I went to a Department for Transport (DfT) workshop to launch its consultation on 'The Future of Mobility.'
It was a fascinating insight into the DfT's thinking, broadly placing the future between a 'dystopian' scenario where private hire vehicles, personalised pods and 'm-bikes' ruled the roost or a 'utopian' view of the world, highly integrated and planned with innovation taking place but in a very organised and structured way with a high level of co-ordination between transport and land use.
A quick rewind to the current day sees a lot of this conflict played out in the continuing evolution of demand responsive transport (DRT) solutions.
Fixed or flexible?
If a utopian view is represented by highly-fixed bus routes and a dystopian view is represented by app-based single occupancy solutions, then DRT could represent the sensible compromise between the two, making use of new technology but in a relatively controlled and responsible way.
There is nothing new about DRT. Just before I entered the industry Ford Transits were zooming around Hampstead Garden suburb and similar vehicles in Harlow with a large telephone logo on the side to emphasise there was something different in the service offering and that you could call a bus rather than subjecting yourself to the timetable produced by the bus company.
Virtually all of these initiatives fell by the wayside for a combination of reasons. Manual scheduling meant that 24-hours’ notice was usually required so the level of flexibility was limited: the extra overheads and limited carrying capacity was a recipe for continuing subsidy. Usually after a pilot stage the funding ran out and it was difficult to make a commercial case to continue.
The community transport sector embraced early journey planning software to improve their flexible service offering (sometimes developed in-house) but the Total Transport initiative launched by the Government found it difficult to create or find long term solutions to solving isolation and loneliness through cross sector co-operation.
Now DRT is back and Arriva and Go-Ahead are two mainstream bus operators assessing its suitability.
What is behind its renaissance and why is it different this time? The answer lies in the software. Technology has moved on leaps and bounds and the advantage for the industry as a whole is that there are now serious players involved who have long-term financial backing.
The algorithms behind these initiatives are very clever and have taken years of research and development. But they work off the shelf and automatically plan journeys, give drivers instructions and charge customers with the minimum of fuss.
This takes away a lot of the inbuilt disadvantages of 'first generation' DRT and suggests a much brighter future.
Even more encouraging is the involvement of specialist commercial organisations with a clear commercial imperative to give these initiatives the greatest chance of success.
To return to the 'Future of Mobility' debate, what is the role of Government if the commercial sector is leading the way?
Apart from the obvious point of ensuring the regulatory regime is fit for purpose as the customer-offer changes (for example, how relevant will the service registration process be) the key role is breaking down the barriers that have prevented cross sector co-operation in the past.
Work together
Even 'first generation' DRT might have had a chance if all the agencies demanding and supplying flexible passenger transport had worked together but the opportunity must not be lost this time around by vested interests.
With fully accessible vehicles moving around town and able to respond to diverse customer requirements there is no reason why customers that have been seen as 'health' 'social services' 'community sector' and regular public transport should not be mixed.
This is relevant to all areas but in semi-urban and rural locations this gives the best chance to solve the isolation conundrum.
