evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

QRoutes AI Route Optimisation — East Sussex Cuts SEND Transport Costs and Planning Time

United Kingdom · Hastings · See the United Kingdom profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

East Sussex County Council replaced manual Google Maps route-planning with QRoutes' AI-assisted optimisation for SEND transport, cutting one pilot school's routes from 21 to 15, saving 115+ miles and 3.26 pupil-hours daily, and forecasting £1m+ in annual savings.

21 to 15 routes
Routes at Torfield School before and after replanning
115-116 miles
Daily passenger miles removed
3.26 hours
Combined pupil travel time saved daily
1445.75 GBP
Daily transport cost reduction at Torfield School
33 %
Cost reduction at Torfield School
>1 GBP million
Forecast total annual savings across SEND and mainstream transport budgets
QRoutes AI Route Optimisation — East Sussex Cuts SEND Transport Costs and Planning Time

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
East Sussex County Council
Period
2019–present
Keywords
education administration, special educational needs, home-to-school transport, public sector AI

Context

East Sussex County Council (ESCC) is responsible for arranging home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) across the county, and before 2019 transport planners manually calculated routes using Google Maps, a process that could take six to seven hours to plan transport for a single SEND school and left no time to test alternative routing scenarios.

Objectives

In July 2019, having re-tendered its transport contract, ESCC adopted QRoutes, a route-optimisation platform intended to automate the matching of pupils to vehicles and journeys while accounting for medical needs, journey-time limits capped at 75 minutes, and vehicle capacity.

Activities

The council piloted the tool on Torfield School, a two-site SEND school in Hastings serving Reception to Year 6, after consulting pupil groups about sharing larger vehicles with a higher staff-to-pupil ratio.

Results

At Torfield, replanning cut the number of routes from 21 to 15, removed roughly 115-116 miles of daily passenger travel, saved 3.26 hours of combined pupil travel time each day, and cut daily transport costs for the school by £1,445.75, a 33% reduction; ESCC forecast total annual savings exceeding £1 million across its SEND and mainstream school transport budgets, alongside a fall in planning time from hours to minutes per school route.

Conclusions

The published figures are council- and vendor-reported operational metrics rather than an independent third-party evaluation, and represent early results from one pilot school ahead of wider rollout, with no public data yet on pupil wellbeing outcomes or on how savings held up once the tool was applied county-wide.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Software platform procured via re-tendered transport contract and the public G-Cloud framework; forecast annual savings exceed £1 million once scaled county-wide.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Adopted July 2019; pilot results reported for Torfield School ahead of wider rollout.
Staffing & skills
ESCC transport planners, Robert Sullivan, ESCC Principal Transport Officer

Conditions for success

  • Procurement through the public G-Cloud framework alongside a contract re-tender
  • Consultation with pupil groups before changing vehicle-sharing arrangements

Common failure modes

  • Figures are council- and vendor-reported operational metrics, not an independent evaluation
  • No public data yet on pupil wellbeing outcomes or on whether savings held once applied county-wide

Where it fits

Governance type
local government-procured SEND transport service
Scale
one pilot school ahead of county-wide rollout
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful