I fear it has a ring of Teesflex to me, and will have the same trajectory. We may think that is a shame, but the numbers are very hard.

It is already known that DRT is a concept that is logistically capable to giving quite decent connectivity to an area with low demand for public transport, IF you can afford to throw generous resources at it (like TeesFlex did, and this one does). But I fear the basic problem is the funds required to do that are not realistic

"Not for profit" is not the same as low cost - the costings in the document equate to operating cost of at best £50 per hour for their "up to 95 service hours per week". (I suspect that the budgeted operating costs don't include any costing of depreciation/replacement of the 5 vehicles, which would add roughly £10 per hour.)

The evaluation of DfT's  Rural Mobility Fund trial schemes referred to in the NECA report says "Bringing levels of journey subsidy to what was seen as acceptable remained a major challenge." No shit, Sherlock, the Pope's a Catholic! On average the schemes were acheiving just 2.1 passengers per service hour. So if that is what the NECA scheme finds, each passenger requires subsidy of over £25 per journey, before considering all the very large overheads in the trial.