6 Sections 45 minutes Author: Shared-Use Mobility Center
Microtransit, like most on-demand mobility services, is less a completely new mode than an evolution of existing modes enabled by technology. Unlike many of the 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 existing transportation challenges. This learning module attempts to bring the mode into focus for public agency planners. An examination of 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 the mobility needs within a community.
Microtransit service is enabled by various mobile technologies, especially location access through smartphones or mobile tablets. Rides may be arranged through a smartphone app, in addition to more traditional phone- or web-based booking systems.
Microtransit services can fulfil many different purposes, such as first- and last-mile connections to transit, transit 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 it often either resembles existing demand responsive transit modes or supplements fixed-route service, public microtransit can be operated in a wide variety of partnership configurations. A microtransit service provider can partner to provide any or all of the technology, vehicles, drivers, maintenance, and other operations, according to the specific needs of the public agency.
Microtransit services draw components from both fixed-route transit and ridesourcing. 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 more traditional 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 regions’ mobility goals.
For the public sector, microtransit faces a conundrum: It is almost always less productive than traditional fixed-route transit in terms of trips per vehicle service hour (as circuitous, point-to-point routes can reach fewer people per hour than straight-line ones). If microtransit becomes more popular, the number of vehicles and drivers (i.e. cost) must increase to accommodate the growth and maintain service quality. Often, fixed-route transit might be the more appropriate or cost-effective solution because of its ability to scale.
In practice, this means that privately owned microtransit, like many newer shared mobility services, operates in areas with sufficient density to support more efficient pooling of rides–areas that are also productive for fixed-route transit. On the other hand, general public microtransit could be deployed in areas where fixed-route transit is difficult to operate productively, or where a flexible service might provide first- and last-mile connections with faster response times than is possible with scheduled service. It can be a tool to serve populations in low-density areas that are low-income, lacking other mobility options, or in political jurisdictions that are contributing to transit funding.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) currently uses this definition for microtransit in the SUMC-authored 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 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 ridesourcing operations. Fixed-route transit services have defined stop locations, routes, and schedules and usually operate along straight lines or corridors. In North America, they are typically funded and operated by government agencies, though private services, such as company shuttles and jitneys, also exist. Ridesourcing is on-demand, point-to-point service that may or may not be shared, with hailing/reservations, dispatch, routing, and payment supported enabled by location-aware mobile computing platforms.
Microtransit services broadly share the following characteristics:
In some services, particularly general public microtransit services, users can also request services by a voice call handled by a call center.
Microtransit may operate in a variety of service designs, including:
Because it often either resembles existing demand responsive transit modes or supplements fixed-route service, public microtransit 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 to provide any or all of the technology, vehicles, drivers, maintenance, and other operations, according to the specific needs of the public agency. (The private partner’s provision of technology is generally common to all these arrangements.)
The Canadian organizations MaRS Discovery District, The Atmospheric Fund, and COOP Carbone released a report entitled Microtransit: An Assessment of Potential to Drive Greenhouse Gas Reductions that looks 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 authors along the way explain a wide range of topics, including: delivery models and consumer typologies. Ultimately, after calculating the GHG savings (the methodology might be helpful for future studies), the authors conclude that microtransit might hold significant potential to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions.
The International Transport Forum (ITF) studied the potential impacts of shared mobility, including microtransit, in combination with existing public transit, to lower transportation related CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions. Using real trip data, the ITF model looked at a what-if scenario and asked what would happen if all private car trips were replaced with shared modes. The model found that only 10 percent 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 also extended to freeing up on-street parking. Replacing all of the private vehicle trips might not be realistic, so to further explore the impact of shared mobility, the model also simulated replacing 20 percent of vehicle trips with shared modes. Similarly, the model found that CO2 emissions could be reduced by as much as 20 percent if such as scenario were to be reached. To read more about the study download the report Shared Mobility Simulations for Helsinki.
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 an additional step by using retired paratransit vehicles, rebranded with agency livery and branding for the pilot. The agency operates the fully accessible vehicles, on-demand. The service reported high use of its wheelchair lift.
The appropriate mobility solution and service delivery model for your community should be driven by the goals and budget of the project. The goals of a project can be high level (eg. increased mobility options) or more granular (eg. improved 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. These project goals are examples from pilot projects from the MOD Sandbox program, 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. Examples include:
For additional performance metrics, you can consult the MOD Sandbox Demonstration Independent Evaluation plans, which contain detailed goals and performance metrics for a variety of projects, including microtransit and first/last-mile projects in Seattle, Los Angeles, Pima County, AZ, and Pierce County, WA. Visit the National Transportation Library to access all of the independent evaluation reports for the FTA MOD Sandbox projects.
Another example for establishing 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:
The table below gives a good idea of the current state of public-private partnership (P3) microtransit ridership, service productivity, and costs, showing 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.
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 that 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. As a consequence, transit agencies and cities are looking toward partnerships with private microtransit operators to provide enhanced mobility solutions in their community. General public microtransit is best deployed where fixed-route transit may not be productive due to low density, poor street connectivity, or other factors. As these microtransit services mature, agencies must understand how these services are helping them achieve their goals, with consideration for factors such as rider satisfaction, productivity, and cost, to determine whether and how microtransit should play a role in their robust public transit networks.
The Shared-Use Mobility Center webinar, Microtransit Public-Private Partnerships, provides an overview of how the mode operates in P3s, generally, and features public partners from four cases, including: