‘Unconventional modes’ of transport in the United Kingdom—A review of types and the policy context

Troncpn. Rcs-A. Printed in Great

Vol. 22A. Britain.

No. 5. pp.3?9-34.

1988

0191.XI7’88 f3.00 + .0l Q 1988 Pergamon Press plc

‘UNCONVENTIONAL MODES’ OF TRANSPORT IN REVIEW OF TYPES THE UNITED KINGDOM-A AND THE POLICY CONTEXT Department

of Environmental

STEPHEN D. NUTLEY Studies, University of Ulster, Coleraine, County Londonderry, BT52 ISA, Northern Ireland

(Received 21 August 1987; in revised form 30 January 1988) Abstract-‘Unconventional modes’ (UCMs) of public transport have been emerging.steadily and unobtrusively in the United Kingdom over the last two decades, largely originating in rural areas. Since 1977, there has been a quickening expansion of numbers and diversification of types in the light of governments’ increasing concern with the cost of supporting ‘conventional’ public transport and the search for cheaper alternatives. An essential part of this review is to establish a definition of ‘unconventional’ as an aid to classifying the wide and increasing diversity of modes, and clarifying terminology. UCMs overlap with ‘community transport,’ which caters for the mobility needs of elderly and handicapped persons. In the context of bus service deregulation in 1985/6, the UCM sector is expected to expand although its precise future role is unclear. 1. THE ‘UNCONVENTIONAL’ SECTOR The experience of long-standing economic problems in the public passenger transport sector, and the relative decline of that sector, is familiar to operators and governments in many countries. Amongst the

various conceivable responses, and usually not the most prominent one, is the consideration of novel, innovative modes of operation and/or vehicle types as alternatives to conventional services. This is based on the expectation that such a policy might provide significant operating economies or otherwise present a more suitable or attractive product for the consumer. In the United Kingdom a variety of unusual or ephemeral types of public transportation has been emerging steadily over the last two decades, albeit in a spasmodic and uncoordinated manner. This has now reached the point where numbers, distribution, and apparent success in many cases offer a realistic and ‘new’ option for policy makers. Such types are normally known by the collective term ‘unconventional modes’ (UCMs), although the origin of the term is not clear. It can be regarded as equivalent to the American term “paratransit” (Kirby et al., 1975; Orski, 1975; Transportation Research Board, 1980, 1985, 1986). Unconventional features include: flexible routing and timing, multipurpose operation, use of vehicles not normally available to the public, noncommercial operation by community groups, and new technology. With one exception (the railbus) they are all road-based. There are many variations, which are summarised below, and the field is now so complex that some clarification is required. UCMs in Britain belong almost entirely to the noncommercial side of the market. Their development originates in the perceived inadequacy of existing public transport services in the areas concerned. There are two quite different situations.

First, where the quantity of public transport supplied by the market is insufficient to meet the travel needs of the local population, responsible authorities have responded traditionally by subsidization of conventional services, but may turn to UCMs as alternative solutions if they are believed to be a more costeffective use of public resources. This situation is most commonly brought about in the rural areas where public transport provision has been in continuous decline from the 195Os, due to the growth in private car ownership, rising bus and rail operating costs, and demographic and social changes. Mounting political pressure to reduce subsidies by cutting services contrasts with strong evidence of social need for basic levels of accessibility. The appearance of UCMs is a partial response to this. It was always envisaged that their adoption would constitute purely local solutions, and be supplementary to existing transport. The second situation where the shortcomings of conventional public transport lead to a consumer demand for new modes concerns the special needs of handicapped persons. While statutory agencies provide essential transport for health and welfare purposes, this is supplemented to a great extent by the voluntary sector (for a review see Bailey and Layzell, 1983). A diverse set of modes catering exclusively to the needs of elderly and disabled people has been in existence for some decades, and has come to be known as “community transport” (CT) due to the high involvement of volunteer labour. This need occurs regardless of the quantity of available public transport, and the great majority of CT services are located in urban areas, reflecting population distribution. This very large and expanding sector includes many features that may be regarded as ‘unconventional,’ and there is much confusion of terminology between CT and UCMs. Figure 1 dem329

S. D. NUTLEY

330

Available only to client groups with special transport needs

Available to general public JNCONVENTIONAL MODES

TRANSPORT

COMMUNITY

WELFARE TRANSPORT

Commercial operators

Voluntary or ’ community ’ (noncommercial) operators

Local authorities

Fig. 1. Unconventional onstrates the overlaps among these sectors. Community’ modes are included in the present discussion

only where they provide transport for the general public, rather than exclusively for specialist groups. The rural origins of UCMs in the United Kingdom deserve further comment, as this is strongly at variance with paratransit experience in the United States and most other countries. While international reviews are far from comprehensive (e.g. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1979; Rimmer 1980), the overwhelming urban and suburban emphasis of paratransit development in North America is replicated in the Third World and to a lesser extent in continental Europe. In other Western countries, such development is not primarily orientated towards solution of the ‘rural transport problem’ that is so prominent in the United Kingdom. Plentiful public transport is within most people’s memory and the loss is keenly felt; public authorities are concerned to seek solutions. In rural areas 20%-35% of households and 45%-65% of adult individuals are still without a car. Considerable academic work has demonstrated poor accessibility to local services and significant hardship for rural inhabitants (Moseley, 1979; Halsall and Turton, 1979; Nutley, 1983; Cloke, 1985). Other European countries have been more willing than the United Kingdom to subsidize conventional public transport, while in North America rural dwellers are presumed to be totally car-dependent (Rucker, 1984). On the other hand, the motivations’for urban paratransit and commuter ridesharing in the United States, such

modes and related sectors.

as the particular problems of low-density suburbs, savings in private car running costs, and relief from driving stress, have been insignificant in the United Kingdom. Lower urban rates of car ownership have been adequately compensated by public transport and, therefore, except for the case of handicapped persons, little consumer demand for paratransit has emerged in British cities. Largely due to recent policy and legislation, UCMs in the United Kingdom are spreading from their rural heartland into the towns, while in the United States there are signs of a trend in the opposite direction (Transportation Research Board, 1981; Adams, 1981; Knapp and Burkhardt, 1983). 1.1 The need for definition and classification This review was stimulated primarily by the impression that recent expansion of UCM numbers and broadening diversity of types have produced a situation of such complexity that clarification is urgently needed. At the present time, expansion of the sector is associated with the effects of the Transport Act of 1985, which deregulates the British bus industry and also contains provisions for the further encouragement of UCMs, although as far as the latter are concerned, this is the culmination of a stream of permissive legislation going back to 1977. A brief outline of the relevant modal types, their characteristics, variations, and examples, is given in the next section. This is followed by discussions of the formative influences on UCM development and the sector’s policy role.

‘Unconventional modes’ of transport in the U.K. Prior to this it is essential to devise a coherent framework for the identification and description of modal types, in order to clarify the differences among them and their relationships with conventional modes. The need for a comprehensive review giving renewed emphasis to definition and classification is also suggested by the following conditions: (i) The lack of any olcficial or legal definition. (ii) The inadequacy

331

on identifiable departures from various aspects of conventional operating practice, together with some degree of innovation or ‘newness.’ Modes adopting unconventional features are generally aimed at unprofitable environments. The modus operandi is more crucial than vehicle type or ownership. They must be available to the general public, although it is often difficult to distinguish them from specialist health and welfare services.

of existing classifications.

These are either incomplete or unstructured listings (e.g. Moseley, 1979), or oversimplified (e.g. Banister, 1985). (iii) The excessive fragmentation of existing literature on the topic. While the total written work is very large, it is widely scattered among local authority, planning and consultants’ reports, conference papers, academic sources, etc. Lengthy bibliographies can be found in LMoseley et al. (1977, vol. 2) and Banister (1985). The vast majority of this material is devoted to detailed descriptions of individual services and locations, making it difficult to obtain an overall view of the field. (iv) The inadequacy of data sources. Very few UCMs have their own separate licensing procedure and there is no official listing or data base that might provide numbers in each category. Some types are largely informal and may be unknown to any public agency. In the absence of any systematic source, a search was made through the transport planning and policy documents of local authorities (County Councils in England and Wales, Regional Councils in Scotland). The most useful, although extremely variable in quality and information content, are Public Transport Plans (PTPs) produced by the counties of England and Wales. Equivalent information is available for Scotland, but not for Northern Ireland where transport is not a local responsibility. A survey of such plans, in conjunction with a classification scheme, has the best chance of providing a balanced coverage of the field. (v) The confusion of terminology. British nomenclature is quite different from American paratransit usage, but is very inconsistent and is in need of rationalisation. Some terms are too vague, such as ‘car sharing.’ Social car schemes (see below) are variously described as ‘voluntary car,’ ‘essential car,’ ‘country car,’ etc. The term ‘dial-a-ride’ has been applied to three different types of operation. The community bus (see below) is often confused with community transport (CT). Type differentiation is also essential for planning or developmental purposes, to establish the potential of each mode to satisfy local travel needs, and to clarify relative economic performance and costibenefit effectiveness relative to each other and to conventional transport. Definition of the UGM sector must be counterposed to what is ‘conventional’ under United Kingdom conditions. Without being too rigid, it is based

2.

‘UNCONVENTIONAL’

MODE

DIFFERENTIATION

AND DESCRIPTION

Attempts to mitigate the operational rigidity of conventional transport can be summarised in three ways: (i) reduce costs, such as by the use of volunteer labour, and/or (ii) increase the supply of vehicles, such as by using those not normally available to the general public, and/or (iii) match supply more closely to demand, such as by operating on a demand-responsive basis. Classification of UCM types is based on exploitation of the potential for adapting or relaxing successive characteristics of conventional operation. Unconventional features are therefore (1) circumscribing the eligibility of passengers and/or destinations; (2) adopting flexible routing and timing; (3) rationalising different traffics by various types of multipurpose operation; (4) encouraging community management and/or operation and the use of private vehicles; (5) obtaining finance from alternative sources; (6) applying new technology. Modes are described below within this framework. The classification is represented in diagrammatic form, and three complementary figures (Figs. 2, 5, and 6) are necessary to express fully the pertinent relationships. Figure 2 summarises the diagnostic features of each mode according to the unconventional characteristics identified above. Eighteen modes are listed, although this number obviously depends on definition and the status of some types may be arguable. 2.1 Passenger eligibility The common carrier ideal may be compromised in some cases. There are many situations in practice where transport can only be provided at acceptable cost if the service frequency is kept to very low levels, and these can only be achieved by restricting the types of people eligible to use it. This is the case for most schemes that rely on voluntary labour, especially in rural areas where demand is low and dispersed. Two restrictions seem reasonable in the circumstances: first, that aspiring passengers do not have the use of a car, and second, that their intended journey cannot be made by existing conventional public transport nor realistically by taxi. Potential problems arise when restrictions go further than this. Transport provided by local voluntary groups with very weak funding is seen as a ‘last resort’ mode, and as such eligibility is often restricted

S. D. NUUY

332

U/C FEATURES

\

ReWiCWd

MODE ’

eligibility

Flexible routing 8 timing (or DIR)

Multipurpose Community transport (vehicles management or operations) and/or operation

Alternative finance

New design, technology

D/R diversion (Flexibus) Multiple-service bus Contract bus Subscription bus

t

c/

J

J

c/

Free shoppers bus School bus Postbus

J

t

t

t

Social car*

/

t

Hospital car’

t

t

Lift-giving’ scheme

d

t

Car pooling’

c/

t

Community

bus’

PSV d&a-bus Weffam’ dial-a-bus

-

Shared taxi/hire-c Passenger/freight service(Courier) Demountable vehicle Railbus

.

‘Community

transport

mode

d

Primary unconventional

feature.

t

Secondary unconventional feature or important in some cases only.

Fig. 2. Modes defined by their “unconventional

to ‘urgent’ or ‘essential’ trips by persons with special needs. This is usually interpreted to mean the disabled, infirm, or elderly seeking access to medical or welfare facilities. Some services provide transport only to specific doctors’ surgeries or hospitals. Certain UCMs can therefore be classified by passenger eligibility and their permitted destinations, as in Fig. 3, which shows the range of car-based schemes. A social car scheme (as explained above, other names are used) is one that relies on car owners using

characteristics.

their own private vehicles to convey other members of the community to destinations that they could not reach by any other means. A local organising committee, often drawn from an existing community group, assembles a pool of volunteer drivers and arranges suitably timed journeys in response to travel requests from eligible persons; drivers’ costs are reimbursed by the committee. Such arrangements are usually initiated by the county council, which takes ultimate financial responsibility. Social

Restricted eligibility

Any person

(generalpublic)

ambulance hospital car

Hospital only

Nonmedical welfare services: training centres, day centres, etc.

L-,,-,,,,--,----,--,---,---

: Restricted social car, 1 ‘welfare’ or social services transport : if limited to clients of institutions or 1 community group members

“““““““““““““I

Hospital (incl. visiting) GP’s surgery other medical

A \

on passengers

and destinations:

Car schemes

and welfare

transport.

Social car

I I I I I I

Any destination impossible to reach by public transport incl. shopping, social, etc.

________________________________________________~________-

/

Fig. 3. Restrictions

t

Any carless person 1

Elderly and disabled

Disabled only

Nonemergency medical cases or outpatients

DESTINATION

‘Urgent’ or ‘essentiar trips

I

car pooling, : lift-giving

I

: Car sharing,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Any destination

S. D. NUI-LEY 334 car services emerged in the mid-1970s-early in- lowing some flexibility and diversions on demand, novators included Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Cumand thus the route is variable between the same start bria, Clwyd, and Dyfed, but most counties now have and finish points (Fig. 4). True D/R operation emsome schemes of various types (Rhys and Buxton, braces any origin and any destination at times gov1974; Clwyd County Council, 1978; Fearnside, erned entirely by demand. 1980). A minimum provision for a conventional bus to There are many variants (e.g. in Essex the local be more responsive to demand would be to authorise bus company runs cars on a normal scheduled basis), D/R diversions, e.g. from a major road to serve but the main issue here is eligibility. Most social cars villages a few kilometres away. This would have imare ‘restricted’ to some degree (Fig. 3). A ‘hospital plications for timetabling, and would require some car’ may be either a social car exclusively serving a form of prebooking for passengers to board at an hospital, or a volunteer service organised by the outlying point (Gallop, 1975). An alternative aphealth authority for the same purpose. No clear di- proach is to operate over different routes on differviding line can be drawn between the definition of ent days of the week, e.g. connecting different UCMs as supplementary services for the general groups of villages with the same town. In Fig. 4 the public, and medical or welfare transport for the benterm ‘Flexibus’ is suggested as a general label for efit of exclusive client groups. For this reason, and such modes, the name deriving from a flexibly routed also due to different scales of local organisation, it D/R bus service implemented in Yorkshire as a is impossible to give realistic numbers of voluntary 1970s experiment (North Yorkshire Rutex Working car transport schemes. Group, 1979). Eligibility restrictions can lead to difficult probThe ideal D/R operation is ‘many-to-many,’ not lems, such as the possibility that in some areas with constrained by fixed routes or timetables, and able no conventional public transport, the elderly and to respond immediately to telephone requests for disabled may have more transport opportunities than transport. Such a ‘dial-a-bus’ system requires vehinon-car-owning able-bodied persons. Statutory cles with radio control and an operations centre with health and welfare services are under great pressure computer facilities to optimise bus despatching and to accept cases only on strict criteria of need, with scheduling. This is a complex, technological solution ‘nonurgent’ trips being diverted to the CT sector; that has become established in North America but this may worsen transport problems in areas where that, after a number of trials, has proved inapproCT modes do not exist. There is also the question priate for the United Kingdom, but may survive in of whether a social car coordinator would refuse a a simplified form (Bendixson, 1977; Oxley, 1980). request for an ‘inessential’ trip such as shopping. The Well-known dial-a-bus projects have been tried out greater the eligibility restrictions, then the lower is since 1972 in Abingdon, Maidstone, Harrogate, the trip rate-one a week or less is quite commonEastbourne, Carterton (Oxfordshire), Harlow, and this must raise questions about the real usefulHampstead, Sale (Manchester), and Milton Keynes ness of such arrangements. (for examples see Watts, 1976a, 1976b). Service conHowever, there are other ways of using privately figurations varied among ‘many-to-one,’ ‘many-toowned vehicles (cars and minibuses) that do not imfew,’ and diversions from a fixed route, all within pose such restrictions on passengers. This is dealt urban areas. However, all the above projects have with in Section 2.4. been unsuccessful, primarily through high costs, and usually replaced by conventional buses. This contrasts with continuing successful operation of ad2.2 Routing and timing In environments without high densities of popuvanced systems in other European countries. It is doubtful if there are any true many-to-many public lation adjacent to convenient corridor routes, conservices in the United Kingdom. The present trend ventional bus operation is likely to suffer from a seems to be towards a convergence with the D/R frustrating inability to match indivisible supply with diversions described above, often with the use of dispersed demand. Dispersal of passenger demand minibuses, e.g. in Strathclyde (Scottish Rutex Workmay apply in both geographical and temporal senses, ing Group; 1979). and the problem can therefore be seen as one of time-space coordination, particularly relevant to ruWith the failure of the 1970s projects, the term ral areas but also to low-density suburbs. Accorddial-a-ride (bus) has undergone a shift in meaning, and is now applied to door-to-door CT services for ingly, the optimization of passengers and revenue the elderly and handicapped, using small buses with relative to operating costs suggests a demand-readaptations such as wheelchair lifts. The two types sponsive (D/R) mode. Numerous UCMs have been developed with the aim of achieving flexibility in are distinguished here (Figs. 2 and 5) as ‘PSV diala-bus’ and ‘welfare dial-a-bus,’ respectively. routing and/or timing, and may thus be classified Apart from recent innovations, existing (convenaccording to space and time parameters (Fig. 4). tional) D/R modes are the taxi, which can ply for Others have proposed a 2 x 2 classification, idenhire, and the hire-car, which must be prebooked. tifying modes with a variable route at fixed times The impression has been gaining ground in official and vice versa (Banister, 1985) but this is felt to be circles that taxis and hire-cars constitute an undertoo simple. Some modes are loosely timetabled, al-

‘Unconventional

modes’ of transport in the U.K.

335

TIME \ SPACE \

Fixed

Flexible

timing

timing

I I 1aih4ay I I :erry I I 8 I _‘__“‘_‘_‘_~_____‘_‘--“‘-‘-‘-‘-l-’___’~~~~~~~~

I : I : I i

Demand-responsive timing

Fixed O/D, fixed route

:onventional bus

Fixed O/D, variable route

I DIR diversion (Flexibus) ; Shared taxi/hire-car ; School bus , Social car I I Postbus I ! Community bus I I I Passenger/freight service I : (Courier) I I I Shared taxtihirecar I i Social car I I I Many-to-one/few I ’ dial-a-bus ____________~______________,-,-,-J-,,,_,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I , Zar sharing for I I Taxi I I Hire-car egular trips I Lift-giving scheme I >ar pooling for I I I Social car 3urney to work ; I I I Hospital car I I Many-to-many I I dial-a-bus I I I I (not in U.K.?)

Variable O/D, variable route

I

Shuttle bus Shuttle feny Optional ferry Shared taxi/hire-car Jitney (not in U.K.)

I

Fig. 4. Modes classified by time and space flexibility.

exploited transport resource, in view of their D/R operation and the subjective advantages of small vehicles. Consequently, to make these available to a wider market means reducing cost to the passenger, which on a commercial basis can only be done by allowing people to share at separate fares. Taxi sharing was illegal in Britain until implementation of the 1985 Transport Act. In Northern Ireland, however, taxi sharing is widespread, although there are continuing doubts about its legality. The Belfast ‘Black Taxi’ enterprises have attracted particular controversy. These emerged in 1971-1972 as alternative ‘safe’ transport in conditions of civil unrest, now operating highdensity radial routes into the city centre in competition with public buses (Lavery, 1986). Increasing popularity now supports nearly 350 taxis between two organisations. The phenomenon is officially tolerated if not strictly legal, and is attracting renewed attention for possible application elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In Great Britain shared taxi and hire-car schemes, requiring special legal dispensation before 1986, are extremely diverse in location, character, and success rate. Sharing requires at least a semi-fixed route, plus some advertising; some services are loosely timetabled while others are more TR(Al

22:5-8

responsive to demand. The ‘Taxibus’ service in Stourport, for example, runs on a fixed route at any time according to demand, with fares dependent on numbers of people sharing (Coe, 1985). This and the Belfast operations seem to be the United Kingdom’s nearest approach to the jitney, common in other parts of the world. Town services seem more likely to succeed: shared hire-cars introduced as rural experiments have rarely been successful. The irony here is that ‘unconventional’ use of taxis means reducing the flexibility of traditional D/R operation in order to run ‘semi-stage’ services. An alternative mode of operation, as in Dent (Cumbria), is to advertise the number of spare seats on journeys booked in advance by other persons. Another new provision is a simplified licensing procedure for taxi operators to run small buses on stage services. The social car, described above, is a typical D/R mode (although a few are timetabled). For the sake of completion, Fig. 4 includes buses run on a ‘shuttle’ basis, such as may be found between city centre railway stations, for access to airports and to some hotels. Some ferries operate in a similar way, at least during times of peak demand. There is also the case, common in the Scottish Highlands, where small ferries have a notional timetable to cross estuaries or

New design, technology

-----------

Alternative finance

__---___---

Multipurpose transpori (vehicles or operations)

Flexible routing and timing (or demand-responsive)

CONVENTIONAL

Shared taxi/ hire-car

Taxi Hire-car

1 l I

I

.-----

1

1 I I

I

I

Raibus

I I

Stage Bus (p&k and private sedors)

-f-----Mullple-service lbus 1School bus

I

1D/Rdiversion 1(Flexibus) 1PSV dial-abus

I

I

I

Fig. 5. Conventional

1

I

I I I I I

L3

I

I I

1 I

8’

Communily

adaptations.

bus

Noncommercial

f I

1 1

Social Services Transporl -I (public sedor) -------

-I

I

UNCONVENTIONAL

Ambulance Hospital car Dial-a-bus lor wellare or medical clients

Charity car services

Wellare Transport (voluntary sector) ---------

‘Community Transporl ---------

Car pooling

Social. car lilt-glvmg scheme

Community PlM2 Transport ______.

modes and “unconvcn~ion;ll”

Conlrad bus shoppers bus

1 Free

Posibus passenger/freight service (Courier) Demounlable vehicle

----

Road lreighl mail services

____~~~___~~~~___~___~~~~~__

-_--

Railway

I

Commercial

‘Unconventional

to islands, passenger ries’ ) .

modes’ of transport in the U.K.

but do not depart

telephones

unless an intending beforehand (‘optional fer-

2.3 Multipurpose operation Dual-purpose or multipurpose transport aims to secure more efficient utilization of resources by arranging for any vehicle and its driver to handle more than one type of business or client group. There are two ways of doing this. First, the two (rarely more) types of traffic may be handled by a single vehicle simultaneously, with the mode of operation designed to suit both as far as possible. Second, a single vehicle may convey different traffics consecutively, using suitably diverse modes of operation at different times of day or days of the week. For want of a better term, the latter is described below as ‘multiple-service bus.’ A persistent issue has been how best to combine schools traffic with fare-paying adult passengers. There are three ways by which local education authorities (LEAS) can meet their statutory obligations to transport eligible pupils to school: (i) by paying a local bus operator to carry them on existing stage services; (ii) by contracting a bus operator exclusively for the purpose; and (iii) by exclusive use of the LEA’s own vehicles. The first option constitutes dual-purpose transport in that pupils share with ordinary passengers, and has been normal practice since the 1944 Education Act. With the other two modes, sharing is possible either by obtaining a permit under previous legislation or by licensing as a public service bus, and it is these that are regarded as unconventional. Alternatively, both traffics could be provided for on a ‘consecutive’ basis as outlined above by the ‘extended school contract,’ in which school contract buses also run public services in the off-peak at marginal cost. All local authorities have made considerable efforts to integrate school and public services by various combinations of the above modes (Awdas, 1978; Rigby, 1979), and these must be the most widespread UCMs if they can still be regarded as such. The best known dual-purpose mode is the postbus, which is probably the most conspicuous and popular of all UCMs. Postbuses in Britain differ substantially from those in continental Europe (e.g. Holding, 1983, on Switzerland) in that the latter have historically been the main providers of rural road passenger services, and there is full integration, in some cases without the need for door-to-door mail delivery. Numbers of services expanded dramatically in Britain in the 197Os, from 15 in 1972 to 157 in 1978. By 1985 total numbers were 174, of which 131 were in Scotland (further background information and operational details can be found in Turnock, 1977; Watts et al., 1978a, 1978b). Many long-established services in Scotland appear to be regarded by regional councils as permanent fixtures and no longer unconventional. On the other hand, many councils in England and Wales claim they are unable to find

337

any suitable postbus routes, mainly because of competition with existing buses and the lengthy, devious nature of mailvan circuits. While there is scope for further expansion (Watts, 1984), this may now be deterred by institutional and financial constraints. Primarily, the withdrawal of New Bus Grants in 1984 has cast a shadow over postbuses, as most cannot cover their vehicle replacement costs. A number of authorities, especially in England, are reappraising their postbuses and some have recently disappeared. Although total numbers are generally stable, there is now a greater turnover of services. In view of the enormous number of public and private small goods vehicles in use, there should be some potential in the combination of freight carriage with passenger services. Despite some traditional carriage of parcels on bus services in remoter areas, this is an underdeveloped field. The only significant project of this sort is the Border Courier system in southeast Scotland. Starting in 1979, this uses multipurpose vehicles whose main job is to convey medical supplies between doctors’ surgeries and the regional hospital, but will also carry sundry packages for various council departments, as well as passengers; it is partly demand-responsive (Borders Regional Council, 1981). The Border Courier is still unique in the United Kingdom, although Strathclyde Region is experimenting with freight-carrying buses. A further example of dual-purpose transport is the conveyance of local authority social services clients on the same buses as commercial passengers, thus achieving a rationalisation of specialized council vehicles and bus subsidies. This is done under the East Sussex Coordinated Rural Transport (ESCORT) project. The vehicles also take schoolchildren, have a wheelchair lift, and adopt D/R flexible routing (Watts, 1985). Here too, there seems to be scope for replication elsewhere, although local authorities report legal obstructions to the use of social services department vehicles for off-peak public service. Multipurpose transport may also be implemented in a consecutive manner. The best known example of what above was called a multiple-service bus is the St. Ives midibus in Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. As originally conceived (1976), the single vehicle ran daily rail commuter link and work/ school services in adjacent zones, and in the offpeak served different catchment areas on different weekdays offering shopping and market day trips, a surgery service, and a dial-a-bus mode (Cambridgeshire County Council, 1977). Inevitably perhaps, some service types were more successful than others, and it was later rationalised to concentrate on the commuter link. Less ambitiously diverse services might be more appropriate. 2.4 Community operation and private vehicles Community involvement and volunteer labour in public transport is encouraged primarily to reduce costs, in view of the oft-quoted figure of 70% of bus costs being due to drivers’ wages, but also to expand

338

S. D. NULEY

transport resources in line with the ‘self-help’ movement. The term ‘community transport’ could apply to any scheme with volunteer drivers or organisers, but those available to the general public are community buses, many social cars and various lift-giving arrangements. There is no national list of CT schemes, and the ultimate United Kingdom total may be anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000, but it should be reiterated that the vast majority are reserved for the elderly and handicapped. Probably the most important element of the community bus ideal is that overall management responsibility lies with the local organizing committee. The ‘classic’ community bus follows the model established by the first project, in North Norfolk from 1975, with the vehicle provided by a commercial bus company, volunteer drivers trained by them, and the committee scheduling a combination of stage services, D/R operations, excursions and hires, and the whole project being underwritten by the county council (Orriss, 1976; Harris, 1978). Other early innovations were in East Sussex, Clwyd, Northamptonshire, and Devon (Banister, 1982; Southdown Motor Services, 1977; Clwyd County Council, 1978; Devon Rutex Working Group, 1978). By the end of 1985, one could identify 39 community bus schemes in Britain, and depending on definition this might extend to over SO. These figures include many variations on the original model: some schemes are very much smaller, and many reduce initial costs by obtaining their vehicle from another source. A notable case is Grampian Region, where the council makes over its own school minibuses to local voluntary groups who operate stage services in the off-peak; there are currently 10 such routes (Grampian Regional Council, 1985). They could be regarded as part-time community buses, but also resemble the multiple-service buses defined above. Another strikingly different version is the so-called Bassetlaw Community Bus in Nottinghamshire. Using a full-size bus with professional drivers, in the opinion of some this disqualifies it as a true community bus. Covering a wide area, different services are run on different days, to schools, doctors and hospitals. shopping and recreational facilities (Childs, 1978), and therefore this too might be best described as a multiple-service bus. Community participation can also be activated by making private vehicles available to other persons, thus increasing public transport resources and achieving more efficient vehicle use. Social car schemes are obviously relevant here, but there is also a number of related concepts with potentially confusing terminology (Green, 1978). Informal lift-giving has been a sociable tradition for generations, especially in the countryside, but without any organisation it cannot be called a ‘scheme’ as such. A ‘lift-giving scheme’ implies at least some mutual advertising between drivers and aspiring passengers, and payment has been legal since 1980. Car sharing is often used as a generic term for all car-

based arrangements, but more specifically means giving lifts on regular trips, and is therefore less variable in time and space. Car pooling’ is an arrangement among car owners to share one person’s car, in turn, for regular trips to the same destination, especially for the journey to work. Similar attention has been paid to the potential of private minibuses being made available for wider use. Thirty-five percent of the country’s 82,000 minibuses belong to the voluntary sector (Walmsley, 1985), and it would be desirable if those owned by local groups or associations could be opened up to persons other than private passengers or club members. Minibus permits, introduced originally under the 1977 Minibus Act, should help in this respect by allowing educational, religious, and welfare bodies to run vehicles for hire or reward without public service licensing. Many ‘welfare’ CT schemes use this mechanism, but its possible application is much wider. About 12,000 permits have been issued, and 35% of voluntary sector vehicles have one. The wider use of cars and minibuses by such means is the most difficult of all modes to assess. Surveys have shown that car pooling is engaged in by 3% of car commuters (Vincent and Wood, 1979), while 7% might use a formal car-sharing system (Bonsall, 1980). Urban work-related trips, as in the ‘Yorkshare’ experiment (Bonsall et al., 1983)) come closest to the American concept of ‘ridesharing.’ Van (minibus) pooling is extremely rare in Britain; legal and economic factors inhibit American-style usage (Greening and Jackson, 1982). Equivalent commuter services that exist are in vehicles owned or contracted by employers, and known as ‘works buses.’ 2.5 Alternative finance This category refers to means of meeting transport costs from sources not normally invoked for this purpose. Volunteer-based welfare transport projects are able to call upon various local authority budgets not applicable to commercial buses. In addition, many are eligible to claim from central government funds such as the Urban Programme and schemes run by the Manpower Services Commission. Most CT operations include some element of local fund-raising. Other public agencies would predictably be reluctant to consider financing bus services. Uniquely, there is a case in Surrey of a public service bus being operated by the health authority (normally only responsible for ‘institutional’ travel needs) on a route providing access to a hospital, where a conventional bus had been withdrawn. The service is co-sponsored by the health authority and the county council (Surrey County Council, 1984). Bus services felt to be socially necessary may as a last resort be ‘bought in’ from a commercial operator by lower-tier authorities such as district, town, or parish councils out of their own meagre resources (these are the ‘contract buses’ referred to in Figs. 2 and 5). There is also the case of buses being paid

‘Unconventional

modes’ of transport in the U.K.

for by local traders to bring consumers to a shopping centre from outlying areas, these being ‘free’ to the passenger. The most frequently quoted example is the Cromer market bus in Norfolk, dating from 1972 (Moseley et al., 1977, vol. 2). Increasingly, large stores and hypermarkets are providing bus services of this type, frequently in suburban locations. Another variation on the financial theme is to form a club of potential bus users and to support the service from subscriptions revenue. Members then travel free while others pay fares, and excursions may make a further contribution. The pioneer ‘subscription bus’ (or ‘cooperative bus’) was the Homcastle Bus Club in Lincolnshire, which commenced in 1976 and may still be the only example in Britain. To add to the terminological confusion, this is sometimes called a community bus (Kaye, 1986) due to the role of local organisers, although the vehicle is operated by an independent bus company. There is no apparent demand for urban commuter subscription bus services on the American model. 2.6 New design and technology Relevant design and technological factors are those that reduce costs directly or else facilitate a more appropriate modus operandi. Dual-purpose modes such as postbuses and freight-carrying buses demand modified vehicle designs, while others require technical fittings such as communications equipment for dial-a-rides or ramps and lifts for the conveyance of disabled persons. The most distinctive technological innovation in the road sector is the demountable vehicle. A concept already adopted by the haulage and construction industries, it has been developed by Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive to handle passenger and freight traffic by the use of substitutable bus and van bodies, either of which can be attached to a single chassis/cab unit. Popularly known as the ‘swap-body bus,’ it has operated on the Isle of Arran since 1984 (Rowlands, 1984). Finally, it is under this ‘technology’ heading that the railways have their only claim to a UCM. The intractable problem of uneconomic rural lines, suffering from high costs and obsolete equipment, and under persistent threat of closure, is being tackled by infrastructure renewal with low-cost technology. The need for lightweight rolling stock with low servicing costs and low track wear has resurrected the ‘railbus’ concept. Several experimental versions were based on a Leyland National bus body with a railway underframe (Hodge, 1981). One of these was sold to Northern Ireland Railways, and has been in intermittent service on two branch lines. Although various versions underwent trials on problem rural lines, the production railbus that emerged in 1983 as the Class 141 is in service only in urbanized West Yorkshire. However, this must be seen in context of a broader policy to replace the ageing diesel multiple-unit fleet on British Rail’s Provincial Sector routes (i.e. not an exclusively ‘rural’ problem), and

339

thus a progression of vehicle types was developed. The typical railbus has recently been upgraded to enhance passenger capacity, and the resultant Class 14213 is tending away from the former ‘bus’ appearance towards more familiar rail design (Ford, 1986). 2.7 Others Amongst a few other candidates for inclusion in the list of UCMs, the most important is the use of minibuses on commercial stage carriage services. Since their introduction by the National Bus Company on high-frequency urban routes in Exeter in 1984, they have been rapidly implemented in other towns (Stonham, 1985; Murrell and Newport, 1985). These appear a novelty in that a common mode (the minibus) is used in an unaccustomed manner (as a high-frequency public service) in unfamiliar environments (city centres). They would not normally qualify under the criteria 2.1-2.6 above, but may do so if they are run with a degree of demand-responsiveness. However. the main argument surrounding these at present is limited to economic comparisons between urban minibuses and the traditional larger vehicles (Gwilliam et al., 1985; Bly and Oldfield, 1986). The above section has classified UCMs initially on the basis of major features by which they depart from conventional public transport. Clearly, most types qualify under more than one heading, having several unconventional aspects: these have been summarised in Fig. 2. A complementary approach is depicted in Fig. 5, which shows the relationships of UCMs to the overall public transport sector and how the former can be developed through adaptations of the latter. One drawback of the figure is that it implies an excessively rigid distinction between conventional and unconventional. 3. THE POLICY CONTEXT

The great diversity of UCMs reflects their originating circumstances and sources of innovation. It is important to stress that UCM development was not the result of any officially prescribed strategy or plan, but in reality was uncoordinated, spasmodic, and localized. This continues to be the case despite recent government encouragement for an expansion in numbers and role. In practice, the nature and pattern of UCM development has been strongly dependent upon the widely varying degrees of commitment and enthusiasm shown by transport operators, local authorities, and community groups. Very few unconventional experiments were initiated independently by bus companies from purely commercial motives. Almost all were designed for unprofitable environments and claiming revenue support from local authorities. These bodies have therefore played a central role in collaborating with bus companies, liaising with relevant institutions, and assessing claims of social need from the local

340

S. D. NUTLEY

population. County and regional councils have varied in adopting either an interventionist, managerial role in setting up their own unconventional schemes, or else a promotional role, encouraging others to do so. The role of central government, apart from legislation and policy, has been to conduct demonstration projects to test the feasibility and economics of alternative modes, to support and publish research, and occasionally to provide ‘pump-priming‘ grants for new schemes. Several distinct trends can be identified that have influenced the continuing innovation of UCMs in Britain: (i) Overseas comparisons. The development of postbuses was influenced by their established position in continental Europe, and dial-a-rides by their success in North America, but otherwise inspiration from abroad has not been very significant. (ii) Government-sponsored experiments. As far back as 1964-1965 some experimental types of bus service were tried out in rural areas, but progress was barred by the rigidity of contemporary legislation (Ministry of Transport, 1965). The second round was the Rural Transport Experiments (RUTEX) of 1977-1979, in which 15 highly diverse types of unconventional service were introduced in four rural test zones (for further details see Milefanti, 1978; Balcombe, 1979; Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1980). While a few were failures, most services were eventually adopted by the appropriate county council. Due to the change of government in 1979 there was no official follow-up programme. It should be stated in criticism that the main objective of RUTEX was to demonstrate how rural transport could be provided ar low cost, while issues of service levels, ‘accessibility,’ and ‘social needs’ were neglected (Nutley, 1983). (iii) Permissive legislation. Mounting demands through the 1970s for the removal of legal restrictions stimulated a series of legislation, beginning in 1977, which progressively relaxed the barriers to innovation. This trend has continued despite a sharp switch in overall transport policy after the 1979 change of government. Previously, unorthodox, community or welfare transport was compatible with the Labour administration’s concern for meeting social needs under a policy of coordination and planning, while currently they are also compatible with the Conservative government’s priorities for bus service deregulation and local enterprise. Most recent legislation does not, however, extend to Northern Ireland where, with a few notable exceptions, UCM activity is absent. (iv) Public expenditure cuts. Since 1979, government monetarist policies have demanded progressively severe cutbacks in public expenditure, putting intense pressure on the nationalized transport industries and on the local authorities’ ability to subsidize loss-making but socially necessary services

(Whitelegg, 1984). This has produced a climate of hurried and often arbitrary service cuts and an urgent search for stop-gap measures. Support may then be given to the cheapest option almost regardless of service levels, with UCMs frequently expected to fill this role. (v) The self-help movement. The large proportion of UCMs that rely on voluntary labour can be seen as part of the emerging ‘self-help movement,’ which seeks local improvements through community action (Wilmers, 1981). This is originally a defensive reaction to official indifference to local problems, but in the transport field the voluntary sector is continually being encouraged to accept a greater workload. Much publicity and advice has been directed at local organisations by government (Department of Transport, 1978) and consumer groups (National Consumer Council, 1978) to stimulate grassroots initiative. While the government proclaims the virtues of self-reliance and community enterprise, at the same time this allows it to divest itself of traditional state responsibility for public service provision. It should be emphasised that the contribution of the UCM sector to overall transport policy has always been minor and subordinate to strategic objectives. At present the overriding strategy is the privatisation and deregulation of the bus industry consequent upon the Transport Act of 1985. The arguments surrounding this highly contentious statute have been debated at great length (Farrington, 1985; Knowles, 1985; Gwilliam et al., 1985; Beesley and Glaister, 1985). As the government’s case for deregulation is founded primarily on the cost of subsidy and the supposed stifling of local enterprise under the old system, then it was predictable that UCMs would receive favourable emphasis (Department of Transport, 1984). In the ‘commercial’ sector, services able to run without subsidy may operate without restrictions on numbers or routes. The only UCMs able to benefit from this are the urban minibuses and shared taxis/hire-cars (legalized by the same Act); numbers of both modes have expanded impressively (Finch et al., 1986). In the ‘noncommercial’ sector, operators submit tenders for subsidy to the local authority. In addition, a modest ‘rural transport innovation grant’ was created to assist ‘innovative’ projects. Most of these (by late 1987) are new small-bus stage services but also include, inter alia, 15 original community bus schemes. It is not yet possible to determine to what extent these merely replace services lost through deregulation, or to what extent they are a real increase in resources. Overall, the new situation has been highly variable and unpredictable (early results are summarised in Balcombe et al., 1986). Until the position stabilizes (perhaps by 1990), it is not possible to discern whether, as many feared, public transport is disappearing in certain areas, or whether UCMs have a greater role.

‘Unconventional 4. FUTURE

modes’ of transport in the U.K.

ROLE?

With recent expansion of UClMs has come a broadening of their role, but after deregulation there is uncertainty over what their future role should be and whether the sector can fulfill it. Originally, the new modes were introduced as ‘supplementary’ or ‘third-level’ transport with the clear understanding that their role was to serve remote pockets of isolation, ‘gap filling’ between arterial routes. Also. they were designed not to compete with existing conventional transport, lest the former undermined the viability of the latter. One major trend is a spread away from their rural origins to pose a valid option for any part of the country. This plus all other recent trends-continued bus decline, restrictions on state subsidy, legislative changes, and official emphasis on ‘least cost solutions’-imply that UCMs will expand at the expense of conventional transport. Assuming the success of its deregulation policy, the government view (Department of Transport, 1984) is that they will expand but remain supplementary. Critics of the policy fear that UCMs will be expected to perform as inadequate substitutes in areas where traditional transport has been forced out. The conventional wisdom is that UCMs are suited to their localized, supplementary role but are inferior to, and cannot replace, the conventional bus (e.g. a reading of PTPs shows local authorities in agreement on this). Evaluation is the crucial issue. Pertinent questions are: which of the UCM types are most cost-effective, and are they more effective than the conventional bus? Much work in Britain on local transport appraisal has highlighted the importance of social needs and accessibility to destination activities (Moseley, 1979; Nutley, 1983). Benefits attributable to any transport innovation should be expressed in these broader social terms; methodologies exist for measuring these and relating to costs. Such an evaluation of UCMs in comparison with other options, such as conventional buses and public facility provision, has been demonstrated in a part of rural Wales (Nutley, 1985). All options were hypothetically applied in the study area, and each assessed by the additional accessibility provided, with castings derived from equivalent facilities elsewhere. The general conclusion was that due to operational constraints UCMs by themselves were unlikely to induce very high access levels, but some types might be cost-effective if fairly modest access gains were acceptable. Within the assumptions of the methodology, reasonably high access rates are more likely to be achievable by conventional buses (perhaps in combination with UCMs), even if costs are greater. It is significant that highest benefit/cost ratios accrued to social car schemes, due to their D/R operation, restricted passenger eligibility, and consequent very low trip rates. This situation is likely to be symptomatic of much of the UCM sector,

331

where apparently low costs merely reflect low service levels and weak or selective accessibility. Such conclusions support the subjective impressions of local authorities and others of the limited role of UCMs. Moreover, “self-help” transport schemes are no universal solution, as their initiation demands certain skills and motivation amongst the community that are not always present. It may be the communities in greatest need that are least able to help themselves. Social evaluation of the above type is not, however, used in practice. Implementation on the ground is still carried out in an ad hoc manner determined by operational pragmatism, the availability of local voluntary effort, and overwhelmingly by the existence of adequate funding. Geographical distribution of modal types also shows little clear pattern (Nutley, 1988). In present circumstances a more systematic approach is needed, including appropriate evaluation, assessment of local resources, and matching of modal types (including conventional) to local problem situations. The chart in Fig. 6 is designed both as a taxonomy (complementing the classifications in Figs. 2 and 5). and as a model of local transport resource development. Under a political/economic climate hostile to any increase in public expenditure, the two main options are (1) to make more apposite use of existing public service vehicles by exploiting their potential to adopt unconventional features, and (2) to increase the supply of available vehicles by using or adapting those not normally accustomed to conveying the general public. UCM examples are given under the appropriate heading. Although local authorities have lost their public transport coordination and planning powers, and PTPs discontinued, under the 1985 Act, it should still be possible to use such a framework to devise a relatively coherent strategy for the noncommercial sector. The future role of UCIMS is still unclear. A pessimistic view sees them as a palliative before the complete demise of public transport (Banister, 1982). All depends on whether the new deregulation policy succeeds in maintaining reasonable service levels, especially in rural areas and other previously unprofitable territory. Otherwise, the UCM/CT sector may be obliged to transform its erstwhile supplementary role into one of ‘substitute’ for preexisting transport (i.e. to become conventional). In the absence of any clear-cut strategy, it remains to be seen how far this process will go. This summary has generalized an extremely disparate field, and no doubt each mode will develop its o&r niche in the market. There is no sign at present, however, that the sector as a whole is able to aspire to the traditional role of public transport in satisfying the everyday travel needs of the entire noncar population. Acknowledgements-The assistance of the following is gratefully acknowledged: Departments of Environment &

Railbue

Design more epproprieta technology to ruluce costs ‘1

Fig. 6.

Transport

multiple service bus. integration of school bueee with stage carriage

rcsourcc development

I

Other

‘h

Community

modes.

mlnibue , perhaps adapted for disabled pasaengere

pereon in need

h

\ poetbue

Droup

1

private minibus without payment or with permit

vehicles (nonrelfare) available for hire by others

community

School bus carrying fare-peying adulte

bue

PSV operator rcquirlng minl/midibue for experimental or unconventlonPl eel-vice.

Allow vehicles used for goods, mail or school traffic to carry commercial p.s.sengers

11 made available

\

purpoeee

using unconventional

SOCiPl car c*r pooling

ior

1

Increase supply of vehlclee evnilable I /for public eervice [

I

1 Make available for public eervlce certain vehicles currently used

residents

lift-giving

Shared t-i/ hire-car

fares by allowing lhering, operetion of semi-fired routes

Cut

rider market by

i+zisting D/R modes (taxis P hire-cars)

1

D/R &vereiOn (Fluibue) PSV dial-n-hue

Provide more flexibility in routeing/ timing to match needs of population

Enhnnce tine/space flexibility by offering different modes of operation at different times

Contract bus subrcription bus free lhoppere bus

-

Find alternative meane of funding to reduce reliance on county subsidy or wllc~ _ _ changes

appropriate "Be of existing public eervice vehiclee

Make more

*

‘Unconventional

343

modes’ of transport in the U.K.

Transport Library, London; Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh; Community Transport Services Ltd., Manchester.

public transport services. Working Paper WP (TP) 21, TRRL. Crowthorne. Eneland. Ford R. (1986) The DMU riplacement story. Modern Rail. 43, 315-320.

REFERENCES Adams D. (1981) Postbus for rural passenger transportation and rural mail delivery: An idea whose time has come? Transpn. Res. Rec. 797, 76-79. Awdas D. (1978) Rural transport coordination. In Rural Transport and Country Planning, 119-138 (Edited by Cresswell R.). Leonard Hill, Glasgow, Scotland. Bailey J. M. and Layzell A. D. (1983) Special Transport Services for Elderly and Disabled People. Gower, Aldershot,‘U.K. . Balcombe R. J. (1979) The rural transport experiments: A mid-term review. Supplementary Report 492, TRRL, Crowthorne, England.‘ _ _ Balcombe R. J., Hopkin J. M., Perrett K. E. and Clough W. S. (1986) Bus deregulation in Great Britain: A review of the opening stages. Research Report 107, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Banister D. (1982) Community transport for rural areas: Panacea or palliatrive? Built Environ. 8, 184-189. Banister D. (ed.) (1985) Rural Transport and Planning: Bibliography with Abstracts. Mansell, London. Beesley M. E. and Glaister S. (1985) Deregulating the bus industry in Britain-a response. Tramp. Rev. 5, 133142.

Bendixson T. (1977) Instead of Cars. Penguin, Harmondsworth, U.K. Bly P. H. and Oldfield R. H. (1986) Competition between minibuses and regular bus services. 1. Transp. Econ. Policy 20, 47-68.

Bonsall P. W. (1980) A survey of attitudes to car sharing: A database for microsimulation. Supplementary Report 563, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Bonsall P. W., Spencer A. and Wing S. T. (1983) Ridesharing in Great Britain: Performance and impact of the Yorkshare schemes. Transp. Res. 17A, 169-181. Borders Regional Council (1981) Border courier service: Final monitoring report. Borders R. C., Newtown St. Boswells, U.K. Cambridgeshire County Council (1977) Rural midibus projeer phase 1. Cambs. C. C., Cambridge, U.K. Childs R. J. (1978) Nottinghamshire’s rural transport experiments: The Bassetlaw Community Bus. In Seventh Seminar on Rural Public Transport, 32-58 (Edited by White P. R.). Polytechnic of Central London. Cloke P. (ed.) (1985) Rural accessibility and mobility. IBG Rural Geography Study Group, St. David’s University College, Lampeter, U.K. Clwyd County Council (1978) New ways forward: Alrernatives in public transport in Clwyd. Clwyd C. C., Mold, U.K. Coe G. A. (1985) Taxibus: A shared taxi service in Stourport. Supplementary Report 841, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Department of Transport (1978) A guide IO community transporr. HMSO, London. Department of Transport (1984) Buses. Cmnd 9300, HMSO, London. Devon Rutex Working Group (1978) Rural transport experiments: The Exe Valley Market Bus. Supplementary Report 427, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Farrington J. H. (1985) Transport geography and policy: Deregulation and privatization. Transactions, inst. Br. Geogr. NS 10,109-119. Fearnside K. (1980) Experience of life-giving schemes in Shropshire In Ninth Seminar on Rural Public Transport, 7-22 (Edited by White P. R.). Polytechnic of Central London. Finch D. J., Watts P. F. and Wren J. (1986) Innovative

Gallop K. R. (1975) Demand responsive diversions on a rural bus service In Fourth Seminar on Rural Public Transporr (Edited by White P. R.). Polytechnic of Central London. Grampian Regional Council (1985) Community transporr in Grampian. Grampian R. C., Aberdeen, U.K. Green G. R. (1978) Car-sharing and car-pooling-a review. Supplementary Report 358, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Greening P. A. K. and Jackson R. L. (1982) Minibus pooling in Great Britain: Legal and economic aspects. Supplementary Report 726, TRRL. Crowthorne, England. Gwilliam K. M., Nash C. A. and Mackie P. J. (1985) Deregulating the bus industry in Britain-the case against. Transp. Rev. 5, 105-132.

Halsall D. A. and Turton B. J. (eds.) (1979) Rural transport problems in Britain: Papers and discussion. IBG Transport Geography Study Group, University of Keele, U.K. Harris M. (1978) A bus for the community. Modern Transp. 2. 74-79.

Hodge P. (1981) Low-cost rural railways and the BR-Leyland Railbus. In Tenth Seminar on Rural Public Transport, 7-20 (Edited by White P. R.). Polytechnic of Central London. Holding D. M. (1983) The Swiss postal bus systema comparison with British rural bus operation. In Eleventh Seminar on Rural Public Transport, 44-74 (Edited by White P. R.). Polytechnic of Central London. Kaye D. (1986) A community bus 10 years on. Buses 38, 74.

Kirby R. F., Bhatt K. V., Kemp M. A., McGillivray R. G.. and Wohl M. (1975) Paratransit: Neglected options for urban mobilitv. The Urban Institute. Washineton, ‘D.C. Knapp S. and Burkhardt J. (1983) Providing innovative rural transportation services under severe budget constraints. Transp. Res. Rec. 936, 69-75. Knowles R. (ed.) (1985) Implications of the 1985 Transport Bill. IBG Transport Geography Study Group, University of Keele, U.K. Lavery H. I. (1986) Black Taxis-the shared taxi service in Belfast. Omnibus Mug. 357, 39-43. Milefanti D. C. (1978) Government rural transuort exoer\ iments 1977. In Rural transport and country plan&g, 169-178 (Edited by Cresswell R.). Leonard Hill, Glasgow, Scotland. Ministry of Transport (1965) Rural bus services: Reporr of Local Enquiries. HMSO, London. Moseley M. J., Harman R. G., Coles 0. B. and Spencer M. B. (1977) Rural Transport and Accessibility (2 vol.). University of East Anglia, Norwich. Moseley M. J. (1979) Accessibility: The Rural Challenge. Methuen, London. Murrell R. and Newport R. (1985) Minibuses in urban areas: Straw in the wind or flash in the pan? Conference paper, Transport Operations Research Group, University of Newcastle, U.K. National Consumer Council (1978) Rural rides. ExperiI

ments in rural public N.C.C., London.

transport-a

consumer

view.

North Yorkshire Rutex Working Group (1979) Rural transport experiments: The Ripon Flexibus. Supplementary Report 491, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Nutley S. D. (1983) Transport Policy Appraisal and PersonalAccessibility in Rural Wales. Geo Books, Norwich, U.K. Nutley S. D. (1985) Planning options for the improvement of rural accessibility: Use of the time-space approach. Region. Stud. 19, 37-50.

Nutley S. D. (1988) “Unconventional

modes” of transport

S. D. NUTLEY

344

in rural Britain: Progress to 1985. 1. Rural Stud. 4, 75

portation:

86.

Transpn. Res. Rec. 831.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1979) Transport services in low density areas. OECD, Paris. Oniss H. D. (1976) Community transport. Counry Councils Gazene 69, 84-85. Orski C. K. (ed.) (1975) Special issue on Paratransit. Transpn. 4 (4). Oxley P. (1980) Dial-a-ride: A review. Transpn. Plan. Technology 6, 141-148. Rhys D. G. and Buxton M. J. (1974) The rural transport problem: A possible solution. Town & Country Plan. 42, 555-5.58. Rigby J. P. (1979) A review of research on school travel patterns and problems. Supplementary Report 460, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Rimmer P. J. (1980) Paratransit: A commentary. Environ. Plan. A 12, 937-944.

Rowlands P. (1984) Swap-body buses-a rural answer? Transp. Eng. October, 67. Rucker G. (1984) Public transportation: Another gap in rural America. Transpn. Q. j8, 419-432. Scottish Rutex Working Group (1979) Rural transport experiments: Blackmount services. Supplementary Report 446, TRRL, Crowthorne, England.’ . Southdown Motor Services (1977) Cuckmere Communily Bus report. Southdown M: S. Ltd., Brighton, England. Stonham P. (1985) Minis could raise maxi problems for local buses. Surveyor 15 August, 10-13. Surrey County Council (1984) Public Transport Plan 198485. Surrey C. C., Kingston-on-Thames, U.K. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1980) The rural transport experiments. Supplementary Reporr 584, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Transportation Research Board (1980) Paratransit 1980. Transpn. Res. Rec. 178.

Transportation

Research Board (1981) Rural public trans-

Fifth

national

conference

proceedings.

Transportation Research Board (1985) Transportation for elderly and handicapped persons, paratransit, and ridesharing. Transpn. Res. Rec. 1018. Transportation Research Board (1986) Innovations in ridesharing. Transpn. Res. Rec. 1082. Turnock D. (1977) The postbus: A new element in Britain’s rural transport pattern. Geography 62. 112-118. Vincent R. A. and Wood K. (1970) Car-sharing and carpooling in Great Britain: The recent situation and potential. Laboratory Report 893, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Walmsley D. A. (1985) The use of minibuses in Great Britain. Research Report 6, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. F. (1976a) The operational characteristics of the Carterton dial-a-bus service. Laboratory Report 694, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. F. (1976b) The Harlow dial-a-bus service: Some operational statistics. Supplementary Report 225, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. F., Stark D. C. and Hawthorne I. H. (1978a) British postbuses-a review. Laboratory Report 840, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. F., Stark D. C. and Hawthorne I. H. (1978b) British postbuses-service details. Supplementary Report 366, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. F. (1984) The potential for postbus development. Laboratory Report 1091, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Watts P. E (1985) Coordinated public transport in East Sussex: County Rider services 823 and 825. Research Report 7, TRRL, Crowthorne, England. Whitelegg J. (1984) Transport policy, fiscal discrimination and the role of the state. Political Geo. Q. 3, 313329.

Wilmers P. (Ed.) (1981) Self-help. The Planner 67, 5974.