The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3.0 DRT Experience in Scotland

3.1 This chapter reviews what is known about current DRT schemes operating in Scotland and the lessons which have been learned from innovative practice. The work was undertaken with:

• A mapping and appraisal of schemes in Scotland, undertaken through a survey of all local authorities, literature and web-based research. This enabled a broad picture of the level of DRT existent in Scotland in terms of locations of schemes, markets served, operating legislation, and the operators and commissioners of schemes.
• An in-depth review of DRT pilot projects funded by the Scottish Executive, and other longer established Scottish DRT schemes. This was undertaken through consultation with key stakeholders involved in DRT projects including users. This compared and contrasted experiences within pilots, between areas and with other schemes across the country.

3.2 The lessons learned are summarised in relation to: markets, funding, costs, operation and legislation.

How much DRT is out there?

3.3 The purpose of this work was to identify the scope for DRT development into new markets. The surveys therefore concentrate on these new markets including:

• Operation and management by commercial (bus and taxi firms) operators, the public sector (Local Authorities) and voluntary / community transport groups
• User types, including both public DRT and specialist transport for people with impaired mobility, elderly people etc.
• Legislative and vehicle types including car sharing schemes; S19, S22 and PSV bus operations; taxi operations etc.
• Operational models including area wide, flexible routes, flexible stops etc.

3.4 A full review of taxi services, patient transport, education and other established DRT delivery was beyond the scope of this review so, to keep the exercise manageable, conventional taxi and hire car operations were not included. Taxicard schemes were also not included as these were considered to be a fall back mechanism for funding conventional taxi travel. However, although not included as DRT schemes, the existence of taxicard schemes was noted to explain why authorities did not have dial-a-ride services for disabled users.

3.5 The starting point was to prepare a database of all known schemes from lists provided by funders and published research. Details of the relevant schemes in any local area were then sent to the local authority with a request for them to correct any errors, such as schemes that were no longer in operation, and add missing details about DRT provision including:

• Service operator & contact details
• Service route or area
• Type of DRT operation
• User characteristics
• Vehicle type
• Organisation commissioning / managing service
• Travel despatch centre location and arrangements
• Operating legislation
• Funding Source(s) and user charges
• User Numbers (per week)

3.6 The DRT schemes identified through this stage of the research are shown in detail in Appendix G.

Table 3.1 DRT schemes by Local Authority Area

3.7 The community sector operates and commissions over half of the DRT schemes identified (approximately 50 of which are car sharing schemes). However it should be noted that these 79 community schemes will only represent a fraction of the total CT supply. For every scheme that is identified, there will be several that have been missed. This was apparent when assembling the list. Several relatively high profile publicly funded CT schemes were not identified in the first sift and only picked up through stakeholder interviews later. There is a need for a more systematic approach to managing information on CT provision in the future. This is the subject of a parallel review, but for the purposes of this research the 79 schemes provide a picture of the role of the sector for CT provision in Scotland.

3.8 Commercially operated services commissioned by local authorities are the second largest group as shown in Table 3.2. This reflects the long established use of DRT in meeting specific needs of people who have mobility difficulties, or live in remote areas where conventional bus services are not sustainable.

Table 3.2 DRT Operators and Organisations Commissioning these Services

3.9 The service operation varied considerably but Figure 3.2 shows that area wide services made up by far the greatest number.

Figure 3.2 - Type of Service

The pilot schemes

3.10 To identify the process, challenges and issues involved in promoting DRT in Scotland the Scottish Executive funded nine pilot schemes.

3.11 Table 3.3 summarises the nine schemes and the main lessons learned. Further detail is shown in Appendix E.

Table 3.3 - Overview of Pilot Schemes

Other case studies

3.12 In addition to the general surveys of DRT schemes, and the detailed monitoring of progress in the pilots, a number of other identified schemes were investigated in more detail as summarised in Appendix D. These were:

• The Stagecoach Taxibus from south Fife to Edinburgh - an experiment in commercial DRT
• Strathclyde Passenger Transport DRT services - Large scale operation of Dial-a-Bus and Ring'n'Ride services.
• Handicabs Lothian - The leading Scottish urban DRT operation.
• Various examples of Council Dial-a-Bus and Ring-and-Ride services including services in Fife, Dumfries and Galloway and Midlothian.
• Highland Council Taxi Feeder Services - Designed to link passengers into the fixed public transport network at Portree, Glenelg, Kinlochbervie and Assynt.
• Gaberlunzie in East Lothian - Funded under the Rural Transport Fund to widen rural public transport coverage.
• North Lanarkshire Job Shuttle - Funded using social inclusion, working for families, resources as a leading example of a high value to agency service.

Results of User Surveys

3.13 Selected user surveys were undertaken on some of the pilot schemes to identify the features of the services which users appreciated or found difficult. Key points identified were:

• Flexibility and reducing advance booking times - Some interesting differences between centralised and operator-run TDCs were highlighted from user interviews. Central Buchan Service taxi DRT trip requests are encouraged at least a week in advance, and generally no later than a day before travel, although some flexibility non this can be offered. This is partly due to a centralised TDC, with pick up timings fixed to enable an efficient routing / schedule to be developed for the vehicles. User / operator consultation has suggested that the less flexible the booking approach, the more users expect the vehicles to run exactly to the pre-determined time, and this is not always easy with variable conditions on the roads. Conversely, trip requests on the East Fife service are managed directly by the taxi firm, and as a result the service has the ability to be very flexible and meet requests for trips at very short notice. Scheduling is, therefore, very dynamic and the direct contact with the operator meant that users appeared to understand that the service has to be flexible, and were more tolerant to 'delays' or less precise pick up times.
• Expectations - On Aberdeenshire Council DRT services predominantly serving elderly people, the users had come to expect that services always served the same ( e.g. shopping) locations and had not considered that the services could be used for other purposes and locations, and therefore always booked the same trips.
• Ownership - Having a non-local number for the call centre is considered by some to act as a barrier as users perceive remote TDCs a having a lack of local understanding. However others did not perceive remote TDCs to be a problem.
• Threat - Direct transfer from fixed route bus services to DRT provision ( e.g. in Central Buchan) resulted in perceptions that the bus service 'was being taken away' despite a direct replacement, providing more flexible provision, being introduced. Aberdeenshire Council had to manage this negative feedback through enhanced publicity and direct user engagement

3.14 These findings highlight the importance of the impact of user-provider interactions in DRT delivery, and the impact that booking procedures can have on user understanding and acceptance. Users may be slow to understand how to access DRT, or adjust to a situation where they can use a service to take them anywhere they want so this process of change needs to be managed.

Lessons for DRT markets

Best Value DRT in Scotland

3.15 Much of the best value DRT service developments have been as a response to calls from the local community through bus forums and community councils etc, for an increase in the bus service provision. This, along with Public Transport Officers' knowledge of gaps in the public transport network coverage, has been the main tool used to design the areas served by the DRT projects ( e.g. Fife Go-Flexi Pilot, Highland Taxis feeder services, Midlothian Dial a Journey, Gaberlunzie (East Lothian)).

3.16 SPT provide seven (two jointly funded with Local Authorities) best value rural DRT solutions using minibuses operated by the commercial bus sector serving the Glasgow hinterlands. These were set up to fill gaps in the Public Transport networks, with the capacity of the service ( i.e. number of vehicles / hours of operation) dictated by the level of funding that can be sourced for each area. In contrast the Highland Council operates its DRT services using taxi operators reflecting the lower passenger volumes in remoter areas.

3.17 In a small number of cases DRT projects have been used to directly replace high-subsidy fixed bus routes to offer better value for money and increased accessibility. Examples include the Aberdeenshire Central Buchan pilot service, and some of the SPT Ring'n'Ride services (although in most cases services were not direct replacements, but general area-wide services).

3.18 The data on costs for these schemes is limited, but the benefits appear to have derived from wider network coverage than would have been affordable with fixed route services. However, by providing many more expensive trips the overall subsidy per passenger has increased.

3.19 This evidence also highlights that developing DRT in one market can have benefits in other markets. Services such as the Scottish Executive pilots in Aberdeenshire, the Fife taxi based Go Flexi service, and the pilot services in Argyll and Bute all have patronage by users who would not normally be able to use conventional bus services. Therefore, even though these other schemes are designed as best value public transport, they have significant benefits in the high care needs market, being physically accessible door-to-door services.

3.20 Since the door-to-door provision results in users with high care needs being able to use public transport, this relieves the demand on other providers of door-to-door services such as social work departments. It is therefore important to ensure that these costs and benefits are fully recognised in fund assembly and management of best value DRT.

3.21 One noticeable gap in DRT development in Scotland, both in Best Value Public Transport DRT and in Premium Service DRT, has been in shared taxi rail feeder services. These are common on the continent, with the Dutch TreinTaxi system particularly well known. In contrast to Scotland, there are some examples of this approach in England, operated for reasons of: traveller convenience (Virgin car service); shortage of car parking space at stations (Bicester taxibus); rural access (Twyford); and personal security (London Underground). There is even a DRT feeder to a motorway stop on the Oxford to London high frequency coach service. All these needs are of increasing importance in Scotland, so the existence of these successful services in England, points the way to how these issues might be tackled in the future.

High Care Needs DRT

3.22 High care needs services make up over 70% of the DRT services operating in Scotland, reflecting the long established need for door-to-door services for persons with mobility impairments. There are a variety of routes though which this type of service is delivered and some examples of this are shown in Table 3.4.

3.23 In addition to the wide range of operators identified in the table, other national services which are not included in the analysis offer DRT services to the high care needs sector, particularly: the Scottish Ambulance Service's non-emergency patient transport service and statutory local authority education and social work provision.

3.24 The high care needs market is not only the largest in terms of volume but accounts for the most expensive services in terms of cost per passenger. Within the scope of this work it has not been possible to undertake a review of the efficiency of this market overall. However the concerns of the Audit Commission (2001) that there may be potential for improved value through better integration of services can be reinforced based on the evidence in this review suggesting underutilised social services vehicles, patient transport and dial-a-ride undertaking similar roles and multiple TDCs for very similar trips.

Table 3.4 - Examples of High Care Needs Services in Scotland

High Value to Agency

3.25 The Highland Council access to employment taxi based DRT service demonstrates partnership funding with services being paid for by users, employers, the Highland Council, Scottish Executive and Jobcentre Plus. The project is planning for long term sustainability and has explored targets and aims to become sustainable in the medium term through contributions from all stakeholders. Although at this early stage in the project it is difficult to conclude that this approach will work, the commitment to constantly develop services and improve vehicle utilisation should ensure long term sustainability.

3.26 The North Lanarkshire Job Shuttle demonstrates that funding can be achieved entirely through the non-transport sector. The Greater Easterhouse Development Company patient transport works project has also relied entirely on social inclusion, lottery and patient transport funding. Both projects demonstrate that complementary aims can be used to develop practical services tailored to the needs of particular groups.

3.27 However delivery outside the mainstream transport mechanisms means that awareness of services will be lower than for most DRT. Successful marketing and information therefore needs to be managed through the project delivery arrangements. In both the above cases this was achieved by targeting services directly at the client groups of the agencies.

3.28 There are likely to be many other similar schemes across the country but it was beyond the scope of the work to undertake a national review of all public sector agencies and businesses to identify services of which the local authorities had no knowledge.

Premium Service DRT

3.29 The highly publicised Stagecoach Yellow Taxibus demonstrates that the gap in the market between fixed bus provision and single user taxis is small. There are therefore unlikely to be many fully commercial shared vehicle solutions unless the vehicles can be deployed on higher revenue earning activities outside the peak periods for the shared vehicle market: late evenings, and morning and evening commuter markets.

3.30 In the case of the Stagecoach scheme load factors were reported as 25% in off peak times, 50 to 75% in peak times, and 100% late nights. The availability of taxis late at night can be more of a problem so development of shared taxi markets for these periods could help to meet the substantial need for such services. Despite the identification of a market at certain times of day, the service is scheduled to cease operation in November 2005.

Funding and costs of DRT operation

3.31 Table 3.5 summarises some example costs of supporting various DRT services. Whilst these costs might at first seem high, it is important to review best value in relation to other public transport subsidies such as for supported public transport and railways.

3.32 Benefits and funding potential also need to consider non transport benefits. In addition to the major social inclusion benefits from excluded people being able to play a greater role in society there can be direct financial benefits such as reducing costs from patient non attendance at clinics, and supporting people into employment.

3.33 The short lifespan of the Scottish Executive pilots means that patronage is still building but key points of note are:

• The quality and availability of data is extremely poor. If DRT is to be rolled out more generally much better records need to be kept of all costs including TDC and user costs. The increased complexity of this process in comparison with the monitoring of conventional fixed route services means that this task requires particular consideration for those administering and commissioning services.
• Not all schemes reviewed have a viable future. Some will need to evolve considerably before they could be viewed as good value.
• Subsidies per passenger can be considerably less than fixed route alternatives, but at the upper end subsidies can be very large and well in excess of taxi fares for the same journeys. Where DRT subsidy exceeds single user taxi fares there must be clear care needs or other benefits to justify the higher costs. Otherwise the agency procuring the service is not securing value for money since they could purchase the trips from a taxi provider.
• DRT costs will be higher than fixed service costs due to the cost of the TDC but this is offset by wider network coverage which can lead to increased passenger numbers. However smaller vehicles such as minibuses have a higher labour component in their overall costs and TDCs are also labour intensive. Since labour and fuel costs are rising faster than other transport costs the competitive position of DRT may decline relative to fixed services.
• Services for people with mobility difficulties and remote rural services will always be more expensive.
• The introduction of the Urban Community Transport Initiative has facilitated the development of CT operation and demonstrated the potential for CT in urban areas. In each of the Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow pilots, progress has been commensurate with the existing CT provision in the area, strength of pre-existing joint-working practices, and the level of community capacity. That the CT schemes involved in the pilots have been able to expand, indicates a clear role for CT in urban settings in complementing the existing public and bespoke transport services.

Table 3.5 - Funding and Subsidy Levels for Scottish DRT Services

Operation

Design, Implementation and Monitoring

3.34 Throughout the DRT schemes explored for the purposes of this review (with the notable exception of the Highland access to employment service), there has been very little advanced analysis of the potential user base, destinations and trip purposes of the DRT projects. As a result there have been no targets from which to assess whether services have met their design aims.

3.35 Routes to designing services have typically been more dependent upon: 'intuition' and area knowledge of service commissioners; resource levels ( i.e. available funding levels); and noise (calls from local bus fora / community councils) than they have been on detailed analysis of potential users through in depth plans to enhance accessibility for users.

3.36 In most cases the implementation of the project was itself the research into whether there was sufficient demand. This is a very expensive and disruptive way to test the feasibility of schemes unless particularly novel approaches are being tested or new markets are being explored - e.g. the early stages of the Angus pilot helped to identify the service and highlighted the need for more accessible vehicles in the area.

3.37 A wide variety of datasets are available ( e.g. Census, Scottish Household Survey etc.) that can be used to identify potential markets for services to inform their development and design services with appropriate resources. Further and continual detailed consultation with local groups and representatives from key destinations may also help to identify more detailed aims and targets for services.

3.38 There needs to be a much clearer assessment of the reasons why services are being introduced to ensure value for money is to be obtained from future DRT provision. Costs per passenger and patronage figures typically used to assess conventional bus routes have been used in this review in the absence of more useful information and are not necessarily the most appropriate methods for identifying successful DRT.

Flexibility and service design

3.39 Many of the DRT schemes offer a fully flexible service across a given area. However, in practice, routing and trips requests have been shown to 'settle down' to regular journey patterns. This has occurred to differing extents in different schemes but the types of response to this effect are particularly important and are summarised in Table 3.6.

3.40 It should be noted that area-based DRT is often operated on a first-come first-served basis ( e.g.SPT Dial-a-Ride, Ring-n-Ride) and will therefore experience a tendency towards regular routes. This occurs because of the way probability works on the bookings, particularly where resources are limited resulting in some trip refusals, and also when services need to be booked longer in advance. For example, the first call might be taken from the north for a journey at peak time which means that people wanting a trip from the south at peak time will be refused, but anyone subsequently ringing in on the north-to-centre corridor will get a booking. The following day the same process starts again, but because of trip refusals, the people from south are less likely to bother to book, whereas the people in the north corridor are more likely to book. It does not matter which one of the north corridor passengers gets in first, once a booking is accepted from anyone in the corridor it guarantees that all on the corridor will travel up to the vehicle capacity. Regular routes are therefore a natural mechanism unless action is taken to manage this.

3.41 One of the longer established Scottish best value market DRT schemes is the 'Gaberlunzie' service in East Lothian. This has undergone some revisions to its route and operations since its inception. Initially operating as a 'different zones on different days' service with a small number of fixed points, rationalisation occurred in 2001 as a result of high costs and low patronage (subsidies were approximately £12 per passenger). Services now run on new fixed routes with diversions on demand.

Figure 3.6 DRT Service Design Issues and Responses

3.42 Early on in the development of the Yellow Taxibus service, Stagecoach became aware of frustration by users in the time it took for large numbers of individual pick ups to occur in advance of the fixed route section of the trip. To encourage users to stay with the service, the number of pick ups was reduced to a maximum of three. This limited the patronage of the vehicles, affecting the long term viability. The experience shows that in the premium market the tolerance to longer / extended journey times is low, and this is a key factor when considering the scope for development of this market.

3.43 In some high care needs market DRT schemes ( e.g. Peterhead and Fraserburgh services within the Aberdeenshire pilot offering services to different areas on different days) the routes tend to become very regular as users choose to take the same shopping/ social trip every week. What is key for many of the users of these services is the access to a door-to-door service, to provide a shopping service, rather than the provision of a fully flexible transport option, and the requirement to call each time the same trip is required can be a source of frustration for users.

3.44 Evidence from pilot services that operate within the best value DRT markets ( e.g. Fife Go-Flexi and Aberdeenshire Central Buchan) have demonstrated that regular trips are requested for individuals, but that the flexibility in the system has not yet resulted in any particular 'fixed sections' of route. This reflects the relatively sparse population and the limited need to turn down requests from less frequent users.

3.45 Experience therefore suggests that advice on the design of DRT services cannot be prescriptive, and that a clear understanding of user needs, existing transport activity and expectations, and service locations and usage may only come after a period of experimentation. As a result the experience suggests that managers of DRT services may need to adopt a flexible approach to the design and development of DRT to ensure that delivery is optimised for the market response.

3.46 There are no examples of complete re-evaluation of fixed subsidised services to explore how DRT schemes can be incorporated into, or develop from a network. Experience elsewhere in Europe shows that rather than leaving DRT to be used to 'fill the gaps', better value can be obtained from more substantial network re-design.

TDCs

3.47 For the majority of DRT schemes in Scotland, the TDC is run by the vehicle operator. In some instances the public agencies have chosen to operate the TDC themselves to prioritise trips in accordance with their needs. This requires close joint working between the operators and the public agency and the agency must be able to correctly estimate the operating capabilities of the vehicle operators.

3.48 SPT and Aberdeenshire both manage their DRT services from a centralised TDC using Trapeze scheduling software (with in-vehicle technologies planned). SPT's service acts for an SPT wide Dial-a-bus provision (for persons with mobility impairments) and for their Ring'n'Ride network of public DRT services. Aberdeenshire's TDC manages 5 DRT services, has recently taken on group hire management of 8 Education vehicles which is planned to be expanded to 18 in the new year, and is in consultation with a CT group in the area over the potential for managing their bookings. Fife's ring and ride service also use similar software in their TDC and are seeking to explore how the use of this can be expanded to include a range of other services both within and outwith the Council services, including the Scottish Ambulance Service. Establishing the overhead of a centralised TDC therefore appears to be an incentive for joint agency working.

3.49 Most DRT services are however operated using paper based booking systems or generic software ( e.g. Microsoft Excel), and in general, due to the low volume and rate of trip requests, there is little evidence that any advanced TDC is necessary.

3.50 This lack of need for advanced IT for small projects is highlighted by the fact that the Gaberlunzie service in East Lothian was initially managed by a Local Authority based call centre using specialist software, yet after rationalising the service in 2001, this was transferred to the operator who currently deploys a manual system.

3.51 Economies of scale can also be gained by co-ordinating transport resources ( e.g. education, social work) without advanced technologies e.g. as seen in Dundee through the joint working initiated as part of the pilot.

Legislation

3.52 Reflecting the number of voluntary services identified, the majority of services operated under car sharing legislation. PSV and Section 19 regulations cover the majority of the rest of the DRT services, reflecting the involvement of commercial operators and both Local Authority and community based DRT.

3.53 It is interesting to note the number of schemes operating under taxi legislation (including Special Restricted PSV). Taxi firms can view DRT services as a threat to their business, but current provision shows that the taxi sector is amongst the main beneficiaries as DRT operators.

3.54 The Scottish Traffic Commissioner appears to have taken a flexible approach to registering services with flexible routes and there do not appear to have been any major problems with service registration of DRT services.

3.55 DRT services should not, in Scotland, be eligible for any BSOG for flexible section of route. However, a range of DRT services ( e.g. Fife Go Flexi 1, Gaberlunzie, East Lothian) services have been registered and BSOG has been claimed by operators. This is probably in part due to the semi fixed nature of their routes. Stagecoach indicates that they have claimed BSOG on the fixed sections of the Yellow Taxibus service. Therefore it is possible to maximise the BSOG claimed by ensuring that fixed points are identified as extensively as possible.

3.56 Taxi operators that are running registered services under special restricted PSV licences ( e.g. in Fife and Central Buchan) are not eligible for BSOG. VAT has also posed some problems for taxi based DRT, with both Fife and Aberdeenshire Council initially not being aware of the requirement to charge VAT on services run in vehicles of less than 10 seats. This legislation is relevant to the vehicle size, rather than the type of service offered and is therefore a problem for all DRT services operating with small vehicles, as these costs may have to be passed onto the user.

3.57 The existence of a broad variety of DRT schemes operating under the full range of DRT legislation in Scotland, suggests that, in general, the legislation is allowing DRT services to develop successfully. However, there are a few key areas that have been highlighted that suggest that there may be scope to enhance the opportunities for DRT through legislative changes or clarification as follows:

• Differing eligibilities for BSOG - This particularly relates to fully flexible DRT services that act as replacements or alternatives to conventional services and is a barrier to long term sustainability and transfer of fixed routes to DRT. In addition, there are ambiguities over eligibility of services that combine fixed route and flexible sections.
• The requirement to charge VAT (on vehicles of less than 9 passenger seats) has been shown to cause problems in terms of making DRT services a cost effective alternative to fixed-route services when using smaller vehicles.
• There is a need to clarify the limits of advanced sharing of taxis and, for PSV services for regular bookings and return journeys. One argument is that public DRT should not take people on diversionary routes unless they are pre-booked in order to protect the taxi trade. However if people are registered users of DRT they can be shown to be committed to the DRT services so registration as a flexible service can distinguish between the public DRT and private taxi markets in this way.
• It would be helpful to potential developers of DRT schemes, that are to become registered services, to clearly define how flexible services and semi-flexible services are treated in terms of would-be registrations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »