[sustran] Intermode : Innovations in Demand Responsive Transport

[eric.britton at ecoplan.org]

Or. . . Thinking small in a big way!

 

 

Dear Sustainability Colleagues,

 

Because I firmly believe that what we need in cities is not more cars
(are you listening WBCSD?) but more car-like (in terms of service
levels) and more sustainable transportation, I find that anything which
probes the rich potential of this largely unmet technology and service
challenge, by whatever name, is worth careful attention.

 

In this case I have just checked out a just published report on the
potential of “Intermode: Innovations in Demand Responsive Transport
Systems” in the UK carried out by a team lead (at least in part) by
Marcus Enoch of the Transport Studies Group at Loughborough University
for the Department for Transport and Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Executive. To get to it the link is
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_
localtrans_030324.hcsp (make sure you get the whole mess into your
browser).

 

I must say that I always approach reports on this most important topic
with considerable reserve. I have been looking at these systems for many
years and have in the process seen a lot of mediocre (on a good day)
stuff purporting to help us better understand the area.  (Sure!) This
report by contrast strikes me as good value, and since you may be time
pressed, I have purloined a few pages that summarize the top lines,
which I sincerely recommend to your attention.

 

This is not the last time this subject is going to come up.

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. In the meantime if you are looking for earlier publications treating
this topic, check out
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Medical-Transportation-N_10024807-books.html.
A small gold mine.

 

 


Intermode : Innovations in Demand Responsive Transport


The Intermode Study


Increasingly, conventional bus services do not meet the needs of a large
section of the population. This is due to increasing incomes and car
ownership levels and the resulting dispersal of activity centres and
trip patterns. One possible solution is public transport systems that
can operate effectively with lower and more dispersed patterns of demand
than the bus, i.e. Demand Responsive Transport (DRT
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft
_localtrans_030324-01.hcsp#P27_960#P27_960> 1). DRT has featured in a
number of UK Government reports suggesting it could be used to tackle a
number of policy objectives, and recently the use of Rural and Urban Bus
Challenge funding has encouraged the take up of DRT. Existing research
on DRT has tended to focus on the means of delivery - i.e. what type of
vehicle is most appropriate, how might the technology work, and should a
service be fully or semi-flexible? However, there are a number of
additional regulatory, fiscal, institutional and cultural barriers at
government, local authority, operator and user levels that have not yet
been comprehensively investigated. These appear to be as important as
the technical issues involved. 

In 2002, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Greater Manchester
Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) commissioned the Open University
(in collaboration with the University of West of England and
Loughborough University) to determine the market potential for DRT
systems in the UK. The project set out to examine examples of 'good
practice' DRT systems already in operation and identify any regulatory
or institutional barriers hampering the development of DRT schemes. 

In essence, the purpose of this study was to look at the potential for
DRT as an alternative public transport system in terms of market or
demand niches, and from the viewpoint of the public authority and the
commercial operator. It aims to determine how DRT might be developed to
serve journeys that are not currently well served by public transport
and explores why DRT has so far failed to make much impact, and how
government and other public authorities might rectify this.

 


Composite Cases


To analyse the material, the case studies were aggregated to create a
series of composite case studies, each of which was described firstly by
the nature of the DRT service it represents and the market it serves and
secondly by whether it is driven primarily by public policy or by
commercial objectives. There are four function-based composite case
types: 

Interchange DRT providing feeder links to conventional public transport.
Typically this would be a DRT service providing an interchange at a rail
station or into a bus route. 

Network DRT enhances public transport either by providing additional
services, or by replacing uneconomic services in a particular place or
at certain times. Typically, this substitution happens at times of the
day or week when demand for conventional public transport is low or
dispersed, so making it hard to offer an attractive service. However
there are also places where DRT may be more appropriate, such as town
and city cross-suburban trips. Funding from the Government's Rural Bus
Challenge has led to the development of a number of such services, many
in areas where conventional bus services had previously been withdrawn.

Destination-specific DRT is a specialist form of network DRT that serves
particular destinations such as airports or employment locations. A key
element of many of these schemes is the presence of a partnership
between a local authority and the 'destination' (e.g. a company, airport
operator or whatever). 

Substitute DRT occurs where, instead of complementing conventional bus
services, a DRT system totally (or substantially) replaces them. This
represents a reinvention of public transport. 


Interchange DRT Composite Case 


Except where trunk and DRT services operate at a high frequency,
integrated timetabling with connecting services and ideally guaranteed
connections are advisable, and it is desirable to encourage flexibility
in service design to ensure connections are achieved in both directions,
i.e. DRT to trunk and trunk to DRT. Driver training is of crucial
importance. Vehicle interior should be to a high specification, and
ideally as close to a taxi environment as possible. This is particularly
important for 'choice' users such as commuters.

There is an issue regarding fares. Most systems operate fares that are
the same or comparable to local bus fares, and may even use normal bus
tickets. Some, however, have fares that are higher than bus fares, but
considerably lower than normal taxis. If modal shift from car is desired
fares need to be competitive with perceived motoring costs (including
parking costs at stations). Through fares and tickets onto
interconnecting service might be more attractive to users.

In the UK context, where a DRT service is introduced to connect with
fixed-route public transport, it could be appropriate to have fares
moderately above bus fare rates, but with concessions for key groups and
discounts for pre-booked pickups/drop-offs at fixed stops. 

Financially, Interchange DRT tends to occupy a space that spans
subsidised and commercial operations. Overseas examples, like many local
bus services, require continued subsidy, although it is notable that for
the rural services in particular this is less than for conventional
buses. In the UK, the subsidy rate of £1.80-4.00 per trip tends to be
above the typical maximum of around £2 for tendered services. However,
initial funding can lead to a level of subsidy no higher than
conventional buses. And this is with a higher quality of service,
coverage and patronage.


Network DRT Composite Case


Many of the key design elements of the interchange DRT services apply to
network services as well.

For network services, unlike with interchange DRT projects, integrated
fares, although desirable, are not an essential requirement. Some
schemes do have fares that are integrated with the parallel public
transport system and use the same zones, but passengers still pay a
premium to use such schemes. If modal shift from car is desired, fares
need to be competitive with perceived motoring costs (including parking
costs at stations and/or destinations). 

DRT schemes are typically more expensive to provide per passenger trip
than conventional bus (although probably cheaper to operate in the
particular circumstances than a conventional bus would be). Therefore
public policy driven network schemes that provide additional service
levels may be vulnerable in the longer term to funding being cut unless
it can be convincingly demonstrated that they are delivering their
objectives. Conversely, being more flexible, DRT can very usefully
perform as a pilot bus service in an area until demand levels on
particular routes or at particular stops can be fully ascertained and
resources allocated to a fixed route service.


Destination-specific DRT Composite Case


The destination-specific composite case is a subset of the network DRT
case, and hence many of the conditions that applied for the network
composite mode will apply here too. Destination-specific services tend
to be targeted at particular markets. Often therefore, either the users
are perhaps valued in some way (e.g. where companies are happy to
subsidise the commuter trips of their employees), or else the users see
such a journey as a one-off and are therefore happy to pay a premium
(e.g. airport shuttle passengers). Timetables can be geared specifically
to meet the particular needs of the site(s) served, rather than designed
to co-ordinate with the rest of the public transport network.

Destination-specific schemes do not tend to involve trip chains, and
therefore the fares systems, tickets and/or timetables can be
self-contained

Destination-specific DRT services have a good potential for commercial
partnership funding between an operator, local authority and/or a site
owner, tenant or developer. This is because in addition to
'self-interest' reasons for establishing a DRT service (congestion, lack
of sufficient parking places, improving access for staff and visitors),
there may also be regulatory reasons. For example, where a developer
wishes to build a factory or supermarket, planning permission for this
will be required from the local council. Often, this process results in
a planning agreement whereby the developer agrees to run a scheduled bus
to the site for a couple of years. This usually runs virtually empty and
is then discontinued. A more positive use of such a planning gain
agreement might be to enter into a partnership with the council and bus
operator to pump-prime a DRT service. 


Substitute DRT Composite Case


Social inclusion concerns have played a major part in many DRT schemes.
However, there is a danger of too narrow a market base, and it is
notable that a number of these DRT schemes have sought to consolidate a
number of specialist DRT services, such as those for people with
disabilities, into a general DRT service. Indeed, several of these
schemes have merged three or four previous services in order to capture
resource efficiency gains, cut costs and improve services to customers. 

Most of the above lessons also apply to the more radical substitute DRT
services. However, from this analysis one issue to emerge is whether it
is better to go for the incremental development of DRT, or if the
benefits are only achieved as the result of a radical restructuring.
Experience suggests that a total evaluation of an areas bus service is
needed, rather than a piecemeal approach. 

 


Markets for DRT


Most DRT schemes have been driven by social policy objectives and hence
focused upon captive users, who by definition have restricted transport
choices, and in particular have low levels of access to cars. By way of
contrast a number of DRT schemes have targeted choice users, many of
whom could have made the trip by car. This latter group is of particular
interest where the role of DRT in transport and environmental policy is
concerned.

One finding to emerge from the analysis of the composite cases is that
there are key differences in the user requirements of the 'choice' and
'captive' markets. One factor that is rated highly across all trip types
for both captive and choice users is certainty of arrival time. The
availability of door-to-door travel, a key attribute of DRT, achieves an
interesting mix. For shopping and health trips it is rated strongly for
both captive and choice groups, though the rating is higher for choice
than captive. Door-to-door travel is also rated higher by choice groups
for commuting and leisure trips. It should be noted that door-to-door is
a more valuable attribute for women than men, due mainly to the
perception of enhanced personal security. These observations are
indicative of a more general pattern of difference between choice and
captive users. Times of operation appear to be of importance for
commuter and leisure trips, with choice commuters scoring higher. This
probably relates to leisure trips being in the evenings, possibly after
conventional bus services stop. On the important issue of price there is
a major contrast between choice and captive users. Price is a very
important issue for captive users, but less so for choice users. By way
of contrast, comfort and image is far more important for choice than
captive users (although comfort understandably scores more highly for
health trips and also for leisure trips). 

Recommendation: This analysis can be used and developed to target the
design of a DRT service to the markets it is planned to serve. For
example, a DRT scheme geared mainly to shopping, health and leisure
trips by captive users should combine a different set of attributes than
one aimed at car commuters. A key distinction is that what captive users
most want is a bus or minicab, whereas the last thing choice users want
is a bus. Captive users value bus-like attributes. Choice users value
taxi/hirecar type attributes. 


Implementation issues


DRT systems tend to require a more complex network than conventional bus
or taxi services. At the very least this involves operators, call
centres and local authorities. It is also clear that good relations need
to be established with the local community, rival transport operators
(particularly minicab and taxi firms who may see a subsidised service as
a threat), and local trip generators such as employers, retail outlets,
etc., that could encourage their staff and visitors to use the service,
or even potentially sponsor or contribute towards the costs of providing
the service. There can be problems involving taxi and private hire
operators, as moving into DRT and being expected to work in partnership
with the local authority and others is not their normal mode of
operation. Finally, clear communication channels with the various
licensing, regulatory and financing authorities can smooth the path of
implementation enormously. 

Politically, there is widespread political enthusiasm for DRT, but it is
the support of the operators, not the politicians, that is the biggest
problem. One approach to dealing with this operator reticence has been
for local authorities to bear all the revenue risk by issuing gross cost
contracts. In practice, this has meant that the local authority
buys/leases and brands the vehicles, plans the routes and then invites
operators to bid to run the services for a fixed fee which they will
receive no matter how many people use the service. Currently DRT is
still limited to niche markets and limited areas of the country, and
considered experimental. It is almost as though DRT has to reach a
'critical mass' and be more widely accepted before the conservative bus
industry accepts it as a viable proposition. Thus far, DRT is seen as
providing a less certain revenue stream than conventional public
transport. 

Directly related to this and a serious operational problem that has
afflicted DRT projects in the UK and elsewhere, is active opposition
from rival transport operators. However, the research conducted for this
study suggests that the fear of competition from DRT expressed by taxi
operators is ungrounded, and DRT is in reality an opportunity. There is
considerable, guaranteed profit to be gained. In essence, more needs to
be made of the positive incentives for communities to encourage small,
local taxi operators to participate in DRT. 


Issues facing Government


Institutional, legal and regulatory


While it could be argued that the plethora of existing and potential
regulatory regimes allows operators flexibility in the type of schemes
they devise, in practice the complexity facing operators has hindered
rather than facilitated the development of not only DRT, but other
innovative transport options such as car club, lift share or vanpooling
schemes. 

Currently DRT is neither 'fish nor fowl' - it is neither taxi, nor
minicab nor bus, meaning that it is extremely complicated to set up a
DRT scheme and that DRT is not seen as a mainstream public transport
solution by all players. Further, registration, licensing and financing
principles and procedures continue to be conducted on an ad hoc basis -
an undesirable situation for all concerned because DRT scheme promoters
are thus forced to negotiate from scratch every time they register a
service or try and claim financial support. To be successful DRT needs a
strong identity.

Recommendation: The current institutional arrangements facing DRT scheme
promoters are too complicated. Ideally, over the longer term the
operating, licensing and financing regimes of all the road-based
passenger public transport sectors need to be re-visited and completely
replaced with a new integrated system governed by common principles,
based on safety and the needs of the passenger, and controlled by a
single governing authority. Ad hoc and piecemeal alterations to the
various regimes would seem to be counterproductive. On the other hand,
it is recognised that such a wholesale change in the current political
climate is very unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons and that
some specific changes would benefit DRT operations (see Chapter 6). As a
minimum, in the short term, the DfT needs to further clarify the
institutional framework for ALL potential types of DRT scheme. Also, as
DRT has no natural constituency to draw from for political support,
unlike the established bus and taxi lobbies, one possible remedy could
be to set up a new DRT forum.

For the cases studied, there was also some comment that more information
about how to set up, plan, run and market DRT would be helpful to local
authorities and bus operators. 

Recommendation: Government should improve the dissemination of public
transport planning, operating and marketing techniques, possibly through
the publication of a good practice guide.

With DRT there are many different variations in the degree of route and
timetable flexibility. This is combined with uncertainty in the
legislation, which has led to a non-uniformity of how the legislation is
applied among the six Traffic Commissioners found in eight regions. 

The second major concern to emerge from the research was to do with the
related issue of timing points. Timing points are seen as being
problematic because buses are required to run to them even if there are
no bookings, and because they limit the flexibility of how the service
is operated. 

Monitoring whether services run (or are available to run) or not
currently determines the limit of how flexible a service can be. There
is therefore a need to look at alternative approaches to the current
'catch all' timing-point method, which, while appropriate to fixed
timetable services, is clearly useless for on-demand style service
patterns. Instead, the 'mystery shopper' approach might be an
alternative way for Traffic Commissioners to monitor actual service
compliance, for example with a sample of services being booked by
telephone to see if they are then operated as per the published
standard. 

Recommendation: New monitoring methods need to be devised by the Traffic
Commissioners (or subsequent registration body). This would allow a more
comprehensive range of flexible public transport service options to be
registered.

In theory, the deregulation of bus services due to the 1985 Transport
Act should have encouraged bus and taxi operators to bid for operations,
and stimulate competition. In practice, this has rarely happened. In
summary, taxis are being under utilised. 

Recommendation: As a minimum, stronger guidance and/or regulation needs
to be issued to taxi and Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) licensing
authorities extolling the virtues of shared taxi-type operations. More
beneficial would be to standardise private hire and taxi licensing rules
while shifting these licensing responsibilities from the district
authority tier to that of the highway authority (where the authority is
not a unitary one) or to a PTE (where one is present).

A very specific regulatory barrier relating to the potential for DRT
services to substitute for specialist services such as education, social
service and disabled transport, was due to Section 60(5) of the 1985
Transport Act, preventing PTEs from 'owning and loaning' vehicles, thus
making it far more complex for them to act as a vehicle broker. This
brokerage system would theoretically enable a council or a PTE to
provide a vehicle pool, from which private and community transport
operators, council departments and Primary Health Care Trusts could
lease vehicles as required for a few hours a day - perhaps significantly
reducing costs. 

Recommendation: The regulations in the 1985 Transport Act preventing
PTEs from 'owning and loaning' vehicles should be rescinded
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft
_localtrans_030324-08.hcsp#P123_42073#P123_42073> 2. 


Financial issues


An important consequence of the institutional arrangement is whether a
service is eligible for particular types of funding or not. Public
subsidy accounts for 30% of bus operator revenue for services outside
London, which comes from Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG), payments
for tendered services, and concessionary fares compensation. For DRT, as
with licensing, the situation is rather less clear.

Essentially, the current position is that private hire vehicles are
never eligible for BSOG, while taxis are only eligible when operating as
a registered Taxibuses under Section 12 of the 1985 Transport Act.
Regulations were introduced from May 2002 to extend the BSOG scheme to a
wider range of Community Transport services, i.e. those which are
provided by a non-profit making body under a Section 19 permit. Local
bus services are only eligible for BSOG providing that services are
available to the general public and that members of the public can make
single journeys between any two stopping places.

Recommendation: BSOG should be extended to cover all mileage on services
registered with the Traffic Commissioners as 'shared use' public
transport services, whether they be operated by bus or taxi. Ideally, it
should also be possible for DRT schemes registered with and monitored by
local authorities to be eligible for BSOG too
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft
_localtrans_030324-08.hcsp#P128_43610#P128_43610> 3.

The UK Government recently decided to extend the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
(RBSG) for a further two years (to 2005/6) and to allow it to be used
for funding a wider range of services, possibly including DRT, although
final decisions are still to be taken on exactly what services will be
covered. As of November 2003, the DfT is consulting interested
organisations on the details of the changes to the rules of the grant.

Recommendation: Rural Bus Subsidy Grant should be extended to cover all
mileage on services registered with the Traffic Commissioners as 'shared
use' public transport services, whether they be operated by bus or taxi,
should they comply with the 'rurality' criteria. Similarly, rural local
authority registered DRT schemes would also ideally be eligible.

One major area of DRT funding in the UK has been Rural, and more
recently, Urban Bus Challenge funding. RBC and UBC has had a very
positive effect on the DRT industry. However, there are problems in that
it is overly complex, encourages innovative schemes rather than
potentially cost effective schemes, and requires time to be spent on
bidding for resources with no guarantee that any money will be
forthcoming.

Recommendation: The Challenge funding mechanisms have served their
purpose, and there is now a need for a more predictable source of money
to support DRT schemes as they strive to become a financially viable
form of public transport. This could be offered through BSOG or RBSG, or
perhaps through a 'pump priming' fund (such as the Kickstart
initiative), whereby the subsidy gap between DRT and conventional bus
routes might be covered for the first two or three years. In any event,
a decision as to the long-term future of the Challenge funding scheme
(and about any replacement money) would be appreciated as soon as
possible. 

While vehicles of ten seats (including the driver) or more qualify to be
zero rated for VAT on costs on fares, private hire vehicles and taxis do
not. This inconsistency with the VAT treatment of costs and fares does
have an impact on the take up of shared taxi schemes. Once again though,
the issues of monitoring and enforcement are crucial. 

Recommendation: Ideally, subject to an appropriate monitoring and
enforcement regime being established, taxis and PHVs should be eligible
for zero-rated VAT on costs and fares whenever they are operated as a
public transport system, as opposed to exclusive-use. 


Political


In some ways, DRT already has a strong political backing as it is
perceived to help address the 'social inclusion' policy area and it
could be developed to meet 'resource efficiency', 'integration',
'environment' and 'congestion' objectives too. However, there are a
number of areas where DRT could be embedded further into such policy
processes. One way is through accessibility planning. Previously, there
has been a tendency to consider access to public transport services in
terms of distance from a bus stop and frequency of service. A subtle
alteration to these accessibility planning indicators, e.g. by
suggesting that people be offered at least an hourly opportunity to
travel would mean that DRT would become the most efficient way of
meeting the standard in many places. 

Recommendation: Government needs to set a framework from which to set
legislation concerning how often the public should have access to
transport. An hourly opportunity to travel would be a good standard. A
national accessibility standard for rural areas would promote DRT, as it
would be the only efficient way of meeting the standard in many places.

Land use is a significant shaping factor in the effectiveness and
efficiency of public transport systems, and in recent years low-density
out-of-town developments have been allowed to proliferate. Such
developments are car-friendly and bus-unfriendly, and so DRT may be more
appropriate than a bus in these areas. However, this should not mean
that developers should be allowed to carry on in a similar vein, using
DRT as a as a solution for poor planning, and planning rules need to be
altered accordingly. 

Recommendation: Planning guidance should recognise that low-density
out-of-town developments are not conducive to public transport operation
and should be discouraged. However, where such developments already
exist, DRT may be a possible solution to poor public transport
accessibility.

A further issue of importance is in the calculation of costs and
benefits relating to DRT (and to public transport as a whole). For
instance, enabling older people to access social networks through public
transport delivers significant benefits, but these are not 'reclaimed'
by the transport sector. 

Recommendation: Government ought to sponsor more research into the wider
environmental, social and economic benefits of transport in order to
help justify higher public transport subsidies.

Very much related to this is the question of subsidies to other forms of
transport. It is important to note that the costs of using public
transport relative to the marginal cost to the user of using a car due
have risen significantly over recent years, and any future widening of
the cost gap between public transport and the car will undermine the
viability of DRT.

Recommendation: Government needs to consider policies aimed at reversing
the trends whereby car use is becoming cheaper and public transport use
more expensive.

On a more prosaic level, while DRT is typically more expensive than
conventional fixed-route bus services per passenger trip, it is also
usually far less expensive than specialist education, social service and
health transport services. Allowing DRT to take on these trips may well
provide a more cost effective option for a local authority currently
subsidising these services separately (providing the fixed costs of
providing DRT services are also reduced). However, significant
institutional and cultural barriers need to be overcome before any
meaningful integration can take place. In particular, it is vital that
financing streams are properly established.

Recommendation: Government ought to examine ways and means of
encouraging the establishing of vehicle brokerage operations.


Other barriers


The proliferation of call centres is also seen as a problem. While
scheme-by-scheme centres may be desirable from an operational viewpoint,
(local knowledge of an area is valued by customers), the set-up and
operational costs involved are typically high, and many current UK DRT
schemes are simply far too small to justify the level of investment
required. Regional level call centres therefore probably offer the best
balance between cost and operational requirements.

Recommendation: Government needs to look at ways of developing a more
rational network of DRT call centres. 

Other technological barriers are that there is still no mobile telephone
coverage in some very remote areas of the country, such as parts of
Cornwall and the north west of Scotland (arguably where DRT might be
most effective), making high tech DRT schemes very difficult to
introduce.

 
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft
_localtrans_030324-08.hcsp#P123_42074#P123_42074> 2 As of November 2003,
it is understood that the DfT has already pledged to allow PTEs to lease
vehicles and is in the process of drawing up a Regulatory Reform Order
to effect this.

 
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft
_localtrans_030324-08.hcsp#P128_43611#P128_43611> 3 Since this
recommendation was made, the regulations of February 2004 do enable a
whole new raft of DRT services to be registered with the Traffic
Commissioners which are thus also eligible for BSOG. Nevertheless, local
authority-registered schemes remain ineligible (see
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_
localtrans_027309.hcsp for further details.

 

Agaion tue full repsort is at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_
localtrans_030324-01.hcsp#P25_536

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040812/c63ade74/attachment-0001.html