Background

Microtransit, like many on-demand mobility services, is an evolution of existing modes enabled by new technology advancements. The microtransit service model sits between traditional fixed-route transit and mobility-on-demand services such as dial-a-ride, paratransit services, or transportation network companies (TNCs). Microtransit functions like a demand-responsive service, but 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. Microtransit demonstration projects and resulting studies show us that microtransit is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, it is one of many tools available to help meet the mobility needs within a community. 

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. Microtransit can also provide 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.

In the public sector, microtransit faces a conundrum: in terms of trips per vehicle service hour, it is almost always less efficient than traditional fixed-route transit (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 or less dense communities, 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 lower-density areas lacking other mobility options.

On-Demand Ridepooling World Map, an interactive map by lukas.foljanty@gmail.com  displays active on-demand transit programs, helping to demonstrate how widespread microtransit is worldwide.

Next Subsection

Microtransit Definitions

Although microtransit services can look different based on the region or needs of the community, the technical definitions cover some of the same concepts:

• 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 nestled 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. 

The following graphic helps to visualize how microtransit fits into and supports other public transportation modes. In this graphic, Walkability is paired with Trip Length, shorter trips in more walkable communities are often carried out through Active Transportation (biking and walking), but as the trip length increases and in areas that are less walkable, other modes may be more appropriate, with microtransit positioned somewhere between fixed-route service and ridehail.

Previous Subsection

Project Goals

The appropriate mobility solution and service model for your community should be driven by the community’s needs, goals, and budget. 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 demonstration project’s intended users.

Next Subsection

Performance Metrics

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:

• Travel times and wait times
• Count of unlinked trips at selected stations
• Count of unique public transit users
• Number of trips provided with WAVs
• Rides per vehicle service hour
• Increase in the number of trips to access employment
• Reduced travel times in low-income communities
• Reduced needed transit connections to key destinations and employment centers

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:

• FTA MOD Sandbox projects
  • Gives a detailed description and criteria for eligible FTA MOD Sandbox projects across the US. Direct links to US projects lay out the individual issue that each city faced, how they are currently working through it, what the proposed outcome will be, and how the communities plan on measuring the program’s success.
• FTA reports and publications
  • This resource hosts research in MOD and Microtransit across US cities. Topics and subsequent performance measures include data, standards, and evaluation, Human Services Transportation, infrastructure, mobility, planning and policy, report to Congress, safety, and more. 

• Transforming Public Transit with a Rural  On-Demand  Microtransit Project 
  • Reports on the Wilson, North Carolina community’s success in replacing its fixed route transportation system with MOD microtransit. The report details the cause and effect of moving from fixed routes to on-demand services.  

• Arlington  Rideshare,  Automation, and Payment  Integration Demonstration (RAPID) 
  • Evaluation report on the Arlington Rideshare, Automation, and Payment Integration Demonstration (RAPID) program, integration of shared autonomous vehicles into Arlington’s existing public microtransit service. This report contains descriptions of the goals and key performance metrics used in this demonstration project.

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:

TCRP’s Synthesis 141 report.

• The cost per passenger is typically higher than that of fixed route service due to the relatively small number of passengers carried, but the cost per hour of service provided is usually considerably lower due to the use of contractors and smaller vehicles.
• The cost per passenger of general-public DRT is lower than the cost per passenger for traditional paratransit, hence, the relatively small investment in recent technology to support more dynamic [and accessible] DRT is worth the cost.
• The price of technology is decreasing rapidly. LYNX reported that their procurement of the technology necessary to provide dynamic demand–response service initially took 3 years and more than $800,000 when they started the process in 2014. SacRT reported they paid only $25,000 to TransLoc to utilize the already-developed software they needed to activate their microtransit service in 2018.

Performance metrics should look beyond the bottom line. While metrics such as passengers per vehicle hour are important for evaluating a service, performance metrics should also take into account the service’s impact on equity, transit accessibility, and benefits to mobility freedom.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Procurement

When developing and launching a microtransit program, it is important to identify a private partner whose goals and vision align with those of both the community and the transit agency. Having an aligned vision ensures that the partnership supports the microtransit objectives, and fosters long-term sustainability. 

The following are some considerations when getting ready to procure microtransit services.

Before procuring services:

1. Work with the community to identify transportation needs and priorities (see Community Engagement Learning Module for community engagement strategies). 
2. Map out the current transportation services and identify underserved communities. Meaningful community engagement coupled with data on transit availability, trip patterns, and access to services and employment helps to identify unmet transportation needs.
3. Identify opportunities for microtransit to determine if it is a good fit. Some helpful questions that agencies can ask to guide this process include: 
   • Are there lower to moderate-density communities with limited transportation options where fixed-route service is inappropriate?
   • Can microtransit support flexible schedules for job access, so that it can be usable by third-shift workers or early-morning-shift workers?
   • What first and last mile connections are available to support the regional transportation fixed-route network?
   • Are there neighborhoods that have limited transportation options that microtransit can be used to support access to fixed-route service or key destinations like employment centers?

Source: USDOT

4. Speak with other cities, transit agencies, and technology vendors (microtransit examples reviewed in this learning module offer a starting point) to learn how different microtransit solutions have been used. Agencies can ask questions to learn more about service operations, including: 

• • How has the partnership worked?
  •  What services does the private partner provide?
  • Is there anything that should be changed in the partnership configuration or microtransit service model? 
  • How have they addressed accessibility requirements? What barriers have they encountered along the way?
  • Ask questions about the cost of the service and how it is funded, if they are able to discuss.

5. When appropriate, coordinate with neighboring transit agencies and service providers to strengthen partnerships and look for opportunities to collaborate. This can also help to determine services that might be duplicative of others or areas that have limited transportation options. This idea is explored further in the Universal Mobility Learning Module, Service Coordination section.

• Define the microtransit pilot area to introduce the service and corresponding budget.  
• Outline the microtransit goals, performance metrics, and desired outcomes. This idea is discussed further in the Setting Goals and Performance Benchmarks Learning Module.
• Consider issuing a Request for Information (RFI). It can be helpful, particularly with new technology solutions, to hear from and understand the private sector’s ideas and potential project-related challenges.  
• Look for opportunities to use data standards to support coordination across agencies, allow flexibility for microtransit solutions, limit vendor or service lock, and improve its future scalability to new areas and populations. GTFS-Flex is important as it enables riders to see available DRT service areas. See The Role of Data Specifications in Creating an Interoperable Transportation System Case Study.
• Funding is an important consideration in all aspects, from engaging the community, procuring microtransit technology and vehicles, to operations and marketing. For some insights on funding see the Shared Mobility Funding Strategies Learning Module.

Source: Transdev

When you’re ready to procure services:

1. Define your Request for Proposal (RFP) and contracting process, identifying who will be involved in developing the RFP and who will be the proposal reviewers.
2. Outline the priorities in the RFP and subsequent contract. Some considerations should include the partnership model, vehicle types, community engagement, marketing, and branding for the service.
3. Outline the data needs for the project to adhere to National Transit Database (NTD) data reporting requirements and other data needs specific to the project goals and performance metrics.
4. Plan for accessible vehicles and supporting infrastructure so persons with physical or cognitive disabilities can access the service. 
5. Interview vendors during the RFP process and ask for and meet with references to demonstrate they can meet the goals of the project.

This list of considerations is not exhaustive but is intended to offer a starting point on how to approach the procurement process. Transit agencies should also familiarize themselves with local, state, and federal procurement guidelines and requirements.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Operational Examples

Although the table below features pre-pandemic data from 2019, it still offers some insights into 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 should also 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.

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 141, Microtransit or General Public Demand-Response Transit Services: State of the Practice

Note: These numbers are self-reported figures from agencies that responded.

Previous Subsection

Partnership Configurations

Because microtransit services often resemble existing demand-responsive transportation (DRT) or supplement fixed-route service, they can be operated in a wide variety of partnership configurations. Different types of partnerships reflect the capital and operational needs of the partnering agency. 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 agency:

• The private partner typically provides the routing and dispatching platform across all these partnership configurations.
• The private partner may assist with funding the mobility service through brand recognition and advertisement. For more information, visit SUMC’s Mobility Funding Strategies Learning Module.
• Private sector technology; public agency vehicles and drivers. An agency deploys the private partner’s dispatch, routing, and/or user app technology on agency-owned and operated vehicles. The AC Transit Flex program used this model.
• Private sector technology; public agency vehicles; non-profit agency drivers. This arrangement is more common in human services transportation.
• Private sector technology and drivers; public agency vehicles. A transit agency will provide the vehicles, while a private partner handles the other aspects of the service. The MetroFlex project in King County, WA is an example of this type of partnership configuration.
• Turnkey solution. A private operator (or a consortium) provides the entire microtransit transportation service for an agency, including technology, vehicles, and drivers. This type of partnership is common for agencies or jurisdictions that do not already have their own vehicles or operational framework to provide microtransit.  Arlington On-Demand,  Arlington, TX’s microtransit service is an example of this type of public-private partnership.

When developing and launching a successful microtransit program, it is crucial to identify a private partner whose goals and vision align with those of both the community and microtransit initative. Having an aligned vision ensures that the partnership supports microtransit objectives, and fosters long-term sustainability. Ultimately, a partner that is a good fit for the microtransit initiative can ensure that it becomes a vital, and well-integrated part of the community’s transportation options. 

Image of CPACS’ Ride’s Shuttle. Credit: CPACS

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. 

Next Subsection

Types of Service

Microtransit services broadly share the following characteristics:

• Allow riders to request trips on demand, rather than hours or days beforehand (although advance or scheduled reservations are possible)
• Allow for electronic payments
• Allow passengers to manage personal info and payment methods, request rides, and provide feedback. 
• Provide real-time information related to vehicle location before and during the trip
• Operate within a certain coverage area, or service area is the geography within which a service operates. 
• Follow the regulations of the US Department of Transportation and the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information, see the Federal Transit Administration’s host page Shared Mobility FAQs: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Following are some of the more typical microtransit operational approaches. There is not a one-size fits all and agencies can use and adapt these approaches to best meet the specific needs of their communities. 

Flex-route within a zone (also referred to as Point-to-Point service): Similar to a ridesharing service, the route is determined by riders’ origins and destinations within a predetermined zone, most commonly used in denser areas. The routing and dispatching software plans a route that accommodates multiple origins and destinations and riders are picked up and dropped off at those origin and destination sites. The green area in the graphic below shows the service area zone, with a microtransit van picking up passengers and dropping them off at their destinations. 

Deviated Fixed-Route: This type of microtransit service is often used in lower-density communities, where microtransit vehicles might travel along a fixed route, but have the flexibility to deviate from that route for pick-up and drop-offs. This type of service can be helpful in lower-density areas, as the service can switch to flex-route service, as depicted in the graphic below.

First and Last Mile Service: Regardless of a city’s amenities or density, first and last mile services fill the gap between passengers’ starting or ending locations and public transportation. First and last mile service is especially important in small-urban and less-dense communities as the distance to public transportation can be lengthy compared to their higher-density urban counterparts, which are often closer to fixed-route public transportation. The graphic below shows fixed-route transit traveling from an urban core to a bus terminal, where microtransit service is available to take passengers to their destinations.

Hub and Spoke Model: This hybrid service model combines the benefits of point-to-point and first and last mile models to assist passengers with shorter trips. This model consists of several popular destinations that act as a terminal, with drivers picking up or dropping off passengers from that point within a zone. Terminals often include grocery stores, medical facilities, libraries, or downtown centers. The microtransit vehicle can make other stops along the way but the designated terminal points are given scheduling priority, making this type of microtransit useful in small towns, or denser communities. The graphic below shows how the hub and spoke routes could look as the microtransit vehicle serves either a designated zone or provides service across zones.

Virtual stops (also referred to as corner-to-corner service): This type of microtransit, typically used in more dense areas, uses routing and dispatching software to alert the microtransit operator to create an efficient route to multiple destinations, in which the operator may (through a location-enabled mobile app) direct users to set pick-up and drop-off locations within a reasonably walkable distance of origins and destinations. This allows for passenger grouping to reduce stops and increase vehicle utilization. The following graphic helps to visualize how virtual stops work, with riders being dropped off at various stops and walking to their final destination.

Within these service models, microtransit operators can customize how passengers are picked up and dropped off:

• Curb-to-Curb: In a curb-to-curb service model, a vehicle will arrive at the trip origin and end at the requested destination within the right of way, distinguishing it from door-to-door service more common with human service transportation providers and associated with TNCs like Uber and Lyft. 
• Door-to-Door: Some microtransit services offer door-to-door service where the vehicle will pick up and drop off riders at the curb of their origin and destination sites.

The above graphics help to illustrate the difference between the two microtransit models. The graphic on the left shows curb-to-curb service, while the right shows door-to-door service. Curb-to-curb service passengers are directed to walk to a specific pick-up site and are similarly dropped off a short distance from their destination. Door-to-door service passengers are picked up and dropped off at their origin and destination sites.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Microtransit Vehicle Examples

Microtransit services can operate with a variety of vehicles to suit the specific needs of a community or region. In a more dense community, a vehicle with a lower capacity may be a better fit, while in a more sparse community, a high-capacity vehicle may be a better fit. Some of the vehicle types used by microtransit operators are:

• Cutaway bus or van: In these heavy-duty shuttle vehicles, a van cab and chassis remain, while the remainder of the body is modified for transit use, with a capacity for upwards of 20 passengers. Often used for ADA paratransit and human services transportation, these vans can be re-branded to use as microtransit with little modification.
  

  A DART Connect cutaway bus. Credit: Delaware Transit Corporation

   

• Passenger vans: These tend to be the larger-height vans popularized in Europe, with capacities of 10-15 passengers. The vans can be modified to include wheelchair lifts.
  

  A GoWake SmartRide NE passenger van. Credit: Wake County, NC

   

• Minivan: These vehicles typically hold 4-6 passengers, or if the vehicles are wheelchair-accessible, a single passenger using a wheelchair plus one non-wheelchair-using passenger.
  

  A Cecil County COMPASS van. Credit: Cecil County

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Data Standards

Public Transit Data Standards play an important role in the operations and rider experience of transportation services, as they support a range of functions from the discovery of services, operations, planning, scheduling, and payment. Specific to microtransit, GTFS-Flex is particularly important because it allows the rider to discover the availability of Demand Responsive Transportation (DRT) services that would not otherwise be readily available. Through this standardization, trip planners like Apple or Google Maps are able to display the zone-based microtransit service – making it possible for riders to discover DRT services that were otherwise unavailable through these applications. Using both GTFS-Flex and its parent data standard, GTFS–which makes available fixed-route transit information–users can discover the range of available public transportation services available to them. 

GTFS-Flex requires planning and resources to implement and maintain, which should be accounted for in the project budget.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) offers an example of a State DOT working with small-urban and rural transit agencies to develop a regional Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform. The platform uses data standards to communicate a range of services including fixed – and flex-route transit, microtransit, paratransit, and human services transportation. The MaaS platform also uses the transactional data specification (TDS) to communicate trip scheduling across transit agencies and mobility providers.

Screenshots of MnDOT’s Regional MaaS platform using GTFS-Flex. Note: Images are informational. Actual TDS module still under design. Credit: MnDOT

Additional data standards are available and when fully implemented can help avoid vendor lock as the common data language used to communicate transportation services is not tied to a single proprietary platform. Data standards also help support a service’s ability to scale and serve new areas, as the framework for communicating transportation services uses a common data language. While still in its early stages, a handful of DRT services are using transactional data specifications to communicate the scheduling of DRT services across mobility providers and jurisdictional boundaries (including the MnDOT MaaS platform discussed above). For more information on transactional data specifications, see Modernizing Demand-Responsive Transportation for the Age of New Mobility (aarp.org). 

Screenshots of MnDOT’s web-based trip planner using GTFS-Flex. Credit: MnDOT

Additional GTFS-Flex resources can be found: MobilityData, GTFS-Flex is Officially Adopted: Everything You Need To Know, and the Rural Transit Assistance Program GTFS Builder.

Additional data standards are available and when fully implemented can help avoid vendor lock as the common data language used to communicate transportation services is not tied to a single proprietary platform. Data standards also help support a service’s ability to scale and serve new areas, as the framework for communicating transportation services uses a common data language. While still in its early stages, a handful of DRT services are using transactional data specifications to communicate the scheduling of DRT services across mobility providers and jurisdictional boundaries (including the MnDOT MaaS platform discussed above). For more information on transactional data specifications, see Modernizing Demand-Responsive Transportation for the Age of New Mobility (aarp.org). 

Previous Subsection

Climate Impacts

Research on Climate Impacts of Microtransit

Credit: Via

Like other shared-use transportation options, microtransit can provide efficient and environmentally sustainable services for passengers by reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the road. Microtransit is an important tool that cities can use to improve connectivity and support the public transportation network. While it varies from place to place and vehicle types used, when sufficient passenger occupancy rates are met it can further reduce transportation-related GHG emissions and help to alleviate traffic congestion. Below are a few microtransit use cases to help demonstrate the potential climate mitigation impacts.

1. Microtransit: An Assessment of Potential to Drive Greenhouse Gas Reductions
   • In 2016,  MaRS Discovery District, The Atmospheric Fund, and COOP Carbone looked at 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.
2. Microtransit: A flexible, cost-effective, and sustainable mobility solution
   • Completed by ICF in 2023, this study looks at how microtransit can offer a sustainable solution for greenhouse gas reduction by addressing the challenges that come with first and last mile transportation. The flexibility in pick-up and drop-off points makes microtransit a viable alternative for single-occupancy vehicles compared to fixed-route transportation. When these first-last-mile serves are widely used, the reduction of single-occupancy vehicles on the road reduces carbon emissions and air pollution while providing important connectivity to the public transportation network. 
   • Successful microtransit implementation uses input from the private sector to leverage technology and create the best routes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The study discusses how Via used data from their microtransit service, and published findings that show how their service has an impact in reducing transportation emissions. Their data also highlighted to following: 

• 40% of Via’s 2022 microtransit trips replaced trips that would otherwise have been taken with a private vehicle.
• Via’s microtransit service helped reduce overall emissions by over 35% in their service areas in 2022, with a significant increase in areas with limited fixed-route transit and where private car travel is the dominant mode of transportation. 

Next Subsection

Electric Vehicle Benefits

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:  

• Improve access to clean mobility options that are safe, reliable, convenient, and affordable.
• Advance workforce development in the clean transportation sector.
• Increase zero-emission vehicle adoption.
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled.
• Advance mobility equity.
• Improve local air quality.

Credit: FTA

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 technology challenges that operators and municipalities should consider when planning for an EV fleet. Since microtransit vehicles are high in demand this can pose difficulties in procuring vehicles that are costly and can take considerable time to receive from time of ordering. 

According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC)’s 2020 report, users and municipalities alike have run into these types of issues: 

Cost Barriers: 

• • Larger electric vehicles are associated with higher costs, for instance, e-shuttles and e-buses are still more costly than gas-powered models, in some cases, up to twice as much. In Colombia, the smaller 8.5-meter electric bus currently costs around $200,000—compared to a conventional diesel bus, which costs approximately $100,000 (note: all dollar figures are in U.S. dollars). This differential expands for larger models that require more expensive batteries and heavier frames to manage the additional weight. 

Infrastructural Barriers: 

• • One of the most critical hurdles in the widespread adoption of electrified microtransit is the availability of charging infrastructure. Although there has been progress towards closing the gap in charging station distribution, access to them persists.
  • Public Private Partnerships can assist with the implementation of infrastructure. Cities and transportation agencies can build partnerships with private entities and utility companies to expand charging networks. Additionally, the cost associated with building and maintaining EV infrastructure can be significant, especially for smaller communities presenting a cost burden. Innovative funding mechanisms like public-private partnerships, grants, and other sources of funding can help offset these cost burdens. 

Battery Range:

• • Although batteries have consistently improved with more density per kilogram, meaning a larger range can be covered overall, the range for batteries is relatively small. On average, electric buses can go about 100 to 200 miles – just enough to cover a typical route with a long charging time afterward. All factors considered, it is difficult to forecast the performance of e-vehicles used for microtransit services.
  • To reduce “range anxiety” associated with  EV charging it is essential to increase the availability of charging stations. This often requires additional partnerships if charging infrastructure is built in the public right of way, as well as incurs higher associated costs. In some cases, if a city were to electrify its bus fleet fully, this could put added pressure on the utility grid which might not be able to handle this added capacity. For this reason, utility companies have a unique role as partners for transportation electrification projects.    

These ideas are explored further in SUMC’s The Importance of Shared, Electric Mobility Learning Module, and Electric and Equitable: Learning from the BlueLA Carsharing Pilot

Previous Subsection

Demonstration Projects

Public microtransit services are distinguished by their partnerships between local governments or transit agencies and a private microtransit provider. Following are some examples and links to  projects to help understand the different microtransit operational models.

• Projects providing first- and last-mile connections to transportation services
  • MetroFlex is an on-demand microtransit service. Metro Flex combines three existing microtransit services hosted across King County, Washington: Community Ride, Ride Pingo to Transit, and Via to Transit. With these three services, King County partnered with three separate technology vendors. To simplify the technology backing this program,  King County now works only with Via to provide first and last-mile connections to transportation services for passengers.
  • The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) launched ConnectWorks in 2023 to bridge the first and last-mile gap between fixed-route transit hubs and places of employment. ConnectWorks is a zoned, door-to-door microtransit service offering first and last-mile connections between GCRTA’s Maple Heights and Brookpark stations to employment hubs in Solon and the Aerozone Alliance Region. GCRTA partners with employers in the area, and those employers can register with GCRTA to provide ConnectWorks service as an employee benefit. 

• Transit alternatives in transit deserts and/or low ridership areas
  • Wheels2U Off-Peak Service Microtransit in Norwalk, CT, uses cutaway vans from its paratransit service. The transit agency and the city partnered with TransLoc to provide the technology to fulfill after-hours requests in its downtown entertainment district and several adjacent neighborhoods. The Wheels2U project uses the transit agency’s ADA complementary paratransit vehicles to provide the microtransit service.
  • SW Prime operates in the southwestern suburbs of Minneapolis in the communities of Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen, and Victoria. SW Prime provides a suburban first-and-last mile curb-to-curb on-demand service.  Users can request a ride through the app or over the phone and the vehicles are ADA compliant.  The average wait time is 18.5 minutes and the service averages 355 daily rides. Passengers per in-service hour is 3.4 with an average subsidy per passenger of $8.00.  The service operates Monday-Friday from 6:30 am to 7:00 pm and Saturday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm.
• Connection to employment and key destinations
  • The City of Lone Tree, a suburb of Denver, Colorado, addressed the problem of facilitating first and last-mile connections to employment in a growing metropolitan area with the Lone Tree Link shuttle service. The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail service was still several years from reaching Lone Tree’s office parks and retail areas, but the new town was planning and building along transit-oriented lines with the future planned services in mind. Before the rail service arrived in mid-2019, the suburb worked with large employers like Charles Schwab & Co. to provide Lone Tree Link as a free local shuttle service to facilitate connections between the city’s office parks and a nearby RTD station. , In 2019, Lone Tree replaced the Lone Tree Link shuttle with Link On Demand, a door-to-door microtransit service. . Though the service still focuses on employment connections, riders can now book trips anywhere within the city.
  • In Marin County, CA, Connect2Transit provides a suite of services that connect commuters to transit routes and employment centers. This service is a partnership between Marin Transit, the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), Uber, and Vivalon.
  • Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) operates BATA Link, in Traverse City, Michigan. This service is intended to replace BATA’s dial-a-ride service, Link. BATA Link allows customers to request curb-to-curb rides across a designated service area for a $6 fare or to and from medical appointments at partner clinics and hospitals at no cost. During its pilot period between 2020 and 2021, BATA Link (Link On-Demand at the time) was funded with an Integrated Mobility Innovation grant from the Federal Transit Administration. TransLoc served as the booking and technology partner; customers could request rides in real time through the TransLoc app or by calling a hotline. Rides took place on a fleet of cutaway buses. Beyond the pilot period, BATA discontinued its non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) partnership but is looking to continue Link On-Demand as a permanent service, potentially with a different technology partner.
• Turnkey solution
  • The City of Arlington, Texas contracted with Via to launch a shared on-demand transit system. The pilot project launched in 2017 and has since become a permanent service that serves the entire city. The linked case study focuses on the procurement process and includes an RFP, supporting materials, and the contract. The case study refers to several key considerations when entering a microtransit public-private partnership. The service also has an automated vehicle component that serves Arlington’s downtown core and at the University of Texas at Arlington’s campus, called RAPID.

Next Subsection

FTA Mobility Innovation

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has supported microtransit through a variety of programs, including Innovative Mobility Integration (IMI) and Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) grants through the Office of Research & Innovation. These demonstration projects help us to understand the role that microtransit can play in improving connectivity, addressing equity barriers, and improving access to important quality-of-life needs, like medical, employment, and food.

Following is an overview and links to additional resources for some of the FTA-supported microtransit demonstration projects:

• MATA Ready!: The Memphis Area Transportation Authority (MATA) developed an on-demand microtransit project with support from an IMI grant to address transportation access challenges in areas of the city with unreliable and underutilized fixed-route service. Ready! Launched as a zero-fare pilot in southern Memphis, TN in 2021, later expanding to other zones throughout the city with similar fixed-route service challenges.

A Ready! Van. Credit: MATA

• OKPICK:  In 2021, The Grand Gateway Economic Development Association (GGEDA) developed PICK Transportation, an on-demand microtransit service in the rural and tribal areas of eastern Oklahoma to bridge the gap in first and last mile transportation. A consortium of 4 rural transit agencies and 10 tribal nations participate in the PICK program to provide on-demand public transportation to 21 rural communities in Oklahoma.
  

  OKPICK transportation vehicle. Credit: OKPICK

   

• Arlington RAPID: The City of Arlington, TX expanded its city-wide public microtransit program and integrated an autonomous vehicle (AV) pilot into its on-demand network. The AV aspect of the microtransit service is a first and last mile option for people within an area of the city which includes the downtown core and the University of Texas at Arlington campus. A FTA report on RAPID is available here.
  

  Credit: Via

• Cecil On-Demand Mobility Platform and Service Solution (COMPASS): Cecil County, MD used an IMI grant to develop a mobility-on-demand service that serves people in rural Maryland who are recovering from drug addiction. Cecil County partnered with recovery houses in the area to help residents of these houses travel to and from designated locations for work, job interviews, medical and legal appointments, and other errands.
  

  A Cecil County COMPASS van. Credit: Cecil County

   

• DART Connect: DART Connect is a door-to-door microtransit service operated by Delaware Transit Corporation using Via’s booking and routing technology. It initially replaced two bus routes in the rural towns of Millsboro and Georgetown, then later expanded to Newark. DART Connect costs the same fare and uses the same buses and drivers as the discontinued bus routes.
  

  A DART Connect cutaway bus.
  Credit: DTC

   

• GoWake SmartRide NE: The Wake County Department of Health and Human Services in eastern North Carolina received an IMI grant to develop a microtransit pilot in a largely rural part of the county. Among other engagement efforts, Wake County partnered with a local nonprofit organization to host educational programming to help adults with lower technological literacy learn how to book rides and get accustomed to the new mobile app.
  

  A GoWake SmartRide NE van
  Credit: Wake County

   

• Baldwin Regional Area Transit System (BRATS): Baldwin County, in southern Alabama, partnered with Via to transition its demand-responsive transportation service to a county-wide on-demand microtransit service through an IMI grant. This new service brought major improvements in ridership, efficiency, flexibility, and rider experience.
  

  BRAT Microtransit Vehicle. Credit: Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission

   

• Wilson RIDE: With support from an AIM grant, the City of Wilson, NC, launched a city-wide microtransit service to replace the city’s limited fixed-route bus system. Data from the pilot period shows that transit ridership tripled with RIDE compared to the previous fixed-route system, and about half of the RIDE trips are commutes to or from work. A FTA report on the RIDE pilot is available here.
  

  Credit: NPR

Previous Subsection

Conclusion

As cities and regions explore mobility solutions to support their public transportation networks, microtransit is often looked at as an option. The following points provide an overview of some of the key considerations for microtransit implementation:

• Microtransit has grown in popularity over the last several years, fueled in part by technology advancements in booking, dispatching, vehicle routing, and mobile apps. 
• Transit agencies and cities employ a variety of partnership models with private microtransit operators. The nature of a partnership depends on the specific mobility needs of the community. 
• Microtransit can serve where fixed-route transit may not be an option due to low population density, poor street connectivity, difficult topography, or other factors. 
• As microtransit services mature, agencies can consider 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 fit into their transit networks.
• Varying service and vehicle types cater to different community needs, making microtransit a viable option for urban, rural, and suburban settings. 
• Community engagement is important to understand the transportation needs in a community before designing and implementing a microtransit solution.