A tale of two continents – the experience of on demand bus transport

On demand transport (ODT) is a bus based public transport service where the route and timings are determined by the user unlike conventional bus services which are scheduled and run on fixed routes between their origin and destination. On-demand transport has several names, originating as ‘dial a ride’, and more recently demand responsive transport or flexible transport services.

There has been extensive academic and grey literature looking at these services covering experimental services, funded by Government bus ‘challenge’ funds in the UK, small schemes designed to meet niche needs all over Europe and more long-lived schemes that have existed around the world. European (including the UK) services have been subject to evaluations, often with a focus on cost factors, concluding that these services are more expensive than conventional services. However, they fail to recognise the contribution to quality of life, reductions in social exclusion and the potential to increase social capital. Other evidence has focused on why services fail (Currie and Fournier, 2020). A close look at the barriers to implementation  identified the way in which ‘big’ bus operators were not comfortable with small bus and flexible operations and governments who subsidise (usually on the basis of the kilometres run) found the idea of an unknown total liability arising from flexible operation a difficult concept. More importantly, bus legislation typically is designed to cater for conventional fixed route services in a way that makes the design of a flexible service difficult.

In this tale of two continents, we ask the question why the trials introduced in NSW with great aplomb providing 14 new urban ODT and 11 rural and regional ODT from late 2017 are different and whether this experience needs to be promoted to thinking outside the box to revise the literature on the elements of success of ODT services.

Promoted by the (then) Transport Minister, Andrew Constance, the NSW trial services were introduced as technology achievements reflective of the advancements in transport information technology. In some of the cases the trial services must be regarded as a success by transferring from a status of ‘trial’ to permanence (for example Bridj in Sydney’s Inner West). Whilst these trial NSW services were announced and implemented with a fanfare, it should be also be recognised that other Australian states had implemented ODT services, some quite long standing such as Telebus in Melbourne (since 1978 but replaced with fixed route complemented by other flexi-ride services in 2021 – which should not be considered a “failure”), Keoride in Mount Barker (who also operate in Sydney’s Northern beaches), Victoria, Roam zone in Adelaide and other roam zones in South Australia in towns replacing fixed route services such as Grafton.

What do the successful ODT trials that have translated to permanence have in common?  And do they share this with other longstanding schemes? The literature generally claims that ODT schemes are expensive as indeed they are if they are overlaid onto the existing network. The successful NSW schemes have not been overlaid on the network but were designed to be part of the network thus benefiting from the network effect. Whilst contrary to previous practice, this element of success was identified in 2012 for low density services, where a potential redesign of the conventional network into conventional trunk services complemented by access services by ODT could be provided within the existing budget but with an estimated increase in access to public transport from 56% to 92% (Mulley and Daniels, 2012). And on examination, the most long-lasting scheme in the UK, introduced in 2001 in rural Lincolnshire, CallConnect was designed and branded to be part of the network. Nelson and Wright (2021) reported that since inception the service has resulted in the level of unmet need in the communities served being reduced by 90% with the subsidy required for DRT approximately the same as that required for the former (less effective) fixed route services. Clearly, from a cost of provision point of view, designing as part of the network rather than duplicating the network will offer better value for money. Benefiting from the network effect is not restricted only to successful ODT services and is a well-documented aim of network planning (Mulley and Nelson, 2021)  

The successful ODT services in NSW were led by a Champion in the form of the Transport Minister. The presence of a Champion has been a feature of many really successful transport schemes from Enrique Peñalosa’s vision and implementation of the Bogata BRT, the intuitive adoption of Busways as a solution for Brisbane by the Chair of the Traffic and Transport Committee, Councillor Maureen Hayes (Tanko and Burke, 2013), to London’s congestion charging scheme by Ken Livingstone.

What is ‘out of the box’ about the ODT successes in NSW? The successes have shown the literature to be lacking in two respects. First, the recognition that successful ODT services must be integral to the network and not just an add on and second, successful transport options which are promoted by a committed Champion are associated with success. But the final aspect of success of the ODT services in NSW is how the key elements of success are now recognised by Transport for NSW. As identified by Executive Director Sue Wiblin, ODT services are an effective transport mode when incorporated into network, provide value for money when designed as part of the network and should be considered another, and separate service type.  

References

Currie, G., & Fournier, N. (2020). Why most DRT/Micro-Transits fail–What the survivors tell us about progress. Research in Transportation Economics, 83, 100895.

Mulley, C., Nelson, J., Teal, R., Wright, S., & Daniels, R. (2012). Barriers to implementing flexible transport services: An international comparison of the experiences in Australia, Europe and USA. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 3, 3-11.

Mulley, C., & Nelson, J.D. (2021). Public Transport Network Planning. In: Vickerman, R (Ed) International Encyclopedia of Transportation, vol. 6, (pp. 388-394). Elsevier.

Nelson, J.D. & Wright, S. (2021). Flexible Transport Services. In C. Mulley, J.D. & S. Ison (Eds) Handbook of Public Transport. (pp. 224-235). Routledge.