The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision

This paper explores the existing context of public transport provision in rural and remote areas illustrated with experience from Scotland. A critical review of existing Flexible Transport Services (FTS) in rural areas is provided and illustrated with selected case studies, with the objective of identifying the extent to which FTS can enhance the public transport offer. Findings confirm that FTS offers considerable potential to contribute to and support the public transport system in rural areas; however, the paper also identifies the many challenges in successful development or enhancement of FTS in rural areas. Introduction It is widely accepted that a basic problem with rural transport is the lack of opportunities available to access a necessary range of basic service outlets and amenities located in distant centers (Nutley 2003; Kamruzzaman and Hine 2011). Traditionally, for most trips in urban areas, users seeking an alternative to private car use will generally have a choice of several alternative transport modes ranging from a (relatively) low-cost fixed route and fixed schedule public transport service to a high-cost and comfortable private taxi providing door-to-door service. This range of transport supply may not be available for remote and sparsely populated rural Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 112 areas, where population density is low. Often, these remote areas are provided with inadequate public transport options for most of the day. The definition and classification of urban and rural areas varies across the world and even within the UK. In this paper, we have considered a six-stage urban-rural classification by the Scottish Government that is based on settlement size and proximity to other bigger settlements (National Statistics 2010). The need for transport services for socially disadvantaged groups (e.g., older adults, young, and disabled) in rural and remotely located areas is undeniable (Currie 2010). To a great extent, a well-organized public transport system in rural areas can enhance economic growth by improving social inclusion, accessibility, and mobility (Farrington and Farrington 2005). However, the characteristics of rural areas present some barriers to improving and developing public transportation. Examples of such characteristics are (1) rural dwellings are distributed over large areas, (2) population density is low and so potential passenger numbers are limited, and (3) level of demand is unpredictable. As a result, public transport systems in rural areas generally suffer from low and uncertain demand, and service coverage is very limited since the provision of frequent and widespread commercial public transport services is financially unjustifiable for the passenger numbers attainable. A flexible and demand-responsive transport system has been identified as one of the promising solutions for widespread public transport in rural areas at times that are desired (Mulley and Nelson 2009). Over the last 20 years, many flexible transport services have been established; examples include shared taxicabs, shuttle vans, dial-a-ride services, paratransit services, ring-and-ride services, dial-up buses, lift shares, and car-clubs (Li and Quadrifoglio 2010). However, these are introduced largely as stand-alone services often to cater to a specific group of the population or to fill a specific need. There is little or no integration between services and so they may not offer a comprehensive network solution that could fill the gaps in conventional public transport in rural areas. More recent interest has centered on the extent to which collective or shared taxi services could be used to meet rural accessibility needs; the institutional, regulatory, and financial barriers to the introduction of such a scheme nationwide are explored by Mulley (2010). FTS have been introduced both as part of the public transport mix and also to meet certain accessibility gaps. It is recognized that accessibility is a multi-dimensional concept relating to the ease with which individuals can reach destinations. Daniels et al. (2011) suggest that a number of different accessibility gaps can, therefore, exist, including a lack of service (spatial gap), inaccessible vehicles (physical gap), no The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision 113 service at the required time or the journey takes too long (time gap), passengers do not have the required information (information gap), services are too expensive (economic gap), and cultural/attitudinal issues around the use of public transport (cultural/attitudinal gap). Evidence (Nelson and Phonphitakchai 2011) suggests that a well-designed flexible transport system can integrate different modes of transport to provide more user-centric, comfortable, and cost effective transport options by offering desired flexibility in choosing route, time, mode of transport, service provider, payment system, etc. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to examine to what extent flexible and demand-responsive transport could be used to enhance public transport provision in rural areas and identify various challenges in implementing and enhancing FTS in rural and remote areas. Public Transport in Rural Areas: Case Study of Scotland Public transport in rural areas generally suffers from lack of service availability and infrastructure; services are infrequent, not easily accessible, and not connected to other modes of transport (Halden et al. 2002; Currie 2010). Recently, to enhance accessibility and connectivity for socially-disadvantaged groups the provision of enhanced public transport in remote areas is seen as one of several major rural development rationales (Currie 2010). Despite the efforts by the government, public transport provision in rural areas is still associated with poor service levels (Hurni 2006). This leads to problems of social exclusion particularly for the young, old, low-income, and disabled (Farrington and Farrington 2005; Shergold and Parkhurst 2010). A study by Farrington et al. (1998) showed that in rural Scotland 89 percent of households had access to a car; moreover, cars were the main mode of transport for 77 percent of journeys, most rural areas were not connected by trains, and buses were used for 2 percent of journeys. Further, output from a survey of commuters who did not use public transport and used a personal car to access their work, study, and other basic amenities (such as hospitals and shopping centers) is shown in Figure 1 (Scottish Executive,2003). This survey was conducted with the age group of 16 and above, and the sample size was 31,031 randomly-selected households across Scotland. It was identified that in rural areas the most common reason for not using public transport is lack of service availability, followed by no direct route and inconvenience. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 114 In rural areas, if both a public transport service and access to a car are available for a journey, most passengers use a personal car; the main reason is lack of convenient public transport (Scottish Executive 2006a). In Figure 2, passenger views on the convenience of public transport in Scotland are shown. In rural Scotland, about 25 percent of passengers stated that public transport is very inconvenient. Conversely, about 50 percent of urban dwellers regarded public transport as being very convenient. According to the Scottish Household Survey conducted in 2009, only 2 percent of the rural population agreed that they have good public transport (National Statistics 2010). The geographical classification of Scotland shows that remote rural areas occupy 69 percent of the total land and contain only 6 percent of the total Scottish population (National Statistics 2010). (Here, remote rural areas are defined as settlements of less than 3,000 people not within a 30-minute drive of a settlement of 10,000+ people.) The road travel time by car to basic amenities (such as hospitals, and shopping centers) by postcode sector in Scotland is shown in Figure 3. From Figure 4, it is revealed that 73, 61, and 85 percent of remote rural population are located more than a 15-minutes drive time by public transport to reach the nearest GP, post office, and shopping facilities, respectively. Further, National Statistics (2010) revealed that about 29 percent of remote rural dwellers are more than 13 minutes and 20 percent are more than 26 minutes from their nearest bus stop. Access to basic amenities through public transport is an essential requirement for rural dwellers, and the Scottish Government has recognized inadequate public transport as a major cause of social exclusion in remote rural areas (Scottish Executive 2001). Considering the conditions of public transport in remote areas of Scotland, in order to enhance social inclusion, accessibility, and mobility, there is a clear imperative to further improve transport provision. In the following section, the potential for demand-responsive and flexible transport services in rural and remote areas is reviewed. The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision 115 Source: Scottish Executive, 2003 Figure 1. Reasons for not using public transport Source: Scottish Executive, 2006a Figure 2. Views on the convenience of public transport in Scotland Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 116 Source: Modified from Halden et al. (2002) and TACTRAN (2008) Figure 3. Road travel time to basic amenities by postcode sector in Scotland The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision 117 Source: National Statistics, 2010 Figure 4. Percentage of population within 15-minute drive time by public transport service, by geographic area, 2009 Review of Flexible Transport Services in Rural Areas It seems unlikely that traditional fixed-route public transport in rural areas can be expected to provide a greater contribution than at present; the main barriers to this are identified as effective deployment in terms of both financial and carbon efficiency (Shergold and Parkhurst 2010). Recent studies suggest that one set of solutions for rural transport problems could be demand-led approaches such as demand-responsive flexible transport services, more formalized lift-giving, and community transport schemes (Mulley 2010). However, implementation of these demand-led approaches in rural areas has associated problems or limitations such as with technology, integration, and cost (Shergold and Parkhurst 2010). A feasibility evaluation of FTS by Takeuchi et al. (2003) showed that FTS is one of the better solutions for transport problems in remote areas with low demand where conventional public transport systems are not appropriate. It was identified that FTS can improve mobility for special users (such as older adults and persons with disabilities) in rural areas because users are specific and demand density is small. Scott (2010) reviewed a specific FTS (Treintaxi services in Netherlands) that connects train stations and surrounding suburban and rural areas and found that Treintaxi services improve connectivity. In an international review, Enoch et al. (2004) found that fixed-route, fixed-schedule public buses are not ideally suited to serving dispersed rural areas with correspondingly low demand for public transport; and substitution of FTS can substantially replace conventional public Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 118 transport services. However, there can be problems with lack of operators willing or able to participate in rural areas and in smaller settlements, leading to shortage of vehicles (Grosso et al. 2002). One possibility is to establish a service based on taxis in remote areas, although this may require considerable effort by local authorities (Enoch et al. 2004). Brake and Nelson (2007) identified that in a deregulated public transport environment (such as the UK), more integrated flexible transport solutions (e.g., permitting the general public on education contract services, the use of taxis for shared public transport, and the provision of vehicles enabling access to work) based on people’s real needs are required. Their research has examined the conditions that shape the provision of rural transport (such as demand pattern, rural accessibility) and analyzed the role of FTS in rural public transport using a case study of rural flexible transport schemes (Phone and Go services) in Northumberland, UK. Their study revealed that full integration of fixed-route public transport with FTS and links between stakeholders working in partnership would lead to enhancement of the rural transport system; similar findings have been demonstrated in urban and peri-urban locations (Nelson and Phonphitakchai 2011). In 2008, the UK Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) examined the role of taxi-based demand-responsive transport services alongside conventional public transport in meeting rural accessibility needs (CfIT 2008). Its project conducted primary desktop research of publicly-available data, case studies, and stakeholder consultation of existing rural FTS across the UK and mainland Europe (see Figure 5). Their analysis concluded that demand-responsive FTS could be a promising solution to connect remote rural areas—with low population density and individuals with different requirements—and conventional public transport on main corridors. It was also found that integrated large-scale (regional) rural FTS with public transport can offer several benefits (for example, cost efficiencies, better services). From case studies, it was also noted that significant amounts of public subsidy/ funding are generally provided to improve and maintain public transport services in rural areas, though this has not generally been applied to rural FTS (CfIT 2008). A recent review of 48 FTS schemes in England and Wales (Laws et al, 2009) found that in rural areas, 16 out of 25 FTS require more than £5 subsidy per passenger trip, 8 out of 25 FTS require £2–£5 subsidy per passenger trip, and one service is breaking even. Funding remains a key barrier to the introduction of FTS in rural areas. The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision 119 Source: CfIT, 2008 Figure 5. Rural FTS case studies from UK and mainland Europe Within the UK, Mulley (2010) has analyzed the barriers to a nationwide shared taxi service to improve rural accessibility. Mulley concluded that while no institutional barriers have been identified within the deregulated framework for the introduction of collective taxi-based services, there is a complex regulatory system and an environment, through subsidy policy, that militates against the provision of a good quality taxi-based service, as observed in mainland Europe. FTS has also been identified as attractive not only because it can potentially be integrated with, and complementary to, conventional public transport services but it is also considered as an option for reducing vehicle pollutants (such as CO, NOx and Particulate Matter) by optimal use of vehicles (Dessouky et al. 2003; Tuomisto and Tainio 2005; Diana et al. 2007). It should be noted, however, that such studies have not explicitly considered the rural context. Hensher (2007) compared fixed-route public transport and informal flexible transport systems in some developing countries (e.g., the taxi van industry in South Africa). It was identified that FTS services offer the best transport service to conJournal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 120 nect main public transport corridors in low-density areas (suburban and rural); however, a greater focus should be placed on making these informal FTS safer and more reliable. With this evidence, it can be inferred that FTS is widely seen as very effective in extending and augmenting public transport in rural areas and can become an accepted form of public transport. However, there are some issues (e.g., technological, financial, integration, shortage of vehicles, safety, and reliability) in developing and enhancing FTS in rural areas. The following section explores the experiences with FTS in rural Scotland and identifies various challenges and opportunities for the enhancement of existing FTS. Existing Experience with FTS in Rural Scotland Scotland has wide experience with FTS services, many of which operate in rural areas. In 2006, there were about 140 schemes in operation, and their spread—categorized by user type and operator type—is illustrated in Figure 6. Source: Modified from Scottish Executive, 2006b Figure 6. FTS schemes in Scotland The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing Rural Public Transport Provision 121 From Figure 6, it can be observed that more than 50 percent of FTS are dedicated to mobility-impaired clients, with about 12 percent for general healthcare. None of the general healthcare FTS are established in the Scottish Highlands, where most of the land is rural and remote rural. There are five FTS schemes specifically for older adults and only one specifically for young passengers. It can be inferred from this that these groups could be perceived as potentially likely to be excluded. FTS schemes are operated/managed/commissioned by a range of different groups; it was also identified that most of the FTS in Scotland are community/volunteer and commercial type operation, and only about 7 percent are operated by local authorities. Some examples of current and previous FTS schemes for the general public in rural Scotland are listed in Table 1. Characteristics of the above FTS schemes in Scotland are further discussed here. • The Gaberlunzie bus service in East Lothian was one of the earliest DRT services in rural Scotland. This service aimed to connect rural areas to the local towns of Haddington and Dunbar. Due to the high cost per passenger trip (£12), in 2001, this service was redesigned as a fixed route Monday–Saturday service (Scottish Executive 2006b). • Flexible Transport Agency Services in Angus, which started in March 2002, were part of a European project funded by the EU-IST Programme (Eloranta and Masson 2004). The Angus FTS was not able to expand as a local agency for two principal reasons: (1) a variable pricing structure through the different operators (i.e., users did not necessarily have a constant price for a trip) due to the service being provided by different operators; and (2) users choosing to directly communicate with the operator for subsequent trips rather than through the Travel Dispatch Center (Scottish Executive 2006b). • Midlothian Council’s Dial a Journey service was established in 2003 to replace the conventional bus services withdrawn due to increasing costs and declining demand. The Dial a Journey service was run by local taxi operators (under taxi legislation), with conventional bus fares charged to passengers. The difference between taxi and bus fares was topped up by the council (Scottish Executive, 2006b). This service was stopped in March 2007 due to lack of funding. • The Aberdeenshire A2B dial-a-bus is a demand-responsive door-to-door transport service introduced by Aberdeenshire Council in 2004 with assisJournal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012 122 Ta bl e 1. E xa m pl es o f P ub lic F le xi bl e Tr an sp or t S ys te m s in R ur al S co tl an d A re a or C ou nc il Sc he m e Le ve l o f F le xib ili ty O pe ra to rs St ar t D at e En d D at e So ur ce Ea st L ot hi an G ab er lu nz ie B us Se m i-fl ex ib le Ea st L ot hi an C ou nci l a nd F irs tG ro up 19 99 20 01 Sc ot tis h Ex ec ut iv e (2 00 6b ) A ng us Fl ex ib le T ra ns po rt A ge nc y/ C om m uni ty T ra ns po rt D ev el op m en t D es tin at io n Sp ec ifi c A ng us T ra ns po rt Fo ru m A pr il 20 02 A pr il 20 07 El or an ta a nd M as so n (2 00 4) M id lo th ia n D ia l a Jo ur ne y Fl ex ib le Lo ca l t ax i o pe ra to rs M ar ch 20 03 M ar ch 20 07 Sc ot tis h Ex ec ut iv e (2 00 6b ) A be rd ee ns hi re A 2B D ia l-a -B us : A lfo rd ; C en tr al B uch an ; F ra se rb ur gh ; H un tly ; I nv er ur ie ; O ld m el dr um ; P et er he ad ; S tr at hd on ; Tu rr iff a nd W es th ill Fu lly -fl ex ib le St ag ec oa ch Bl ue bi rd , l oc al ta xi fir m s a nd A be rde en sh ire C ou nc il 20 04 St ill op er at in g Sc ot tis h Ex ec ut iv e (2 00 6b ) ht tp :// w w w .a be rd ee ns hi re .g ov . uk /p ub lic tr an sp or t/ a2 bd ia la bu s/