Do semi-collective (or alternative) transport services have the potential to transform our cities?

In parallel with “official” public transport, there exists a multitude of “semi-collective” transport services, such as Demand Responsive Transit (or paratransit), jitneys (or dollar vans), and shuttles. With the emergence of innovative ICT technologies, alternative transit services are converging to a new type of business model, ‘micro-transit’, which can incorporate flexible routing, flexible scheduling, or both. Currently, the experience with micro-transit includes both success stories and notable failures. The potential for semi-collective transport to transform mobility for the better is huge, but there are also important potentially negative impacts on urban sprawl if transport prices are not set correctly.

• In parallel with “official” public transport, there exists a multitude of “semi-collective” transport services

• With the use of innovative ICT, alternative transit services are converging to ‘micro-transit’

• The experience with micro-transit includes both success stories and notable failures

• The potential for semi-collective transport to transform mobility for the better is huge

• There are also important potentially negative impacts on urban sprawl if transport prices are not set correctly

In a lot of countries, in parallel with “official” public transport, there exists a multitude of “semi-collective” transport services, such as Demand Responsive Transit (or paratransit), jitneys (or dollar vans), and shuttles.

Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) (or “paratransit”, as it is usually referred to in the US) corresponds to transport services that, contrary to regular public transport services, can be flexible in terms of timing and/or route choices (Davison et al., 2012; Ronald et al., 2015; Rayley et al., 2014). The origins of DRT lie in the provision of transport services to mobility impaired people, but the services offered by DRT have significantly expanded in the last decade or two.

“Jitney” services refer to broadly similar services, but which are usually associated with commercial operators who have filled niches in commuting transport, such as communities with low auto-ownership rates that are ignored by transit agencies and private operators.  Thanks to their higher point-to-point flexibility and demand responsiveness, jitneys have sometimes competed effectively with conventional transit. Although local authorities tend to discourage jitney operations (and protect transit!) through onerous regulations, jitneys often re-emerged in markets that were poorly served by transit systems (King and Goldwyn, 2014). In some cases, though, city authorities or transit agencies have tried to use jitneys as a complement to their own services (as a feeder bus for instance, or to serve areas with poor coverage or to provide transport services to mobility impaired travellers).

Shaheen et al. (2015a) further distinguish between the following variants:

  • Fixed route, fixed schedule: these services are similar to public transit but “customers can make requests for new “crowdsourced” routes to be created based on demand”.
  • Flexible route with on-demand scheduling: in these services, customers can use a mobile application to request a ride in select neighbourhoods; the algorithms of the micro-transit platform then set a central passenger meeting spot. Customers then share a ride with other passengers that have a similar route or destination.

It is also possible for public transport authorities to organise their own shuttle services with “public service” components, such as wheelchair accessibility and bike racks.

Interesting pilot projects are beginning to spring up in this area – for example, in 2016, a pilot project was announced between Kansas City Area Transit Authority (KCATA), Bridj and Ford. In this pilot, Kansas City residents will be able to reserve seats on Bridj vehicles (Ford vans), using the Bridj app, but driven by employees of the KCATA. One noteworthy point about this pilot is that the public agency appears to be completely open-minded about how the outcome will fit in its own offer. In other words, there is no prior expectation that the service will focus on the “last mile”. It is also interesting that the project has given thought to the issue of the accessibility for people without smartphones – there is consideration to distribute phones with limited capability beyond the reservation of the van’s service.

Currently, the experience with micro-transit includes both success stories and notable failures. Until now, it appears that the willingness to pay for premium features (such as wood-trimmed interiors, black leather seats, individual USB ports and Wi-Fi) is not high enough to make a premium business model viable, and that some minimum density of the served area is needed. Other challenges include high set-up costs, and that the technology used for implementing such schemes may be off-putting for some categories of passengers.

The impact of semi-collective transport on the overall mobility system is not clear-cut, either.

Some studies suggest that the potential for semi-collective transport to transform mobility for the better is huge. For instance, simulation studies by the ITF (2016) have considered a future system of urban mobility without conventional bus lines, where “high capacity” transit (rail and subway services) would be complemented by micro-transit-like types of mobility services. The study showed that such a system would lead to the disappearance of congestion, a reduction of traffic emissions by one third, a 95% decrease in the need for public parking, a reduction in the car fleet by 97%, a reduction in the cost of city trips by 50% and a general increase in accessibility for even the lower income classes.

On the one hand, compared to other modes, shuttles are often an attractive option due to their time and cost savings. However, on the other hand, it has been found that “shuttles exacerbate the jobs-housing imbalance by enabling individuals to live farther from work” and that they take some ridership away from public transit (Dai and Weinzimmer, 2014).

In this case as well, it is clear that policy will play a key role in the eventual impact of semi-collective transport. A correct pricing of all transport modes according to their marginal social costs will be key in preventing undesired side-effects.

Until recently, the mobility of elderly or mobility impaired people confronted governments with two costly options. Either they could require buses and trams to be made accessible to everyone, or they could organise Demand Responsive Transport. While DRT services have the advantage that they do not require the complete rolling stock to be made accessible, they remain costly. 

DRT systems are also used to improve the accessibility of areas with very low population densities. When allowed, informal alternative transit systems cater to the transport needs of the urban poor who are not well served by traditional public transport.

Modern communication technology holds the promise of improving the efficiency of DRT or alternative transit systems, because they enable the grouping of riders with similar origin-destination pairs. This could have benefits in improving accessibility to jobs, healthcare and schools – therefore helping play an important role in the fight against social exclusion.

  • Dai, D. & Weinzimmer, D. (2014-), Riding First Class: Impacts of Silicon Valley Shuttles on Commute & Residential Location Choice, Working Paper UCB-ITS-WP-2014-01, February 2014
  • Davison, L., Enoch, M., Ryley, T., Quddus, M. & Wang, C. Identifying potential market niches for Demand Responsive Transport, Research in Transportation Business & Management, Volume 3, August 2012, Pages 50-61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.007.
  • International Transport Forum (ITF) (2016), Shared Mobility: Innovation for Liveable Cities. Corporate Partnership Board, Policy Insights, http://www.itf-oecd.org/shared-mobility-innovation-liveable-cities
  • King, D.A. & Goldwyn, E., Why do regulated jitney services often fail? Evidence from the New York City group ride vehicle project, Transport Policy, Volume 35, September 2014, Pages 186-192, ISSN 0967-070X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.011.
  • Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R. & Shaheen, S. Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco, Transport Policy, Volume 45, January 2016, Pages 168-178, ISSN 0967-070X, http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. tranpol. 2015. 10. 004.
  • Ronald, N., Thompson, R. & Winter, S. (2015), Simulating Demand-responsive Transportation: A Review of Agent-based Approaches, Transport Reviews, 35:4, 404-421, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1017749
  • Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Bansal, A. & Cohen, A. (2015a), Shared Mobility: Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding Bikesharing, Carsharing, On-Demand Ride Services, Ridesharing, Shared-Use Mobility http://innovativemobility.org/?project=shared-mobility-definitions-industry-developments-and-early-understanding

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.