Head of Environment and Sustainability at Aberdeenshire Council, said: “Our pilot service was introduced to test a revised approach to the provision of supported bus services which came at a particularly apt time given the change in travel needs and travel demands arising from the Covid pandemic.

“The data from our analysis suggests that the Ready2Go service has been successful in helping to reverse ongoing bus patronage decline. The continuation of the pilot will allow us to work with our supplier on software development to further improve the service for a more rewarding experience for all our passengers across the Ready2Go area.

“Furthermore, it will enable us to explore, along with Transport Scotland and other organisations, additional funding streams for DDRT which is currently high profile in both national and regional transport strategies. In this respect, our Ready2Go Around Inverurie service is at the forefront of trialling rural DDRT both within a Scottish and UK context.”

Infrastructure Services Committee chair and Nestrans chair Cllr John Crawley said: “The feedback and data from the initial trial period is encouraging, particularly in terms of increasing passenger numbers.

“By extending the service for a further year we’ll be able to gather more information on passenger trends and we hope those using the service will continue to find it useful.”

Committee vice-chair Cllr Isobel Davidson added: “It is particularly encouraging that the Ready2Go service seems to be proving popular with young people.

“There is evidence that the app approach suits a large number of people but the council will continue to provide support for those wishing to book by phone.”

 

[SCH117X]

The North Yorkshire Yorbus service is being axed at the end of June https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/news/2023/yorbus-pilot-will-shape-future-transport-provision.

YorBus pilot will shape future transport provision​

Date: 26 May 2023



Lessons learnt from North Yorkshire’s on-demand bus service will be key in developing a long-term transport strategy for rural areas as the pilot reaches its planned end next month.
The YorBus service was launched by North Yorkshire County Council in July 2021 to operate in the Ripon, Bedale and Masham area to offer passengers low-cost journeys on demand.
Executive member for highways and transport, Cllr Keane Duncan, said the pilot - which comes to an end on June 30 - has provided valuable insights about demand responsive transport in rural areas.
He said: “We launched the YorBus pilot two years ago to enhance our existing public transport network. It has allowed us to gather valuable information about the costs and benefits of running a digital demand responsive bus service.
“While YorBus proved popular with passengers, the service only operates in one part of the county and the cost per journey is significantly higher than the traditional, timetabled bus routes we support.
“Without sufficient additional funding being available to expand the service so YorBus can benefit residents across North Yorkshire, and with costs per journey remaining so high despite efforts to improve value for money, the pilot will come to an end as planned next month.
“This will allow us to be fair to all residents and focus every penny of our limited resources on supporting bus services across the county at a time of unprecedented pressure.
“While continuing to work closely with operators to support at-risk services, we are also currently reviewing a number of initiatives to improve rural transport and asking the public for their views to help shape our future strategy.”
YorBus was launched in July 2021 for a one-year trial, but the former North Yorkshire County Council decided to extend it for a further year with the addition of a free, pre-booking feature.
The YorBus pilot costs almost £230,000 to operate annually, using one-off council funding. Latest figures showed YorBus journeys are more than double the cost of a scheduled service.
Last year, the county council was unsuccessful in its bid for £116 million to invest in bus services in the Government’s Bus Back Better scheme. In total, just 34 of 79 areas which applied were successful. Part of this funding was earmarked for the expansion of YorBus across North Yorkshire.
On Monday (22 May), we launched the Let’s Talk transport survey, encouraging residents to share their travel habits in a bid to shape a transport strategy for the coming decades. Lessons from the YorBus pilot will help to form the first draft of the new Local Transport Plan.
The two YorBus vehicles will be returned to our fleet for use on other local bus services and drivers redeployed.
Bus routes 136, 138, 138A, 139, 144 and 159 will continue to run and there are community transport operators in the areas where YorBus operates.

 

[MotCO]

The North Yorkshire Yorbus service is being axed at the end of June https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/news/2023/yorbus-pilot-will-shape-future-transport-provision.

The YorBus service was launched by North Yorkshire County Council in July 2021 to operate in the Ripon, Bedale and Masham area to offer passengers low-cost journeys on demand.

“While YorBus proved popular with passengers, the service only operates in one part of the county and the cost per journey is significantly higher than the traditional, timetabled bus routes we support.
“Without sufficient additional funding being available to expand the service so YorBus can benefit residents across North Yorkshire, and with costs per journey remaining so high despite efforts to improve value for money, the pilot will come to an end as planned next month.

The YorBus pilot costs almost £230,000 to operate annually, using one-off council funding. Latest figures showed YorBus journeys are more than double the cost of a scheduled service.

Who would have guessed?

Why did they not just run a normal bus service - in their own words the cost would not have been so high.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

The North Yorkshire Yorbus service is being axed at the end of June https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/news/2023/yorbus-pilot-will-shape-future-transport-provision.

Where is the National Audit Office when you need them?

Up and down the country, we see councils setting up rural DRT schemes (usually badged as a trial or a pilot) despite the plentiful previous evidence from trials/pilots in other areas. It is by now well proven that DRT is not going to be a cost-effective solution for demand that has become too dispersed to make timetabled services economic.

Yet there is no shortage of councils still launching trials of rural DRT (and, in due course - when the money runs out and the schemes are shut down - emphasising all the important insights that have been gained).

Is this because the councils are so locally focussed that they don't bother looking elsewhere to see whether there are lessons that have already been expensively learned elsewhere?

Is it because councils arrogantly presume they can deliver a better solution, one that fixes the problems encountered in all of the previous trials?

Or is it because, if there is free money available, councils are happy to squander it on projects that they know to be doomed from the outset?

How much more needs to be wasted on rural DRT schemes before someone centrally blows the whistle and says "enough"?

 

[SCH117X]

There are a number or normal bus services in the Yorbus area which were, unlike other DRT schemes, not affected and the DRT monies spent enhacing those might have been a beter use.

 

[Dai Corner]

Where is the National Audit Office when you need them?

Up and down the country, we see councils setting up rural DRT schemes (usually badged as a trial or a pilot) despite the plentiful previous evidence from trials/pilots in other areas. It is by now well proven that DRT is not going to be a cost-effective solution for demand that has become too dispersed to make timetabled services economic.

Yet there is no shortage of councils still launching trials of rural DRT (and, in due course - when the money runs out and the schemes are shut down - emphasising all the important insights that have been gained).

Is this because the councils are so locally focussed that they don't bother looking elsewhere to see whether there are lessons that have already been expensively learned elsewhere?

Is it because councils arrogantly presume they can deliver a better solution, one that fixes the problems encountered in all of the previous trials?

Or is it because, if there is free money available, councils are happy to squander it on projects that they know to be doomed from the outset?

How much more needs to be wasted on rural DRT schemes before someone centrally blows the whistle and says "enough"?

There are a number or normal bus services in the Yorbus area which were, unlike other DRT schemes, not affected and the DRT monies spent enhacing those might have been a beter use.

See this news article, and in particular the quotes from the buses Minister

Dan Norris urged to save threatened BANES bus routes

The Department for Transport has changed its policy for how a government grant can be spent.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Department for Transport confirmed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service that it was willing to be flexible with how bus service improvement plan (BSIP) funding was used.

It also said that local government could decide if supporting bus services would provide best use for money and become sustainable long-term.

He said: "I would be happy to say to local councils, where they have got subsidised buses that they think are very important, to meet me halfway and we will see if we can go 50/50 to keep some of these routes going.

"But what I can't just do is give loads of money... over to just propping up a system that will stop when that money stops."

 

[Typhoon]

There are a number or normal bus services in the Yorbus area which were, unlike other DRT schemes, not affected and the DRT monies spent enhacing those might have been a beter use.

Exactly, except that the DRT services take passengers away from the conventional bus services, reducing the passenger numbers on them and consequently their viability. Just keeping the (usually well-established) timetables would be helpful.
Nothing I have written above is original, almost all members of the Forum will have read it before but I am hoping maybe, just maybe, a councillor or council officer comes across this thread and thinks 'He's got a point', or is the pull of DfT funding and the related photo-ops just too great?

 

[SCH117X]

What Yorbus did allow for was the basic level of service that the extent network had been trimmed of. For example the Richmond-Ripon service (159) does not allow for am peak journeys wth the earliest arrivals at Ripon being 0932 (a short working from Masham) and 1133 from Richmond. There is (Mon-Fri) a working via an alternative route from Masham (138) which arrives at Ripon at 0725 which is not much use for those residents on the 159 route. Both the 138 and 159 have a 1805 return from Ripon.

 

[RT4038]

Where is the National Audit Office when you need them?

Up and down the country, we see councils setting up rural DRT schemes (usually badged as a trial or a pilot) despite the plentiful previous evidence from trials/pilots in other areas. It is by now well proven that DRT is not going to be a cost-effective solution for demand that has become too dispersed to make timetabled services economic.

Many of these schemes have been funded externally to the Council's normal bus service subsidy budget - often a specific fund or grant for the purpose of establishing a DRT service. (RMF ('Rural Mobility Fund') being the most recent funded by Central Government) or possibly funded by s106 ['planning gain'] agreement where the Developer has chosen to fulfil the Council's transport requirement with a DRT. In these circumstances the trials/pilots in other areas are not that relevant , except perhaps as a pointer to best practice. In the case of the RMF Central Government funded schemes, the specific purpose of Government in granting the money is to try and find the valhalla of a financially sustainable DRT scheme (or if not, to shut down any further suggestions that DRT is the answer to public transport in the future). If offered the chance to bid for this money, why would a council not take it, especially if the DRT is replacing a subsidised scheduled bus service being funded out of their own scant resources? As you point out, when the initial grant funding runs out then the services are ceasing, so it is usually not Council revenue resources being used (these being mainly swallowed up by statutory responsibilities in Adult & Young social care, Special Education needs and Education in general!)

Yet there is no shortage of councils still launching trials of rural DRT (and, in due course - when the money runs out and the schemes are shut down - emphasising all the important insights that have been gained).

Is this because the councils are so locally focussed that they don't bother looking elsewhere to see whether there are lessons that have already been expensively learned elsewhere?

Is it because councils arrogantly presume they can deliver a better solution, one that fixes the problems encountered in all of the previous trials?

Or is it because, if there is free money available, councils are happy to squander it on projects that they know to be doomed from the outset?

You have got to realise that many Councillors, council officers and lots of the general public do not use conventional scheduled buses, have a disdain for them, seeing them as outdated, unpleasant, inconvenient and wastefully not picking up passengers very much at all (often making financial losses that the Council is expected to subsidise). Many of the general public who do use them do not rate the experience at all - walking to and from bus stops, waiting, riding in large nearly empty buses etc. As my old Dad would say - what they want is taxis at bus fares. DRT appears to offer a shared taxi eliminating the waste of travelling about empty and giving door to door convenience - what isn't there to like?

As you point out, there are certain operational and financial shortcomings which largely negate any of the DRT advantages, but this is only going to be conclusively apparent and believed by the failure of a large number of schemes (large because if there is only a small number of schemes then it will always be claimed that this and that was done wrong, or the geography/demographics was not conducive etc).

How much more needs to be wasted on rural DRT schemes before someone centrally blows the whistle and says "enough"?

I guess when the current RMF funded (and those funded from other specific sources) run out?

That isn't to say that DRT does not have its place. In the Local Authority that I live there (which funds a fairly comprehensive bus network in addition to the commercially operated services) is one RMF funded scheme (replacing a subsidised fixed route with very little overlap with other services) and several low cost rural DRT schemes that only operate at certain fixed hours on Mon-Fri, essentially using vehicles between Special Education needs transport contracts. These are to cater for (a) hamlets and isolated areas not covered by the scheduled bus network, and (b) those with disabilities who cannot access the local bus network [at either end of their journey within a defined area], even if there is one close by. These latter schemes are 'phone booking only. Taxis could be used for these, but there are governance and auditing issues, and the SEN vehicles/drivers are available for use. The RMF scheme will probably return to the fixed route service in the future..... However, a majority of the passengers love the DRT, and the per passenger subsidy is cheaper than certain rural rail lines........

 

[RogerOut]

I still can’t really get my head around how DRT works. Firstly, depending on the area, has it had enough publicity?
Does little old Doris in a village in Kent for example know what it is or how it works?
I know the bus operators doing this are being paid by the council so at least in the short term are getting money paid to them for having this extra service.
Again, how this logistically works I don’t know.

And if it’s aimed at mainly concessionary customers in rural areas, surely this is just a big expense for the tax payers?

 

[MotCO]

I still can’t really get my head around how DRT works. Firstly, depending on the area, has it had enough publicity?
Does little old Doris in a village in Kent for example know what it is or how it works?
I know the bus operators doing this are being paid by the council so at least in the short term are getting money paid to them for having this extra service.
Again, how this logistically works I don’t know.

And if it’s aimed at mainly concessionary customers in rural areas, surely this is just a big expense for the tax payers?

I think the answer is it doesn't work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the answer is it doesn't work.

That's certainly my experience. Or rather, "many to many" DRT doesn't work; there is a bit of scope for DRT to one point at specified times (e.g. a train or supermarket) to work.

 

[Dai Corner]

That's certainly my experience. Or rather, "many to many" DRT doesn't work; there is a bit of scope for DRT to one point at specified times (e.g. a train or supermarket) to work.

It isn't resourced or funded anywhere near enough to work on a 'many to many' basis, even in urban areas.

Here in my medium sized city the DRT fare was £2 (concessionary passholders travelled free) and there were four vehicles in service after 1900 when scheduled buses finished. The taxi fare was £5 to £10 and there were dozens of them on the road. On the rare occasions I managed to book a DRT I usually had it to myself. Drivers told me that the only time they had a full load was when they picked up staff who'd just finished work at a particular factory and dropped them off near their homes (i.e. a 'one to many' service).

I write in the past tense as the experiment lasted a year and we went back to scheduled evening services which have much higher load factors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't resourced or funded anywhere near enough to work on a 'many to many' basis, even in urban areas.

The thing is that if you do put that level of money in, you could tender hourly fixed routes (or better) instead, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who wouldn't prefer a fixed route than DRT, thus (other than in a few rural contexts) there's very little point funding many-to-many DRT such that it'd be any good.

 

[Dai Corner]

The thing is that if you do put that level of money in, you could tender hourly fixed routes (or better) instead, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who wouldn't prefer a fixed route than DRT, thus (other than in a few rural contexts) there's very little point funding many-to-many DRT such that it'd be any good.

Indeed.

The long-running old-style DRT in the rural parts of the city appears to be a workable compromise. Passengers book the previous day by phone (I think block bookings are available for workers), get picked up at their nearest rural stop and dropped off at another rural stop or at a limited range of urban destinations (supermarket, GP surgery, hospital, bus station). Return journeys work the opposite way, obviously. Let's call it 'many to few'.

Note that these were operating long before the app-based DRT experiment and are still going. Also that some would prefer the interurban route which uses the main road to bypass their village be rerouted.

I must try it out one day by using it to get to a village pub for lunch!

 

[RT4038]

I think the answer is it doesn't work.

I think it is rather 'It doesn't work at any sensible cost', unless it is structured quite tightly and only partially demand responsive.

 

[Snex]

You have got to realise that many Councillors, council officers and lots of the general public do not use conventional scheduled buses, have a disdain for them, seeing them as outdated, unpleasant, inconvenient and wastefully not picking up passengers very much at all (often making financial losses that the Council is expected to subsidise). Many of the general public who do use them do not rate the experience at all - walking to and from bus stops, waiting, riding in large nearly empty buses etc. As my old Dad would say - what they want is taxis at bus fares. DRT appears to offer a shared taxi eliminating the waste of travelling about empty and giving door to door convenience - what isn't there to like?

As you point out, there are certain operational and financial shortcomings which largely negate any of the DRT advantages, but this is only going to be conclusively apparent and believed by the failure of a large number of schemes (large because if there is only a small number of schemes then it will always be claimed that this and that was done wrong, or the geography/demographics was not conducive etc).

Totally agree with everything you said but the ironic thing is they advertise them as a conventional bus which you have to ring to pick you up or use an app which pensioners don't understand and totally miss both markets.

Imagine if some day, you could load up your Uber App and have the option for a 'shared taxi', for a cheaper fare, or a 'private car'. It's where DRT needs to go to be successful. I still think they have a future but they're not a bus replacement they're a whole different market. I'm still surprised one of the taxi companies haven't tapped into it, especially with the driver shortages most of them are having lately. Places like the North East at 2am, there's 10 taxis going backwards and forwards from Newcastle and the North Tyneside Coast and 2 hour waits, on paper, it's the ideal fix.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Totally agree with everything you said but the ironic thing is they advertise them as a conventional bus which you have to ring to pick you up or use an app which pensioners don't understand and totally miss both markets.

Imagine if some day, you could load up your Uber App and have the option for a 'shared taxi', for a cheaper fare, or a 'private car'. It's where DRT needs to go to be successful. I still think they have a future but they're not a bus replacement they're a whole different market. I'm still surprised one of the taxi companies haven't tapped into it, especially with the driver shortages most of them are having lately. Places like the North East at 2am, there's 10 taxis going backwards and forwards from Newcastle and the North Tyneside Coast and 2 hour waits, on paper, it's the ideal fix.

Uber do offer that, it's called UberPool. It isn't however offered in the UK. Why this is I'm not sure, perhaps Uber are concerned about whether it has licensing implications, particularly in London, to be operating "per head" priced services, perhaps they're concerned about the implications on liability for crime of pairing random people up, or perhaps both.

Notably UberPool only tries to match up two journeys, the idea being one person sits in the front and one in the back so they aren't too close together. I think this says a fair bit about how many journeys they expect to actually match up, and this is with Uber in cities having hugely higher passenger volumes than a rural DRT ever will.

(As to that Tyneside example, the answer, as found in most countries that take public transport seriously, is "a night bus", not ten shared taxis).

 

[RT4038]

Totally agree with everything you said but the ironic thing is they advertise them as a conventional bus which you have to ring to pick you up or use an app which pensioners don't understand and totally miss both markets.

I don't really understand your comment here. The DRT most local to me is certainly not advertised as a conventional bus. It is advertised as Demand Responsive transport. You may be surprised at how many pensioners can operate and book via the app. The others can phone and the call centre effectively operate the app for them. Yes, there was some confusion to start with (the service replaced a conventional bus route) but either their friends/family helped them, or they phoned for help or didn't travel at all. One year in, it is carrying about 85% of the conventional bus patronage at three times the cost of provision. But the local councillor says the people love it - of course they do - taxi at bus fares!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't really understand your comment here. The DRT most local to me is certainly not advertised as a conventional bus. It is advertised as Demand Responsive transport. You may be surprised at how many pensioners can operate and book via the app. The others can phone and the call centre effectively operate the app for them. Yes, there was some confusion to start with (the service replaced a conventional bus route) but either their friends/family helped them, or they phoned for help or didn't travel at all. One year in, it is carrying about 85% of the conventional bus patronage at three times the cost of provision. But the local councillor says the people love it - of course they do - taxi at bus fares!

That's how it is in Milton Keynes. A small number of people are enjoying cheap taxi fares. Most people are having to make different arrangements, e.g. a full price regular taxi or buying a car.

In value for money terms it's appalling, and I'd rather nothing and lower Council Tax than what is provided.

 

[RT4038]

That's how it is in Milton Keynes. A small number of people are enjoying cheap taxi fares. Most people are having to make different arrangements, e.g. a full price regular taxi or buying a car.

In value for money terms it's appalling, and I'd rather nothing and lower Council Tax than what is provided.

Maybe it is just a halfway stage getting people used to taking a full price regular taxi.......

 

[Snex]

Uber do offer that, it's called UberPool. It isn't however offered in the UK. Why this is I'm not sure, perhaps Uber are concerned about whether it has licensing implications, particularly in London, to be operating "per head" priced services, perhaps they're concerned about the implications on liability for crime of pairing random people up, or perhaps both.

Notably UberPool only tries to match up two journeys, the idea being one person sits in the front and one in the back so they aren't too close together. I think this says a fair bit about how many journeys they expect to actually match up, and this is with Uber in cities having hugely higher passenger volumes than a rural DRT ever will.

(As to that Tyneside example, the answer, as found in most countries that take public transport seriously, is "a night bus", not ten shared taxis).

Never realised that existed. Yeah your probably right though, guessing it will fall outside of taxi rules and they're already in hot water over the legalities over here anyway.

Agreed with night buses, but North Tyneside is a bit of an awkward place to serve, thanks to fantastic planning over the past 50 years but that's another discussion really.

I don't really understand your comment here. The DRT most local to me is certainly not advertised as a conventional bus. It is advertised as Demand Responsive transport. You may be surprised at how many pensioners can operate and book via the app. The others can phone and the call centre effectively operate the app for them. Yes, there was some confusion to start with (the service replaced a conventional bus route) but either their friends/family helped them, or they phoned for help or didn't travel at all. One year in, it is carrying about 85% of the conventional bus patronage at three times the cost of provision. But the local councillor says the people love it - of course they do - taxi at bus fares!

Not sure, which area your local DRT is as it seems much better publicised than the one in Teesside which is just a confusing mess. It's even got to the stage that we were having a discussion on what half of it means on a local bus forum and when people into buses don't understand it then who knows what other people think.

This is the site though - https://www.stagecoachbus.com/promos-and-offers/north-east/tees-flex, which is just confusing. Most the time the buses are just parked at Morrison's or Tesco.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

What do proponents of DRT for rural areas (or at least the predominant "many-to-many" taxi-for-the-price-of-a-bus variant) think they are trying to achieve?

Politicians seem predominantly hooked on the idea that DRT will avoid the visible waste of running timetabled services with few (or no) passengers. If buses only run where and when people want them, surely that will be less inefficient.

The economics founder on the fact that DRT buses also spend a lot of time running empty - and when they do have passengers, it is seldom more than one or two travel-together groups. My analysis of data from Yorbus showed buses running with passengers only 33% of the operating hours. And carrying more passengers than would fit in a taxi (with an empty seat between strangers) only 2.5% of the time.

DRT scheme announcements often hint at the potential for "modal shift" - providing such an attractive service that those who have use of a car will voluntarily use DRT in its place. There is certainly scope for this: who wouldn't want to have cheap door-to-door when-required transport? But the low numbers on the DRT vehicle means not only that DRT is very expensive per trip, but that it will often increase emissions compared to car use.

If I drive across the moors to spend a few hours in a local town, my car will wait for me in town as long as I need. A DRT bus can't wait, but has to come back - almost certainly empty - to deliver the next ride. And later in the day, it will have to run out (probably empty) to town in order to bring me back - so two return DRT trips to replace the one return trip for my car. And if that bus (by virtue of its size) has twice the emissions-per-mile of the car, then it will need to replace four car-loads (perhaps five or six people, allowing for couples travelling together) to avoid increasing emissions, Few DRT trips achieve these levels.

It is so depressing that we see all these DRT schemes that are launched without a clear exposition of what it is that they are seeking to prove, and shut down with a bit of brave PR ("we have learned some very valuable insights") but no writeup that could help build collective knowledge and so save us from repeating the same mistakes again and again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think DRT comes with an expectation that it'll only be used by people who don't have a car (or for shorter trips bicycle). It will, unlike potentially a timetabled service going into a congested town via bus lanes, almost never be more convenient.

 

[MotCO]

It is so depressing that we see all these DRT schemes that are launched without a clear exposition of what it is that they are seeking to prove, and shut down with a bit of brave PR ("we have learned some very valuable insights") but no writeup that could help build collective knowledge and so save us from repeating the same mistakes again and again.

I thnk that this is key. What are the objectives of the DRT as set out in the Business Case (I assume there was a Business Case with quantifiable objectives)? If so, to what extent are these objectives met? How real are these objectives and how have they been estimated at the outset? Critically, how did the Business Case get approved by the Councils / Transport Authority in the first place?

 

[edwin_m]

I think DRT comes with an expectation that it'll only be used by people who don't have a car (or for shorter trips bicycle). It will, unlike potentially a timetabled service going into a congested town via bus lanes, almost never be more convenient.

I'd put it even stronger than that and say it'll only be used by people who can't drive or can't afford a car, leaving aside the option of cycling as it would make this post too convoluted. To make it attractive to drivers who have access to a car, it would have to reliably offer a service at the precise time demanded and at very short notice, at a fare comparable to a bus. This would make it a taxi-at-the-price-of-a-bus money pit for the subsidising authority, especially as larger vehicles and employee drivers would make it more costly to operate than a taxi firm providing equivalent service.

One possible market is teenagers who want to get around but are too young to drive and don't have convenient bus services for the journeys they want to make. However, I'm pretty sure if that group are aware of DRT at all, they would see it as something provided for the use of pensioners.

 

[Man of Kent]

One possible market is teenagers who want to get around but are too young to drive and don't have convenient bus services for the journeys they want to make. However, I'm pretty sure if that group are aware of DRT at all, they would see it as something provided for the use of pensioners.

Interestingly a recent presentation about the HertsLynx DRT in Hertfordshire stated that they had targetted this group, and was seeing some success both at journeys for education and for leisure. From memory (notes not currently accessible) I think it was said they make up about 35% of demand. Not that it was remotely affordable - subsidy per head was in the (again, from memory) £8 to £11 range - way above the criteria for fixed route services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly a recent presentation about the HertsLynx DRT in Hertfordshire stated that they had targetted this group, and was seeing some success both at journeys for education and for leisure. From memory (notes not currently accessible) I think it was said they make up about 35% of demand. Not that it was remotely affordable - subsidy per head was in the (again, from memory) £8 to £11 range - way above the criteria for fixed route services.

It may well be that school journeys are one of the few types where you do get synergies on many to many DRT - even more so if advance booking is possible, though it isn't on most of the VIA systems.

One thing I've noticed is that on MK Connect they are increasingly using five-seat electric cars (e.g. the MG5 I saw half an hour ago) which I think demonstrates just how few journeys are lining up.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

It may well be that school journeys are one of the few types where you do get synergies on many to many DRT ...

School journeys seem more like many-to-few (picking up from multiple homes, taking to a small number of schools). And that can offer better efficiency than a full "many-to-many" DRT service.

But with a fairly stable pattern of home-school requirements, you can do better still.

You don't have to put up with the inefficiencies of schedules built one request at a time that is one part of why many-to-many DRT is so inefficient. You could run a three stage process (collect requests so you know all the needs/preferences, compile an efficient schedule, then tell people exactly when and where you will pick them up), which seems to have been accepted as too much hassle for different-every-day "true" many-many DRT.

And when you have done that, you're really not so different from the sort of service that local authorities already run in rural areas. If there is an insistence on running a DRT service in the middle of the day, then using the DRT vehicles for home-school transport may be sensible, but I don't see why that schools operation would need to run on a "DRT" basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And when you have done that, you're really not so different from the sort of service that local authorities already run in rural areas. If there is an insistence on running a DRT service in the middle of the day, then using the DRT vehicles for home-school transport may be sensible, but I don't see why that schools operation would need to run on a "DRT" basis.

Yes, true.

If you were being super-flexible, one thing you could argue for would be for the area to have a fleet of DRT vehicles of various sizes and to use them in various different ways. One is school services as you suggest. Another may be a low demand scheduled service on which you can book to ensure a seat or turn up and take an unbooked one. A third may be you simply have them running on demand when they fill up, e.g. for a shuttle between an awkwardly located railway station and the centre of the town or city (e.g. Cambridge). Another might be a one to many DRT based around a supermarket and its surrounding estates, doing a bookable loop once an hour. Some of those things are done better with a full size bus, sure, and you would still want some fixed routes with big buses, but DRT drivers are cheaper as they're just cars.