Home / Solutions / Public Transport / DPR
Detailed Project Report

A DPR is only as good as the survey underneath it, and most are written from memory.

The document is the deliverable, but it is not the work. What decides whether a DPR survives scrutiny is whether every number in it can be traced back to a household surveyed, a boarding counted or a corridor measured — and whether the same data can be re-run when a reviewer disagrees with an assumption.

The sequence

From survey to costed plan, without re-keying.

Each stage hands its output to the next inside one platform, which is the difference between a DPR you can defend and a DPR you can only present.

Primary survey

Household, boarding-alighting, origin-destination and stated-preference instruments, collected offline in the field, de-duplicated and analysed where they were captured.

Secondary data

Census, employment, land use and existing network imported as analysis zones rather than transcribed into a spreadsheet.

Diagnosis

Coverage, accessibility and opportunity measured over the real network with barriers respected, so a gap is a gap and not a circle drawn round a centroid.

Design

Routes, stops, feeders and transfer nodes drawn against demand, with alignments snapped to roads a bus can actually drive.

Quantification

Fleet, crew, kilometres and cost derived from the design, annualised against the operating calendar rather than estimated.

Handover

The scenario locked with its assumption set versioned, so the figures can be reproduced months later when someone asks where they came from.

Why it holds up

Every figure has a lineage.

Assumptions are versioned

A ridership figure is attached to the assumption set that produced it. Change an assumption and the platform re-runs rather than asking someone to remember what was different.

Scenarios are comparable

Baseline and proposal are quantified the same way, so the difference between them is a measurement and not two documents written months apart.

The method has a name

Clustering, coverage and routing are classical algorithms with names that can be stated in a technical proposal, and the same inputs give the same answer.

Scope

What a platform cannot do for you.

The judgement is still yours. A DPR contains decisions — which corridors matter, what service level is affordable, whose access counts most — and no amount of data makes them for you. What the platform removes is the part where those decisions are argued from figures nobody can trace. It will also not invent primary data: where a survey was not done, the analysis says so rather than filling the gap with a model and presenting the result at the same confidence as the measured parts.

Bring the terms of reference.

The scope wording decides what the study actually has to produce. We would rather read it than estimate from a summary.

Thanks — we'll be in touch shortly.