6 Sections 45 minutes Author: Shared-Use Mobility Center
Microtransit, like many on-demand mobility services, is an evolution of existing modes enabled by new technological advancements. The microtransit service model sits between traditional fixed-route transit in addition to mobility-on-demand services such as dial-a-ride, paratransit services, or transportation network companies (TNCs). It is a demand-responsive service that typically uses ad hoc pickup and drop-off points within limited service zones. Unlike other shared modes, microtransit can take many forms in how it operates, the types of vehicles it uses, and the partnerships (if any) that enable it. The broad range of possible applications for microtransit can also lead to its use for meeting unique existing transportation challenges. This learning module attempts to bring microtransit into focus for public agency planners. Examining previous pilots and resulting studies indicate that microtransit is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, it is one of many tools available to help meet mobility needs within a community.
Microtransit service is enabled by various mobile technologies, especially location access through smartphones or tablets. Rides may be arranged through a smartphone app, in addition to phone- or web-based booking systems.
Microtransit services can fulfill many different purposes, such as first- and last-mile connections to transit, transportation in areas with low population density and transit ridership, non-emergency medical transportation, paratransit, and commutes to employment hubs. Microtransit can also operate in a variety of service designs.
Transit agencies and cities are looking toward partnerships with private microtransit operators to provide enhanced mobility solutions in their communities. Because microtransit often resembles existing demand-responsive transit modes or supplements fixed-route service, it can be operated in various partnership configurations. A microtransit service provider can partner with a city or transit agency to provide any or all of the technology, vehicles, drivers, maintenance, and other operations, according to the specific needs of the public agency.
This Learning Module lists different microtransit examples operating under different contexts. Communities interested in pursuing microtransit solutions should conduct a needs assessment and engage the community to find the right solution or combination of solutions for their community. For more information on community engagement, see the Community Engagement Learning Module or the Clean Mobility Options Implementation Toolkit.
Microtransit services draw components from both fixed-route transit and ride-hailing. It resembles traditional demand-response transportation (DRT), such as dial-a-ride, in that it often uses similar vehicles (passenger vans or cutaways) but with improved dispatching and routing, enabled by various mobile technologies, especially location access through smartphones or mobile tablets. Rides may be arranged through a smartphone app in addition to phone- or web-based booking systems.
The term microtransit can encompass a variety of approaches to providing pooled trips, ranging from fully private direct-to-consumer pooled ridesourcing services in passenger cars to general public services funded by government agencies with agency-branded vehicles that support a region’s mobility goals.
For the public sector, microtransit faces a conundrum: it is almost less efficient than traditional fixed-route transit in terms of trips per vehicle service hour (as circuitous, point-to-point routes tend to reach fewer people per hour than straight-line routes). Unlike traditional fixed-route transit that can better scale, if a microtransit service becomes more popular, the number of vehicles and drivers (and the associated cost) must increase to accommodate the growth and maintain service quality. On the other hand, microtransit can be deployed in areas where fixed-route transit is difficult to operate (due to difficult topography, for example), or where a flexible service might provide first- and last-mile connections with faster response times than is possible with scheduled service. In these cases, , microtransit can be a tool to serve populations in low-density areas that lack other mobility options.
This interactive map of active on-demand transit programs shows how widespread microtransit is worldwide.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines microtransit on its Shared Mobility Definitions page as “A technology-enabled service that uses multi-passenger vehicles to provide on-demand services with dynamically generated routing.”
The FTA definition is based on the definition listed in the SUMC-authored Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit (TCRP Research Report 188): “App-enabled private multi-passenger transportation service that serves passengers using dynamically generated routes, and may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points.”
SAE International broadly defines microtransit as “a privately or publicly operated, technology-enabled transit service that typically uses multi-passenger/pooled shuttles or vans to provide on-demand or fixed-schedule services with either dynamic or fixed routing” (SAE J3163™, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling Technologies).
A more recent TCRP report, Microtransit or General Public Demand–Response Transit Services: State of the Practice (TCRP Synthesis 141), is more specific, defining microtransit as “shared public or private sector transportation services that offer fixed or dynamically allocated routes and schedules in response to individual or aggregate consumer demand, using smaller vehicles and capitalizing on widespread mobile GPS and internet connectivity.”
These definitions all locate microtransit as a transportation service between fixed-route transit and ride-hailing. Fixed-route transit services have defined stop locations, routes, and schedules, and generally operate along straight lines or corridors. In North America, they are typically funded and operated by government agencies, though private services may also exist. Ride-hailing is an on-demand, point-to-point service that may or may not be shared, with reservations, dispatch, routing, and payment supported and enabled by location-aware mobile platforms. Microtransit combines elements of both into a new, technology-enabled, on-demand, shared mode. For additional shared mobility definitions and terms visit the Mobility Learning Center Definitions page.
For some services, users can also request trips by a voice call handled by a call center.
Microtransit may use a variety of service models, including:
Whatever the solution, it is important to identify a private partner that supports the microtransit program’s goals and vision. SUMC’s series of case studies on CPACS Ride, a community-led microtransit service in Clarkston, GA, shares insights on developing and launching an on-demand microtransit program. In particular, this case study detailing the procurement phase outlines key strategies for defining priorities during the RFP and contracting process and building partnerships.
The Canadian organizations MaRS Discovery District, The Atmospheric Fund, and COOP Carbone released a report in 2016 entitled Microtransit: An Assessment of Potential to Drive Greenhouse Gas Reductions that examines the potential of using microtransit as a means of reducing single occupancy vehicle use, and by extension, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in the greater Toronto and Montreal metropolitan areas. The report covers a wide range of topics, including delivery models and consumer typologies. Ultimately, after calculating the GHG savings, the authors conclude that microtransit may hold significant potential to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions.
The International Transport Forum (ITF) studied the potential impacts of shared mobility, including microtransit, in coordination with existing public transit, to lower transportation-related Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. Using real trip data from Helsinki, Finland, the ITF model looked at a what-if scenario and determined what would happen if all private car trips were replaced with shared modes. The model found that only 10% or less of the number of vehicles were needed to get people where they needed to go when they needed to get there. Subsequently, the model also found under this what-if scenario that CO2 emissions dropped by about 1/3, and the benefits extended to freeing up on-street parking. Replacing all private vehicle trips might not be realistic, so to further explore the impact of shared mobility, the model also simulated replacing 20% of vehicle trips with shared modes. Similarly, the model found that CO2 emissions could be reduced by as much as 20% if such a scenario were to be reached. To read more about the study download the 2017 report Shared Mobility Simulations for Helsinki.
In 2023, ICF published a study that looks specifically at the connection between microtransit utilized in first and last-mile rides for users and greenhouse gasses. Users consist of those utilizing single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to travel to and from mass transit for the longer stretch of their commute. Companies such as Via, Brightline, and Circuit have launched their own microtransit services to reduce this gap in transportation by leveraging electric carpool services for users. In most instances, users can utilize the company’s app to request an on-demand ride that picks up other users with the same destination along the route. Using data from their microtransit service, Via published findings showing that microtransit has an impact in reducing transportation emissions, other highlights include:
The Clean Mobility Options (CMO) program is an electric vehicle shared mobility program investing in California’s disadvantaged communities. CMO lists several goals of the program that help to demonstrate why electric vehicles are important and should be given further consideration:
Although Electric Vehicles can be a great solution for mitigating air quality issues and bridging the gap for first and last-mile transportation, they can pose procurement and technological challenges for operators and municipalities utilizing them. Microtransit vehicles are high in demand (making them difficult to procure), or costly (making them unaffordable, or unprofitable for municipalities). According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC)’s 2020 report, users and municipalities alike have run into similar issues time and again:
These ideas are explored further in SUMC’s The Importance of Shared, Electric Mobility Learning Module.
At this point in its evolution, fully private microtransit service is generally provided as a large-vehicle, pooled version of ridesourcing services, without an explicit connection to public transit services. Public microtransit services are distinguished by their partnerships between local governments or transit agencies and a private microtransit provider.
The Wheels2U project mentioned above uses a transit agency’s ADA complementary paratransit vehicles in the hours when they are not operating. The Pickup by CapMetro pilot took this concept a step further by using retired paratransit vehicles, rebranded with agency livery and branding for the pilot.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) supports microtransit through a variety of programs, including Innovative Mobility Integration (IMI) and Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) grants through the Office of Research & Innovation. Some of the microtransit programs supported through these grants include:
The appropriate mobility solution and service delivery model for your community should be driven by the community needs, goals, and budget of the project. The goals of a project can be high-level (for instance, to increase mobility options) or more granular (like to improve the level of service per user cost). Other goals could include reduced car dependency, increased mobility for older adults and people with disabilities, or increased public transit ridership. This independent evaluation report from the Mobility on Demand Sandbox program shows various examples of project goals, but agencies should develop their own based on the nature of the project and the community being served. Once the project goals are established, it is important to develop a set of performance benchmarks and identify the required data needed to measure whether or not a stated goal has been met. Community input is important throughout this process to identify the needs of a pilot project’s intended users.
Having established a set of project goals the next step is to develop a set of performance metrics and the data needed to measure them to assess a pilot project’s effectiveness. Performance metrics can and should look beyond the bottom line costs to consider the equity and accessibility factors. Examples include:
SUMC’s Setting Project Goals and Performance Metrics Learning Module explores shared mobility goals and performance metrics further.
You can also visit the links below, all of which contain detailed goals and performance metrics for a variety of microtransit projects:
While somewhat dated, Performance Metrics is presented in the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 141, Microtransit or General Public Demand–Response Transit Services: State of the Practice, which is a meta-study of microtransit and a collection of case studies. As mentioned in the introduction of this Learning Module, when in a partnership, microtransit tends to fill needs where fixed-route service has trouble working, so its metrics will be different. As the synthesis notes:
Although the table below features pre-pandemic data from 2019, it still gives a good overview of the state of public-private partnership (P3) microtransit ridership, service productivity, and costs, including the critical passengers-per-vehicle service hour measure. The examples offer a discrete set of performance metrics that, when applicable, can then be used to identify how well a project meets its stated goals. A performance metric might meet one goal, for example lowering the unit cost per trip, but other project goals also need to be considered, such as providing equitable service across a geographic area. The data from this table is from TCRP Synthesis 141: Microtransit or General Public Demand–Response Transit Services: State of the Practice, published in 2019.
Respondents reported an almost remarkable consistency in average ridership ranging from 2.4 to 4.7 passengers per hour. As is the case with fixed-route services, DRT which operates in areas with greater population or employment density tends to perform better than DRT operating in areas of lower density.
Contract or In-house |
Cost/Vehicle Service Hour | Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour | Cost per Passenger Trip | |
AC Transit | In-house | $214.00 (Fully allocated) | 3 | $71.00 |
Cherriots | In-house | $65.00 | 3.5 | $18.57 |
DART (Dallas) | Contracted. DART provides vehicles and facilities but not fuel. | $46.00 | 2.5 for original DRT service
3.5 for new GoLink service |
$18.40
$13.14 |
Denver RTD | Contracted | $83.00 | 3.8 | $21.84 |
HART | Contracted | HART pays contractor by trip and not by hour. | 3.5 | $10.00 |
Houston METRO | In-house | $75.00 | 2.4 | $31.25 |
Kitsap Transit | In-house | $130.72 | 3.66 | $35.68 |
LYNX | Contracted | $41.17 | 3.3 | $12.60 |
MST | Contracted | $54.18 | 4.03 | $13.44 |
NVTA | Contracted | $44.48 | 2.6 | $17.00 |
NCTD | Contracted | $97.00 | 2.7 | $36.00 |
TDU | Contracted and In-house | $130.72 | 3.66 | $7.34 |
Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 141, Microtransit or General Public Demand-Response Transit Services: State of the Practice
Note. The numbers are self-reported figures from agencies that responded.
Microtransit has grown in popularity over the last several years, fueled in part by technological advancements in vehicle routing and mobile apps. Transit agencies and cities often partner with private microtransit operators to provide enhanced mobility solutions in their communities. Microtransit is best deployed where fixed-route transit may not be productive due to low density, poor street connectivity, difficult topography, or other factors. As microtransit services mature, agencies must understand how the mode can help them achieve their goals while considering factors such as rider satisfaction, productivity, access, and cost, to determine if and how microtransit should play a role. This learning module offers a starting point for communities interested in microtransit and some of the operational and implementation considerations.
The Shared-Use Mobility Center has several resources on microtransit, including the webinar Microtransit Public-Private Partnerships and several in-depth case studies of specific programs. Some of these include: