The Potential of Demand-Responsive Transport as a Complement to Public Transport: An Assessment Framework and an Empirical Evaluation

Abstract

Demand-responsive transport (DRT) services (collective on-demand services, such as shared ridesourcing and microtransit) offer a collective flexible travel alternative that can potentially complement fixed transit (FT). The combination of an ondemand and line-based service holds the promise of improved mobility and increased service coverage. However, to date, it remains unknown whether DRT services deliver these much anticipated improvements. This study presents an assessment framework to evaluate the performance of DRT and related changes in accessibility, and performs an empirical analysis for a recently introduced DRT service in the Netherlands. The framework includes a performance benchmark between DRT and FT based on the computation of generalized journey times of the DRT rides and the FT alternatives, and can help identify whether DRT is used as a complement or a substitute for FT. The framework covers the spatial and temporal dimensions, and the explicit consideration of rejected trips is an integral part of the evaluation. Results suggest large accessibility improvements for DRT users, especially for some underserved origin-destination pairs.

Improving Rural Accessibility: A Multilayer Approach

“…The operational layer refers to the provision of alternatives to personal private automobility, to the improvement of transport infrastructure, and to non-material and cross-cutting actions directly aimed at improving conditions for mobility. Whereas demand responsive transport and community transport are more suitable than traditional public transport services [14][15][16][17], at the same time, measures to promote localization and reduce the need to travel can be very relevant to enhance rural accessibility [71,72]. Moreover, these measures can counteract the magnetic effect that fast access to urban nodes exerts on rural areas, further worsening de-anthropization processes and socio-economic marginalization.…”

Travelers’ Attitudes Toward Mobile Application–Based Public Transport Services in Lahore

“…It is hypothesized that these newly introduced DRT services will attract travelers of different socioeconomic groups who ideally have more familiarity with the operational mechanism of these services. It is also hypothesized that improvements in accessibility characteristics based on user's perceptions in terms of spatial and temporal coverage might help in attracting new users through influencing their travel attitudes and intentions (Alonso-González et al, 2018;Javid et al, 2015). Based on the findings of this research study, policies about specific service attributes can be made to scale up and improve the operations and usage of these DRT services.…”

Evaluating demand responsive transit services using a density-based trip rate metric

“…However, more nuanced insights are needed when considering DRT services in low-density environments. Planning for DRT is quite different from FRT bus planning and demands its own methods for evaluation of services (Alonso-González, Liu, Cats, Van Oort, & Hoogendoorn, 2018;Ferreira, Charles, & Tether, 2007;Papanikolaoua et al, 2017;Reinhardt, Clausen, & Pisinger, 2013). One clear difference in service design is that many DRT services are based on regional coverage, and are not tied directly to individual stops as with FRT.…”