Demand Responsive Transport – Connecting People to Opportunities is a UKRI-funded project, led by researchers from UWE Bristol and the University of Leeds
by Eda Beyazit, Kiron Chatterjee and Daniel Johnson
Our recent webinar brought together more than a hundred practitioners, policymakers and researchers. Chaired by our project partners, Richard Dilks (CoMoUK) and Sharon Payne (Transport East), participants got the opportunity to hear our study findings, ask questions, share experiences and listen to a panel discussion involving our three partner local authorities. It was clear that understanding DRT’s wider social impact is both timely and urgently needed. In this post, we share our reflections under four themes (diagnosis, drivers, dialogue, and direction), highlighting what we learned and where this conversation is heading.
Diagnosis – increasing realisation of the importance of capturing social value
Our starting point was the need to look beyond standard performance metrics such as revenues and costs when considering the case for investing in public transport systems such as DRT. The KPMG report ‘The economic impact of local bus services’ highlights the significance of wider social and economic benefits. While DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) acknowledges these broader impacts, evidence remains limited. Kiron Chatterjee (project lead, UWE Bristol) explained our research set out to address this gap by developing a way to understand and quantify the social value of DRT for both users and communities.
The county councils of Essex, Gloucestershire, and Nottinghamshire are the three local authorities who participated in the study. We looked at three case study DRT schemes in rural areas featuring pockets of deprivation. These were DigiGo in Central Essex and Braintree, the Robin in South Forest of Dean and NottsBus On Demand in South and North Ollerton.
DigiGo is the Demand Responsive Transport service operated by Essex County Council using electric vehicles minibuses. Photo credit: Research team.
Using survey data, we explored not only why people used (or did not) use DRT but the purpose of trips made and the extent to which DRT trips enabled employment, education, healthcare, and social participation. This led to a question during the webinar on whether the same methodology could be applied to conventional bus services. Dan Johnson (project co-lead, Leeds), who led on social value methodology, confirmed this would be possible if similar survey data were collected.
We explained how other work the UWE researchers have been doing for DfT has looked at the overall performance metrics of DRT services funded by the Rural Mobility Fund with an interim report published in 2023 and a final report just published. ECT Charity has developed a methodology for estimating the social value of community transport services which served as an inspiration for our work, but we required a methodology fit for purpose for DRT. Johnson explained our approach focused on the added value of journeys which could not be made without DRT and the value of the activities enabled, whereas user benefits conventionally focus on time and money saved for journeys that would mostly still happen anyway. Much of the value estimated stemmed from enabling employment, facilitating recreational activities and saving resource cost to NHS from avoiding missed appointments.
Audience questions allowed us to further unpack the methodology. Concerns about wage levels, optimism bias, and the valuation of employment led to clarifications around the shadow wage approach, the incorporation of reduced benefit payments and wellbeing gains, and the alignment with existing government valuation frameworks. Similarly, when asked whether a single accepted value per passenger existed, we emphasised that the range of values we presented (£12.60–£17.80 per supported return trip across the three case studies) were specific to our research and the average value will depend on the mix of journey purposes and proportion of trips enabled by a service that would not otherwise have been possible.
Drivers – understanding what is motivating DRT use
Eda Beyazit (co-lead, UWE Bristol) and Asa Thomas (researcher, UWE Bristol) presented results on what motivated people to use DRT and how it made a difference to their lives. This triggered discussion around drivers of DRT use which highlighted the mix of social, practical, and economic factors shaping people’s mobility choices. Convenience and affordability emerged strongly, along with the directness of routes, particularly for trips that would otherwise require multiple interchanges. Some participants noted the importance of safety, especially for women, raising questions about whether DRT is perceived as a safer and more comfortable option. Thanks to our research exploring these issues, through a mixed-methods approach, we not only identified the significance of these factors across different user groups but also demonstrated how DRT provides a more personal touch from drivers of the minibuses that is not matched by other options.
Research team travelling on the Robin: a DRT service run by Gloucestershire County Council. Photo credit: Research team.
Audience members with their own experience of DRT noted that a small group of frequent users may account for a significant share of trips. Others observed unexpectedly high numbers of hospital journeys, raising questions whether DRT was substituting for NHS patient transport services.
There was interest among the audience whether app-based bookings meant some groups were advantaged and others were missing out. The research team noted DRT journeys could also be booked via call centres but acknowledged that app bookings made it easier to make block bookings and that could affect the way in which DRT is used.
Participants also reflected on how patterns of regular use might indicate where fixed-route services could be viable. Examples mentioned included Manchester where DRT services are used for early-morning airport commutes, and East Suffolk where school runs are integrated into DRT schedules.
Dialogue – knowledge exchange between researchers and practitioners
The webinar brought together 121 participants from more than 90 organisations, with nearly half representing local authorities and many others from national authorities (9%), including DfT and Defra, regional authorities (7%), consultancies and private companies (13%), and research institutions (15%). The richness of the discussion in the chat space and during Q&A sessions and during the panel session demonstrated both the timeliness of the topic and the thirst for evidence-based guidance in this area. Our webinar also facilitated interaction between participating local authorities to share their experiences with each other.
Nottsbus On Demand, a DRT service run by Nottinghamshire County Council, provides disability access on its vehicles. Photo credit: Vinita Nawathe.
One theme was how to manage the interaction between DRT and fixed network bus services. Durham raised concerns that DRT was being treated as a ‘cheap taxi’, drawing passengers away from existing bus routes. Leicestershire and TfGM shared measures they were taking to avoid duplication, such as restricting DRT bookings when scheduled services are available or highlighting fixed-route alternatives in the app. Norfolk and others were eager to explore integration through interchange hubs, joint ticketing, and coordinated marketing.
Participants shared how their systems operate in practice. Leicestershire had added a fixed-route service to complement their FoxConnect (DRT service) and take the pressure off it. NHS-related transport emerged as another area of interest with suggestions to look at historical examples such as the Border Courier service started under the RUTEX (RUral Transport Experiments) in the 1970s and reflections on the significant sums the NHS spends on taxis for both patients and medical samples.
Direction – the way forward
A key takeaway from the panel discussion was that the study findings can guide future evaluations and policies. One question was whether the Treasury would accept the social values derived. Johnson pointed out that, while our approach aligns with TAG guidance, particularly in recognising the wider social impacts of transport, it also offers a pragmatic way to understand the value of specific impacts without needing a full appraisal. Importantly, social value should be treated as complementary and not necessarily additional to economic benefits such as time savings.
Our social value calculations are seen as a “real game changer in the assessment of the value of these services”. They could influence the future of these services, particularly in serving relatively more deprived areas where DRT is viewed as providing “social insurance”. It was highlighted that the study findings can enable LAs to engage more confidently in dialogue with organisations such as the NHS based on hard evidence. Some patients already regularly use DRT services and operators also attract bookings from hospital staff.
A screenshot of the webinar during the panel discussion. Photo credit: Research team.
The panel discussion also revealed that social value assessment could help leverage new transport provision in rural developments, helping justify DRT as an initial service model that can later transition to fixed-route bus services as demand grows. Another benefit of DRT services is the travel demand data generated which helped Nottinghamshire identify a high-demand route and implement a fixed-route service that operates alongside DRT.
Essex noted that DRT enables them to serve a broader demographic than possible with fixed-route services and therefore offer a more equitable service. It is not a case of choosing one over the other – both fixed-route and DRT services play a role in supporting communities. Gloucestershire also noted that DRT can complement existing community transport. They wanted to avoid “accidentally hurting the community transport sector” and have found DRT has freed up capacity for community transport to serve its principal purpose of meeting the needs of those that cannot use conventional public transport.
The panel emphasised the importance of presenting a full picture of the benefits that DRT brings to local areas. By consistently framing investment in this broader way, authorities can build a stronger case for the benefits these services deliver to residents. They will be working to embed social value assessment into routine decision-making, ensuring they provide the “right solution for the right people at the right time in the right area”.
What became clear from the high level of engagement during the webinar is that this work is both timely and essential. Local authorities, operators, and policy makers are all trying to understand how to maximise the wider benefits of DRT and identify what this means for service design, investment, and long-term planning.
The insights from this study, along with the contributions made by webinar participants, will influence the next phase of our research as we continue to develop more robust, transparent, and meaningful ways of assessing social value in flexible transport systems. At the end of the webinar, Chatterjee briefly introduced the next project, where we will extend our work to look at the effects on local businesses and community organisations.
If you would like to know more about the project, you can visit these webpages: https://www.uwe.ac.uk/research/centres-and-groups/cts/research-themes/transport-planning-and-placemaking/demand-responsive-transport; project website: https://www.drtconnecting.co.uk/
This blog was written by Eda Beyazit, Kiron Chatterjee, Daniel Johnson.
Eda Beyazit is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society, UWE Bristol. She previously worked as an Associate Professor in Urban Planning at Istanbul Technical University and founded the IstanbulON Urban Mobility Lab. Eda was an Urban Studies Foundation international fellow at the University of Manchester between 2022 and 2023. Her research interests include socio-spatial inequalities, gender, precarity, and the urban periphery.
Kiron Chatterjee is Professor of Travel Behaviour in CTS at UWE Bristol. His research looks at how travel behaviour changes over time and how people’s access to transport affects their life opportunities and wellbeing. Kiron is currently responsible for a number of evaluation projects for the Department for Transport, as well as UKRI projects on walking school buses and Demand Responsive Transport.
Daniel Johnson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, specialising in transport economics and the wider economic impacts of public transport. He leads research on transport appraisal, demand modelling, and policy evaluation, and has extensive experience in national and EU projects related to demand forecasting for both passenger transport and freight.