I can't see this posted anywhere else, but I've noticed on the NECA delegated decision report from 22nd April 2026, there's a 'Rural
Optimised User-centred Transport EcoSystem (ROUTES) trial' worth £900k been approved, funded under the North East BSIP. The initial suggested area is the initial suggested area is around the three-way Northumberland/Gateshead/County Durham border near Blackhall Mill.
It looks to be a 12-month pilot scheme to improve transport in rural areas with poor connectivity, but using a combination of DRT and some fixed-route services. The idea is to connect people to the existing networks, rather than replace, and there's a claim it'll provide up to an extra 95 hours of public transport per week.
Where this seems to differ from other DRT schemes, is that it's ran as a Community Transport service by a consortium made up of Weardale
Community Transport, Edge Innovation, Connected Places Catapult, Rural Design Centre and Derwent Valley Car Club, rather than a tender award as a service contract.
Within the award is funding for the purchase of 5 vehicles (minibuses + wheelchair-accessible vehicles)
I think this links with some of the concerns that Northumberland in particular raised around the BSIP, and areas within that county being left behind, so I'm not at all surprised to see a trial like this take place. There's not a fixed date for this starting yet, as there's some consultation and further research to be had before that, according to the report.
Rural Optimised User-centred Transport EcoSystem (ROUTES) trial
Rural Optimised User-centred Transport EcoSystem (ROUTES) trial
RE: Rural Optimised User-centred Transport EcoSystem (ROUTES) trial
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.
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.