Benefits and harms of DRT in suburban areas: Difference between revisions
From Transport Knowledge Wiki
No edit summary |
keywords |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| volume = 9 | issue = 100192 | pages = | | volume = 9 | issue = 100192 | pages = | ||
| authors = {{author|Bartosz|Bursa}} {{author|Nils|Rabeneick}} {{author|Ferdinand|Ebner}} {{author|Markus|Mailer}} | | authors = {{author|Bartosz|Bursa}} {{author|Nils|Rabeneick}} {{author|Ferdinand|Ebner}} {{author|Markus|Mailer}} | ||
| keywords = | | keywords = {{KW|Shared mobility}} {{KW|Traffic}} | ||
| locations = {{location|Austria}} | | locations = {{location|Austria}} | ||
| citation = {{citation|Bursa, B., Rabeneick, N., Ebner, F., & Mailer, M. (2026). Benefits and harms of DRT in suburban areas – analysis of user motivations, ridership, and side effects of an app-based demand-responsive transit. Journal of Urban Mobility, 9, 100192.}} | | citation = {{citation|Bursa, B., Rabeneick, N., Ebner, F., & Mailer, M. (2026). Benefits and harms of DRT in suburban areas – analysis of user motivations, ridership, and side effects of an app-based demand-responsive transit. Journal of Urban Mobility, 9, 100192.}} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:44, 5 June 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article record
| |
|---|---|
| Title | Benefits and harms of DRT in suburban areas – analysis of user motivations, ridership, and side effects of an app-based demand-responsive transit |
| Journal | Journal of Urban Mobility vol. 9 no. 100192
|
| Abstract | Since the rebirth of demand-responsive transit (DRT) after 2010 many failed and discontinued initiatives have been observed. The issues range from inadequate technology, ill-defined spatial and temporal conditions, to missing knowledge of user preferences, low ridership, and of course funding, since many trials are ceased once the subsidy is stopped. In this paper, we explore the use and effects of an app-based DRT in a suburban environment based on the data collected from users and non-users of a newly launched service in Austria. The results indicate that the service performs well as a feeder mode for rail transportation with positive user reviews. However, there are concerns about a limited operating area, too short operating hours and low pooling effects (occupancy rates). The Hybrid Choice model indicates that both the frequency of car use and the possession of a public transit pass have a significant effect on the frequency of DRT use. However, this behavior is independent of latent attitudes toward different modes of transportation. Also, the service operates without a surcharge for annual pass holders, which leads to side effects such as shifting from active modes to DRT, and generating entirely new trips. Based on respondents' statements regarding alternative means of transport they would have used if DRT had not existed, we observe that DRT trips generate substantially more motorized traffic than if the service did not exist. This study provides policy recommendations aimed at increasing ridership and minimizing unintended side effects. |
| Authors | Bartosz Bursa Nils Rabeneick Ferdinand Ebner Markus Mailer
|
| Date |  June 2026
|
| Keywords and locations | |
| Keywords | Shared mobility Traffic
|
| Locations | Austria
|
| How to find and cite this journal article | |
| Publication |  10.1016/j.urbmob.2026.100192
|
| Access | This journal article is open access and can be read for free as of 5 June 2026. |
| Citation | Bursa, B., Rabeneick, N., Ebner, F., & Mailer, M. (2026). Benefits and harms of DRT in suburban areas – analysis of user motivations, ridership, and side effects of an app-based demand-responsive transit. Journal of Urban Mobility, 9, 100192. |
 This is a page on Transport Knowledge WikiThe home of sustainable transport knowledge |
| Found this useful? Please donate to help with running costs |
