Demand Responsive Transport: A Review of Schemes in England and Wales

Local-authority-administered Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) schemes are increasingly prevalent in England and Wales, partly as a result of the growth in the availability of government funding. However, insufficient research has been undertaken into the nature of these schemes and their performance, making it difficult to predict their future role. In this respect, a survey was undertaken to collect data on the background, operation, and performance of DRT schemes in England and Wales. It found that DRT schemes are often designed in an attempt to tackle social problems caused by poor accessibility and that they took time to become established, to achieve their objectives, and to reach an acceptable performance in terms of subsidy level. The paper concludes that local-authority-led DRT schemes have a role to play, but that lessons learned from schemes currently in operation must be heeded by those contemplating new scheme development. Introduction Numerous DRT services operate in the UK; however, their future is now uncertain as funding streams are coming to an end. The time would, therefore, seem approJournal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2009 20 priate for taking stock of what the DRT schemes are doing and how they are doing it to discern a strategy for the future. The aim of this paper is to investigate the current situation of publicly-funded DRT schemes in England and Wales. Specifically, it investigates how and why DRT schemes have been established, including data on their design and operation, the catalysts for the schemes, and their objectives. Finally, it considers the current performance of the schemes. The following section provides a brief summary of the relevant literature followed by an outline of the method used to collect the data. This consisted of a survey sent to a carefully-selected number of local authorities who run DRT schemes. The findings from this survey are then presented along with discussion of the results and conclusions. Literature DRT “provides transport ‘on demand’ from passengers using fleets of vehicles scheduled to pick up and drop off people in accordance with their needs” (Mageean and Nelson 2003: 255). DRT has been seen as “an intermediate form of public transport, somewhere between a regular service route that uses small low floor buses and variably routed highly personalised transport services offered by taxis” (Brake et al. 2004: 324). Essentially, DRT can be defined as an intermediate and highly flexible mode of transportation giving rise to a wide variety of uses. There are a number of reasons why DRT has become an increasingly popular transport tool over recent years. They include an increasing dissatisfaction with conventional public transport provisions (Enoch et al. 2004; Mageean and Nelson 2003), more dispersed land use patterns (Enoch et al. 2004), the lack of adaptability of conventional bus and taxi services (Ambrosino et al., 2004) and an increasing governmental interest in improved social service transport and reducing social exclusion (Ambrosino et al. 2004; Mageean and Nelson 2003). DRT is seen by some as a tool that could fill the gap between a fixed route bus and a taxi to meet the needs of certain members of the population (Mageean and Nelson 2003). For example, Romanzzo et al. (2004) suggest that viable markets exist for DRT as an alternative transport method to be harnessed at times of weak demand, thus serving those who want to travel at these times. The role of DRT in the UK is different from the one it occupies in the U.S. due to legislative, regulatory, and market variations. Demand Responsive Transport: A Review of Schemes in England and Wales 21 DRT can also be used a tool to promote modal shift and increase public transport integration. There is evidence that DRT has the potential to meet the needs of niche markets, such as hospital transport (SEU 2003). Other suggested markets include shopping, commuting and leisure (Enoch et al. 2004). The Scottish Executive (2006) identified four potential categories for DRT services that encompass all of the aforementioned markets: premium value services (for example, airport transfers), high value to agency services (for example, Joblink transport), high care needs (for example, patient transport), and best value public transport (for example, rural services). The report concluded that, in Scotland, “there is potential for growth in all four main DRT markets: high care needs, high value to agency, best value and premium services, but to achieve this growth will require better targeting of public funding, resolution of some regulatory issues and improved joint working across sectors” (Scottish Executive 2006: 37). One of the major problems facing transport planners considering DRT is the high cost of designing and running DRT services. Rural and Urban Bus Challenge funding (RBC/UBC, Government funding programs aimed at increasing innovation in public transport) has been extremely useful in encouraging the set up of DRT schemes, though it is thought by some to have encouraged innovation more than cost-effective, long-term schemes. The future is still uncertain for many DRT schemes established under Bus Challenge funding (Enoch et al. 2004). There is a suggestion that DRT schemes can prove a useful tool for attaining public policy (i.e., social, economic and environmental) goals (SEU 2003; Enoch 2004; Scottish Executive 2006) and that some funding programs—for example, the RBC/ UBC—led to a number of DRT schemes being set up. However, there is little documentary evidence referring to this type of scheme setup using challenge funding and the associated costs, benefits, and effectiveness at achieving goals. A survey was designed to gather data to enable investigation of some of the issues raised in the literature review. Method The contact details for the DRT schemes were obtained from a list of registered flexibly-routed bus services operating in the UK provided by the Department for Transport (DfT). The respondents to the survey were local authority officers with responsibility for at least one DRT scheme. The survey was sent to 36 local authorities responsible for a total of 99 registered schemes. The initial responses indicated Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2009 22 that some of these schemes had ceased to exist since the DfT had produced the initial list and also that some of the registered schemes were services within a single scheme rather than entities themselves. A total of 48 surveys were returned from 28 local authorities. The survey was administered in December 2005 via email. Initial contact was made by telephone to obtain an email address. A period of two weeks was allowed before non-respondents were contacted again by phone or email. Design and Operation This section explores the design and operation characteristics of the schemes listed in Table 1. It begins by looking at the funding source and the geographical type of the operational area. Next, it reviews the operational characteristics including the route, the technology, the booking options, and the fare levels. Finally, it provides a summary of the design and operational lessons. Table 1 lists contextual information about the schemes.