Demand Responsive Transport, and its precursor Dial A Ride, have a long history of being viewed as an exception; a lower cost alternative to timetabled buses to offer a minimum provision, often for geographically isolated or vulnerable residents. I believe it needs viewing in a new way, as a fundamental part of the overall provision. We need to stop thinking about ‘bus or’ and start thinking about ‘appropriate shared transport’

DRT in Milton Keynes

Borough-wide DRT has been in place now in Milton Keynes for almost four years, and is the first scheme if its kind in the UK on this scale.

While the geography and grid road system of Milton Keynes has meant that the issues that plague commercial bus operations nationally are exacerbated, they are still fundamentally the same issues faced by networks nationally (at least in parts of their provision): Not enough density to provide the passengers per mile, newer estates built with inadequate provision for buses, older estates with parked cars obstructing larger vehicles, traffic congestion, roadworks, the drive to centre development over transport rather than embedding it properly. Not an exhaustive list, but one most transport professionals could offer instantly.

The DRT system in Milton Keynes is part of the overall network consideration. Run using private hire licensed vehicles, the software is able to direct those with access to their best bus option, and where they have none, offer an alternative. The model currently running had almost half a million trips in the last 12 months, and it can be improved.

Making DRT part of the network

The core learning from the last few years is that we need to start seeing DRT as fully embedded. It won’t be fully commercial – it’s always going to need some support – but when it works well, it offers good value for money. Critically, it needs some refresh to regulations, and some culture change with users. However, using hubs, transfers, and end to end journey planning, buses and alternative vehicles should form a single cohesive network to offer appropriate solutions where everyone, including bus operators, benefits.

A network should use the appropriate vehicle for each part of the network. A large estate with several sheltered accommodations and double parked roads could run a minibus with set stops and a tail lift, which costs less to run, takes up less space, and gets all those vulnerable users safely to the hub for their bus into town. An area that’s showing low usage in any direction benefits from private hire vehicles at virtual stops that can take smaller numbers effectively and connect them up to their main line. Buses can focus on the core routes, without trying to make their way through essentially unsuitable roads, allowing them much better adherence to timetable, having the more far-flung customers brought to them so they don’t lose patronage. It’s obvious looking at Milton Keynes, with its grid roads and inward facing estates, that this sort of tiered transfer approach could provide a new kind of network that has much greater sustainability and doesn’t need to leave rural areas with a substandard service. But everywhere has its pain points, and this can be scaled appropriately.

The key blockers to this will be well known to my colleagues. Not everywhere has managed to get a multi operator ticketing agreement; securing a multi-modal one is even more complex. PSV and PHV regulations are so different and there is no in between. Legally, PHV are currently the same as private cars, so virtual stops are the only option, which is a blocker to some older and vulnerable residents. There is no room under current legislation to swap out and just apply the logical vehicle size for the situation once things are up and running. “Usage has increased so you want to move from an 8 seater to a 16 seater? Can’t do it! One is a bus, one is not.” Buses – even mini buses – aren’t able to have fluid enough routes and timetables to allow them to form to the local needs the way PHV can. Right now we have to choose: bus or private hire? Add to which PHV based DRT is excluded from a lot of benefits, BSOG, the recent BSIP calculation and other things bus operators can leverage.

What needs to change?

In my view, it would not be necessary to make sweeping changes to existing legislation to enable the necessary flexibility, but to allow LTA’s to register as DRT regions with added clauses that permit operators within the area (including the authority) to have greater freedom to adapt the offer to customer needs, to work in cooperation and bring some agility to our network. And I just know there is going to be a suggestion that franchising could fix this, but it falls short. Franchising doesn’t solve the issues of vehicles that are under 10 seats not being buses, and PHV not being able to have dedicated space on the highway. It doesn’t change the requirement to have different operators for PSV and PHV, so it doesn’t fully fix the interchange and data sharing issues for multi-modal. The only real benefit of franchising in this scenario is it makes pricing simpler. That isn’t enough. This approach lends itself to a strong Enhanced Partnership with a handful of DRT specific legislation changes.

There are behavioural blockers too, but these are far from insurmountable. While transferring is a culture change in many areas, we’ve also seen it work (and work well) all over the world: Barcelona, New York, London. We know if the transfer is quick enough and people are able to get where they want and need to go in a reasonable time, for a reasonable price, they will transfer. 

We continue to have to say, “This is where the bus will be and when. Take it or leave it,” and then we don’t see high enough usage to retain the service level. If we want public transport in the UK to survive, thrive, and provide a greener, less car-based approach to travel, we need to make it work to the customer. And that means taking a step back from the traditional view and introducing a little more flexibility into transport.