technical appendix c · warranted according to adopted guidelines. the field of shared mobility is...
TRANSCRIPT
Urban Area Transit Strategy Advanced Technology Update August 2019
Technical Appendix C
.
Urban Area Transit Strategy Technology Update
Shared Mobility Public/Private Partnerships White Paper
Prepared By CHS Consulting Group
June 3, 2019
1
1.0 Summary of Findings Over the past decade, new players have appeared on the transportation scene, and they’re making their presence felt. Shared mobility modes like bike share, car share, ride‐hailing, and microtransit have widened the choices available for movement, particularly in urban areas. The extent of their impact on public transportation is a matter of lively debate, with few definitive conclusions. Nonetheless, their allure to the public is obvious, and many transit systems have wondered if they should partner with these new service providers, rather than compete with them. This White Paper explores such partnerships by focusing on three case studies in which a transit agency or city has forged bonds with private ride‐hailing and microtransit companies. Due to the reluctance of private operators to reveal what they consider to be proprietary information, hard data on costs and cost‐effectiveness are often difficult to come by. This is true even when public agencies are sponsoring the service. Nonetheless, it appears that, for the most part, the operating efficiency of modes such as ride‐hailing and microtransit are only a fraction of what would be expected from fixed‐route services, whether or not a public partnership is involved. The attractiveness to public agencies may be that the overall cost of such service in a particular area is less than what would be required with a fixed‐route alternative. This seems to be the case for AC Transit in San Francisco’s East Bay, which is operating its own microtransit service in partnership with a company that developed its dispatching software. In other areas, such as Pinellas County, Florida and West Sacramento, California, partnered shared mobility services have been overlaid on a fixed‐route system. These have been implemented to provide first‐mile/last‐mile connectivity to fixed‐route transit, as well as to offer a travel experience closer to what transit’s competitors have been delivering. One theme that continually emerges in this inquiry is whether transit in any form—fixed‐route or demand‐responsive, operated publicly or through a partnership—is warranted in low‐demand areas. From a technical standpoint, the answer is usually “no.” Agencies like the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) generally have standards that guide them in determining where transit service is cost‐effective and where it is not. However, issues of geographic or socio‐economic equity are also a factor in most urban areas, whether or not they are codified in local ordinances. These often impel public agencies to provide service where none would be warranted according to adopted guidelines. The field of shared mobility is still young and evolving, so what has been experienced to date may not resemble future operations. Nonetheless, the current partnerships between public and private entities appear to be a fruitful way of moving into the future. They will inform subsequent decisions by public agencies on if and how to provide transit service, particularly to low‐demand areas.
2
2.0 Introduction and Background
The Urban Area Transit Strategy (UATS) was undertaken by SANDAG in 2011 as a component in developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The objective was to guide the RTP by comparing alternative transit strategies for the more urbanized areas of the San Diego Region. Various transit networks and modes were hypothesized in a series of planning scenarios in order to home in on the most effective for inclusion in the RTP. This process included brainstorming sessions with key stakeholders, examination of strategies employed in other urban areas, and computer simulations of operations and ridership. In preparing San Diego Forward, the 2019‐2050 update to the RTP, SANDAG wanted to consider the effects of new technologies that have emerged since the last version of the RTP was released. These include connected and autonomous vehicles, electrically‐propelled vehicles, and various app‐based transportation services, such as ride‐hailing and microtransit. A report prepared for SANDAG in February 2018 summarized the wide range of such emerging technologies. The purpose of this White Paper is to focus on subsets of the previous effort by investigating two forms of app‐based shared mobility providers. Ride‐hailing companies offer rides in personal vehicles to customers who request them through a smartphone application, and many of these companies provide shared‐ride options. Microtransit companies use vans or small buses to serve defined stops but not necessarily with defined routes or schedules; they may be summoned with a smartphone application (“app”) or through a call‐in system. In most instances, the app‐based services operate independently of existing transit providers, but in some instances, partnerships between the two have formed. This report examines partnerships between public agencies or jurisdictions and shared mobility transportation services. Shared mobility services constitute a potential threat to public transportation, as evidenced by transit ridership losses throughout the country after these services were introduced.1 On the other hand, these services provide an opportunity for the public sector to relinquish direct operation of transit in areas that may be more cost‐effectively served by the private providers. This White Paper explores these themes in a general way and then concentrates on three case studies that can provide lessons for the San Diego region.
3
3.0 Shared Mobility Partnerships
3.1 Diversity of Partnerships
App‐based providers such as Uber, Lyft, and Via operate shared mobility services in many American cities, as well as overseas. As mentioned, these services are generally independent from other forms of transport and, in effect, compete with them. Private autos, taxis, and public transportation all have been impacted as some of their ridership has been diverted to the shared mobility providers. This trend is generally considered positive in regard to lowering individual auto trips but negative in its impacts on transit. Partnerships between the public sector and private shared mobility companies can help overcome these negative impacts. With some financial incentives, cooperating private providers could serve low‐density areas, offering area‐wide service or first‐mile/last‐mile connecting service to a transit system’s trunk lines. This would allow the transit agency to focus its resources on high‐density corridors, which is a more cost‐effective business model for them. In this respect, the public and private providers could be complementary rather than competitive. Partnerships throughout the U.S. are diverse in terms of how they are organized and how they function. The public partner is generally a public transit operator, such as in Atlanta, Dallas, and Kansas City. However, jurisdictions (such as New Haven and Seattle) have also formed partnership with private transportation providers. Other bodies, like Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) have also served as the “public” partner (as in Centennial, Colorado). The private service providers include car‐share companies (e.g., HOURCAR in Minneapolis), bike‐share companies (e.g., Pittsburgh Bike Share), ride‐hailing services (e.g., Uber and Lyft), and microtransit operators (e.g., Via and the former Bridj and Chariot). In many cases, the private entity operates under a cooperative agreement with the public entity. Sometimes this agreement involves nothing more than sharing software so that the users of a public service can find a link to the app of a private provider in the community, and vice versa; that’s essentially what’s being done in Dallas. In other cases, the private entity operates a service that is partially subsidized by the public entity, as in Philadelphia. Sometimes the service itself is operated by the public entity using routing/dispatching software provided by the private entity (as in Marin and Alameda counties in California). The nature of the service in these partnerships also varies. Common are first‐mile/last‐mile feeders in which the private provider’s vehicles or software enables service to and from low‐density communities where conventional fixed‐route service is not cost‐effective for the public operator. In these systems, the private provider brings passengers to bus stops or rail stations operated by the public provider, as is practiced in Pinellas County, Florida and Dayton, Ohio. Another variation is area‐wide service. Passengers are transported by the private operator throughout a neighborhood or an entire city at rates subsidized by the public partner, as in
4
Arlington, Texas. In some locations—as described later for West Sacramento, California‐‐the distinction between these functions blurs.
3.2 Adapting Private Models to Public Service
Much of the initial interest in private shared mobility services was based upon their success in attracting customers, often at the expense of transit. Transit ridership fell in 30 of 35 major U.S. metropolitan areas in 2017,2 but even transit’s critics point out that shared mobility is not the only cause. Cheaper gas prices, more teleworking, greater on‐line purchasing, and slower buses caused by increased congestion are also contributing elements. In fact, a 2016 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) report concluded that “the more people use shared modes, the more likely they are to use public transit” and “shared modes complement public transit.”3 The Shared‐Use Mobility Center, which authored that report, found that shared use modes were more active in the evenings and weekends, not during transit’s primary weekday service period. If true, there appears to be potential for public transit providers to partner with their private sector counterparts to make their relationship even more complementary. It should be noted that impact of peak‐hour shared mobility use on transit is not consistent from one city to another.4 In an extreme case, the microtransit company Chariot had a network of routes that “shadowed” public bus lines operated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI). During peak hours, these routes appeared to “skim the cream” off the transit lines that they duplicated, similar to what jitneys did to private streetcar companies in the 1920s. However, modern transit systems really have no “cream” to skim. They have been operating with public subsidies for 60 years or more. Essentially, each new busload of riders they attract incurs the need for more subsidies, and this phenomenon is exacerbated during the peak hours. It can be argued that if microtransit skims some of the peak loads from rush hour buses, the public transit provider has less ridership to accommodate and can operate a more efficient system. This phenomenon can also be applied to places where low population densities or difficult terrain make them expensive to serve with traditional fixed‐route transit. However, relying on shared mobility companies to fill in the gaps on their own may not be realistic. The private sector quickly assesses the market for service and avoids areas in which demand is low, unless the price of travel is commensurately increased. Moreover, residents of those low‐demand areas may not be able to afford travel on the private providers unless they are heavily subsidized by a public agency, which may or may not be cost‐effective for that agency. This theme will be discussed later in this paper.
5
3.3 Serving Low‐Demand Areas
Regardless of whether or not mobility partnerships are formed, many critics have questioned why low‐demand areas should be served by publicly‐subsidized service at all. Perhaps the most consistent has been Jarrett Walker, who writes a widely‐read transit planning blog. Walker’s points5 on microtransit (which also apply to ride‐hailing) can be summarized as follows:
Serving areas with predictably low ridership fulfills the coverage goals of an agency, not
the ridership goals. Adding such services may provide a measure of geographical equity
but will not contribute to the cost‐effectiveness of the transit system. It will also not
boost overall ridership very much, compared to other transit investments the agency
could make.
The “social service” aspects of these services are suspect. Serving a small number of
people in need in an unproductive area typically shifts money away from a much larger
number of people in need who could have been served by conventional transit in
higher‐density areas.
The main operating cost component of transit is labor. App‐based services using vans or
small buses won’t be as cost‐effective as a standard transit bus with a larger passenger
capacity. Their use is therefore justified only in areas where ridership will be low.
The push for microtransit often comes from the more elite members of society who use
such services and feel that everyone would benefit from them, even if their
circumstances are very different. Public agencies should avoid jumping into app‐based
systems just because they’re depicted as “the way of the future” if their use doesn’t
further the agencies’ goals.
The conflict between expending public dollars on providing mobility for low‐demand areas
versus using those dollars to beef up service in high‐demand corridors is a perennial issue for
transit agencies. While public/private partnerships may allow low‐demand areas to be served
more cheaply than with conventional fixed‐route service, they may also tempt transit agencies
to serve areas that don’t justify service at all.
4.0 Case Studies
4.1 Comparable Transit Systems
In spite of the misgivings of some, partnerships between public agencies and private transportation providers exist throughout the world and are growing in number. The initial
6
intent for this White Paper was to examine three case studies in urban areas like San Diego in order to highlight models that would be relevant for adaptation in the UATS study area. Urban areas outside the U.S. were excluded because the prevailing legal and administrative conditions might not be replicable in this country. In addition, it was decided to exclude bike share and car share partnerships and focus on those involving ride‐hailing and microtransit services. Finding appropriate partnerships within the U.S. proved to be more problematic than anticipated. A list of urban areas comparable to San Diego was developed using data from the U.S. Census and the National Transit Database (Attachment 1). Partnerships were ascertained using a database developed by the Shared‐Use Mobility Center (see Attachment 2). A number of candidate cities were identified that could be considered generally similar to San Diego in size or population, but they showed a wide range of variation in terms of transit use and service provided. Moreover, the urban areas with the greatest statistical similarity to San Diego (such as Minneapolis‐St. Paul‐Bloomington, St Louis, and Portland) did not have public partnerships between public agencies and ride‐hailing or microtransit providers. For this reason, partnerships were sought that involved ride‐hailing and microtransit, regardless of the similarity of the service area to San Diego. How and why the partnerships were established and managed were felt to be as important as the actual ridership or cost‐effectiveness that resulted. In the end, one partnership in Florida and two in California were chosen as case studies. In the Florida partnership, trips on private ride‐hailing and taxi services are subsidized by the transit operator to provide first‐mile/last‐mile service to and from bus stops. In one of the California partnerships, a microtransit company offers area‐wide service in a small suburb of a larger city; in the other, a large public transit operator uses its own buses and drivers to serve two suburban areas with microtransit, utilizing a private company’s software.
4.2 Pinellas County, FL: PSTA DirectConnect
4.2.1 Background Pinellas County, Florida is part of the larger Tampa‐St. Petersburg‐Clearwater metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Its overall population density is about 2500 people per square mile, about two‐thirds that of the San Diego MSA. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) was formed in the early 1980s from the merger of earlier public bus systems. It operates a fleet of 210 buses on 40 routes, serving approximately 15 million passenger boardings per year. A separate system, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, operates in adjacent Tampa and vicinity. “DirectConnect” is a partnership between PSTA and several shared mobility service providers. It arose from a service cut necessitated by the defeat of a 2014 ballot measure intended to increase local taxes for transit. PSTA needed to eliminate several of its lowest performing
7
routes but was looking for a way to continue service to those in some of the affected areas. A pilot program at the University of Florida in Gainesville provided inspiration for a solution. The Safe Rides program had been initiated in 2015 between the University and Uber to provide a safe option for students moving about the campus at night.6 Students were offered a 50% subsidy to use Uber X between the hours of 9:00 PM and 3:00 AM within a designated area. PSTA thought it might be able to adopt this model as a less expensive way of serving some of the riders in its service area.
4.2.2 Description of the Service7 The first iteration of DirectConnect began in February 2016 in Pinellas Park, a community near the center of the county. Pinellas Park has a population density of about 3100 people per square mile (about the same as Rancho Bernardo in San Diego County). PSTA subsidized customers 50% of their trip cost, up to $3 per Uber ride, to connect to or from designated bus stops in their zone. Discounts were eligible only from 7 AM to 7 PM, Monday through Saturday. Riders wishing to use Uber would download the Uber app and apply a code for PSTA to their account. A PSTA “slider option” would thereafter appear when they opened the app. If they traveled in the designated area at the designated times, their price would appear with the discount already applied. Two alternatives to Uber were included in the program. Customers could receive the same discount by calling United Taxi or using its app; the disabled could book a discounted ride with Care Ride, PSTA’s complementary paratransit operator. This arrangement not only appealed to those wanting to use an app to book their ride, but also to patrons without smart phones or who needed wheelchair service. Moreover, both United Taxi and Care Ride accepted cash, which was necessary for those without credit cards. A second DirectConnect program was initiated at the same time in the community of East Lake, near the north end of the county. This program partnered with United Taxi and Care Ride, but Uber did not participate. In both service areas, “DirectConnect Locations” were designated. These were focused on an intersection served by at least one bus route. Each location had a radius of 400 feet (later increased to 800 feet) where the Uber, taxi, or van could stop safely. In its second iteration, which began in January 2017, PSTA expanded DirectConnect’s service to eight zones covering all of Pinellas County. Customers could request an Uber, United Taxi, or wheelchair van to connect to or from one specific bus stop in a zone in order to receive an increased discount of up to $5 (or $25 for wheelchair users). The eligible time span of the DirectConnect discount was expanded to between 6 AM and 11 PM, seven days a week.
8
Figure 1. PSTA DirectConnect showing the 24 locations
where users can transfer to fixed‐route bus lines.
9
Disabled van service in the second iteration was provided by Wheelchair Transport Service rather than Care Ride. The latter company was uncomfortable continuing an on‐demand service in the enlarged area, as it was not sure it had the capacity to handle the anticipated greater demand at short notice. The eight‐zone system proved confusing for some riders, and it seemed counter‐intuitive when, for example, a passenger wishing to travel north might have to take an Uber ride south to reach a designated bus stop.8 A third iteration was therefore begun in April 2018. The number of DirectConnect Locations was increased from 8 to 24 (see Figure 1), spread throughout the county. Customers can request subsidized rides as long as they connect to or from one of the 24 locations and the ride doesn’t exceed ten miles. Because the DirectConnect program is intended to help with the first or last mile of commutes, riders were paying about $1 on average after their discount. Increases in Uber fares (the minimum is now $7.50) necessitated increases in the co‐pay to PSTA. Short rides are currently cheaper via United Taxi (some less than $5 and therefore free to the rider), but Uber is cheaper for longer trips. An interesting quirk of the system is that there is currently no way to ensure that riders are using it to connect with PSTA’s buses, and a DirectConnect ride of up to ten miles is possible from one DirectConnect Location to another. The agency may modify the program in the future to discourage this kind of subsidized travel. PSTA has also added a service called TD Late Shift. It serves transit‐dependent low income riders those who must travel to or from work between 10 pm and 6 am, when most PSTA routes aren’t in service. Qualified riders must buy the transportation‐dependent $11 monthly pass. The program was initially free of charge for nighttime countywide service, but since January 2018 charges an additional $9 monthly co‐pay. The private partners are United Taxi and Care Ride. TD Late Shift is funded primarily through state grants. The web site for DirectConnect is https://www.psta.net/riding‐psta/direct‐connect/.
4.2.3 Performance The budget for the Direct Connect program was $100,000 in FY 17 and $60,000 in FY 18. However, these are budget figures, as actual costs were not available. Not all the budget for FY 17 was spent, so the excess was added to the $60,000 allocated to FY 18. Ridership has grown from just a couple of hundred riders to 3180 during the month of July 2018; the program has served some 20,000 rides since its inception. PSTA points out that the service is designed to serve low‐ridership areas, so high ridership was not the objective. It is difficult to make a direct correlation between the cost and ridership of the program and the savings from the service cuts made three years ago. However, the agency feels that the new service is a cost‐effective way of serving many of the residents of the County, especially in low‐density areas. Parenthetically, since the Federal Transit Agency doesn’t consider ride‐hailing as “transit”, PSTA
10
gets no credit for those carried by Uber in its DirectConnect program (though rides on United Taxi are credited). It’s difficult to calculate the cost per rider for Direct Connect because the precise cost of the entire program is not readily available. The maximum $5 per passenger Uber subsidy could be used as an approximation, but many United Taxi passengers pay less than that, while the program’s wheelchair passengers pay much more. In comparison, PSTA’s fixed routes average $7.90 per passenger, while its paratransit services average $13.99 per ambulatory passenger and $27.66 per wheelchair passenger.
4.2.4 Administrative Arrangements Because of liberalities in Florida state law, PSTA was able to establish its partnerships with the private providers with few legal barriers.9 It was also able to utilize a sole‐source procurement process that complied with FTA regulations for pilot programs. PSTA has striven to maintain positive relations with Uber and credits that as one of the reasons for the program’s success. Initially, front‐end negotiations were difficult, since there was little precedent for such a contract, especially on the part of Uber. Much of the difficulty was in negotiating legal provisions that satisfied both parties. A particular sticking point was data sharing. Uber agreed to provide monthly passenger counts so that PSTA could correctly provide subsidy payments to the carrier. However, the company cited privacy concerns as its reason for not sharing trip patterns or other travel characteristics, making it difficult for PSTA to modify the service to better meet riders’ needs. Now in the third phase of the program, Uber is providing the quarterly ranking of DirectConnect Locations by origins/destinations, and it has shared information on trip counts to and from each Location. Individual trip data are not provided to PSTA. It is suspected that Uber is concerned not just about privacy pledges to its patrons but also about rival carriers using this information to target high‐ridership areas for their own benefit. There is a fair amount of trust granted to the private carriers. While United Taxi and Wheelchair Transport Service provide monthly logs with precise trip information, Uber submits only basic data, such as quarterly trip totals to and from each DirectConnect Location (as well as average trip length and time per passenger). The main form of outreach for DirectConnect has been the program’s web site, but this has been supplemented by use of social media (particularly Facebook) and, for a time, payments to search engines to ensure that DirectConnect appeared near the top of users’ search lists. In addition, Uber has included a slide‐up feature in its app to make users aware of the DirectConnect feature.
11
4.3 West Sacramento, CA: On‐Demand Rideshare 4.3.1 Background West Sacramento, California is a small city of 53,000 people and 23 square miles located directly west of the City of Sacramento. West Sacramento does not operate its own bus system but is served by two public transit systems to which it provides subsidies: the 45‐bus Yolo County Transportation District (Yolobus) and the multimodal Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT); SacRT operates 205 buses and 97 light rail vehicles (none of the latter in West Sacramento). The City had been concerned about broadening its mobility network in order to offer more sustainable travel choices to its residents.10 The West Sacramento Mobility Action Plan was therefore launched to address three particular challenges: (1) reducing the city’s expenses for
supporting fixed‐route transit operated by Yolobus, in particular two routes that suffered from poor ridership; (2) significant growth in a riverside infill area with few transit connections; and, (3) removing transportation barriers for seniors. The City also wanted to address social equity concerns by making transportation more accessible to disadvantaged communities. These challenges all led to interest in experimenting with a partnership with a private provider to determine if these service needs
could be met more cost‐effectively than with the current public bus service. “On‐Demand Rideshare” was therefore launched recently as a one‐year pilot in which the city has partnered with microtransit operator Via Transportation, Inc. (through its subsidiary Nomad Transit LLC). It formally began service in June 2018, with a soft launch the month before. Its business model is similar to one initiated by Via in 2017 in Arlington, TX. However, West Sacramento is a more transit‐oriented city than Arlington, with a long tradition of both local and commute transit. On‐Demand Rideshare provides a prototype for serving a well‐defined suburb with a population density of about 2400 people per square mile (just under that of Otay Ranch).
4.3.2 Description of the Service Via On‐Demand Rideshare is meant to complement the routes served by Yolobus and SacRT (see Figure 2). Passengers can use On‐Demand Rideshare to get shared rides anywhere
12
throughout West Sacramento for a flat fare. They can request a ride by phone call or app and can pay by credit or debit card. Fares for individuals are a flat $3.50; seniors and passengers with disabilities are charged half price. Additional riders from the same origin point cost just $1 each. Passengers can also buy a weekly pass for $10. Promotions during the first few weeks included two free rides for first‐time riders and $1 fares. The service is now in operation from 7 AM to 10 PM during weekdays and 9 AM to 10 PM Saturdays (expanded from 7 AM to 7 PM initially operated on weekdays and 9 AM to 7 PM on Saturdays). There are no fixed stops for On‐Demand Rideshare. Rather, the software for this service uses a “virtual stop” model that optimizes routes in real time to provide the most efficient path for shared rides. Those summoning a ride are told where to wait for their van, usually within a couple of blocks from their home. (Door‐to‐door service is available for disabled riders.) Pickups occur on average within seven minutes of requesting a ride. A fleet of ten six‐passenger Mercedes Metris vans provides service. One of these vans has been equipped with a wheelchair lift to respond to requests for service from disabled riders. The web site for On‐Demand Rideshare is https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/public‐works/traffic‐transportation/on‐demand‐rideshare‐via/‐fsiteid‐1.
4.3.3 Performance Since the system is so new, ridership has not yet matured. An average of just 25 weekday passengers used the service during its initial startup, but that number has grown to about 270 by the end of August 2018. Customers who were polled rated the system with a satisfaction level of 4.92 out of 5.00. While it is designed as a first‐mile/last mile system, many riders use On‐Demand Rideshare as a point‐to‐point service. This is not a problem for the City sponsors, as it may justify shifting financial support from less efficient bus routes in West Sacramento to those that are more productive. $749,000 was budgeted for the pilot. Approximately $470,000 is for the provision of service (driver pay, fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc.). Another $30,000 is for West Sacramento’s staff time, and almost $50,000 is for UC Berkeley to conduct a performance evaluation at the end of the pilot. Included in the total budget is $15,000 for marketing.
4.3.4 Administrative Arrangements The City did not wish to assume the task of directly operating a transportation service or raising the capital for vehicles and a maintenance facility. For this reason, it issued an RFP to private providers in May 2017. The RFP was flexible enough to allow bidders to provide specific components of the service but encouraged turnkey proposals that would include all the elements required to operate and administer it. Ten proposals were received; Via’s bid used the turnkey approach and was judged to offer the most attractive package. A one‐year pilot contract was awarded to Via in January 2018. The pilot has a budget of $749,000, funded by a
13
Sacramento COG TDM Innovation Grant of $150,000, plus $599,000 from TDA funds provided by the City. The City has supplemented Via’s marketing and outreach efforts, and it has provided additional customer service support for seniors.
14
Figure 2. West Sacramento On‐Demand Rideshare Service Area
15
The City has played a primary role in determining the service model, coverage area, and quality of service standards in concert with the Via team. Via independently manages the fleet, drivers, and operations, including a customer support line for booking rides or other inquiries. Via recruited drivers locally and conducted background checks, as specified by its contract with the City (and state law). An arrangement was made to store the vans in an existing secure lot and provide minimal office space. The City has been paying just over $2 million a year for fixed‐route and paratransit service subsidies. It is hoping to learn whether a system like On‐Demand Rideshare can result in improved service at a reduced cost. If so, it would no longer contribute to the cost of the two low‐performing fixed routes and reallocate some of the savings to provide higher frequencies on the bus routes serving transit‐dependent populations.
4.4 Alameda County, CA: AC Transit Flex
4.4.1 Background The Alameda‐Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) serves the 364‐square‐mile East Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay Area. It includes all of Alameda County, including the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, as well as the westernmost portions of Contra Costa County. Within this area, AC Transit operates 485 buses on 112 routes, serving some 52 million passenger boardings annually. Many of its lines connect with trains of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, which serves the East Bay as well as much of the rest of the Bay Area. AC Transit noticed that ridership declines experienced in recent years were steepest in the less dense portions of its service area.11 For example, in the adjacent cities of Newark and Fremont in southern Alameda County, ridership fell 20% at the same time that it declined only 3% in Oakland and Berkeley. Given the rising popularity of ride‐hailing and microtransit services, AC Transit became interested in testing the viability of operating its own microtransit in lower‐density areas. The agency also wanted to ensure equity and access for its constituency. The aim was to determine if on‐demand service could improve the customer experience at a cost equal to or lower than fixed‐route service. If successful, microtransit could potentially free up resources that could be reinvested in higher frequencies for fixed‐route service in corridors with greater ridership potential. Both the City of Newark and the unincorporated area of Castro Valley (population 61,000), 15 miles to its north, were chosen to test microtransit service (see Figure 3). These communities have average densities of about 3300 people per square mile (about the same as Sabre Springs). The Newark and Castro Valley services began with a soft launch in July 2016 and then operated as a pilot program between March 2017 and March 2018. At that point, the results were attractive enough for the AC Transit Board of Directors to move the services into regular
16
operation. Both had been given the name “Flex” to distinguish them from AC Transit’s other services. In order to avoid labor contract and other hurdles involved in engaging a private microtransit firm, AC Transit made the decision to use its own vehicles and drivers for Flex service. However, it lacked the software to enable it to operate a just‐in‐time on‐demand service (the agency’s current complementary paratransit service does not take same‐day reservations). AC Transit therefore partnered with DemandTrans Solutions, a company specializing in demand‐responsive scheduling, dispatch, and reservation software. DemandTrans supplied the software, as well as the necessary hardware for the vehicles.
4.4.2 Description of the Service Flex service is available Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) between 6 AM and 8 PM.12 Customers book trips through AC Transit’s web site (there is no app), or they may call an agent to reserve a ride. They are then directed to a nearby bus stop in their area. Patrons are asked to provide 30 minutes notice for their trip, and they can receive an email or text when the bus is ten minutes away. Customers can schedule trips up to three months in advance or alternatively schedule subscription rides for pick‐ups at regular days/times of their choosing. Both the Newark and Castro Valley Flex services connect with BART; Flex can be accessed from a BART station in or near each of the two areas without a reservation at set times on a 30‐minute (Newark) or 60‐minute (Castro Valley) schedule. Flex fares are identical to conventional AC Transit routes, priced at $2.35 for adults and $1.15 for youths, seniors, and the disabled. Monthly passes and regional Clipper reloadable fare cards are also accepted. Service is provided by three 16‐passenger 26‐foot Ford Eldorado cutaway buses that had been purchased by the agency for other purposes but never used. Each is equipped with a wheelchair lift, accommodating disabled passengers wishing to use Flex. Two buses are used to serve Newark and one to serve Castro Valley.
17
Figure 3. AC Transit Flex Castro Valley and Newark
service areas
18
Newark Flex operates in a seven square‐mile area in the northerly half of the city, within which about 50 bus stop pairs are served. It began as an overlay to a poorly performing fixed‐route bus line, Route 275, which ran on 45‐ to 60‐minute headways. The two services operated simultaneously during the eight‐month soft launch, with Flex providing 30‐minute service. When the pilot began, Route 275 was terminated, though eight other local routes continued to operate in different parts of the Flex service area. In Castro Valley, Flex operates every 60 minutes in a five square‐mile area, serving about 40 bus stop pairs. This area was already covered by two local fixed routes that operated hourly, as well as two transbay routes that provided peak direction service to and from San Francisco via the Oakland Bay Bridge. When the pilot ended, the two local fixed routes—Routes 32 and 48—were consolidated and restructured, resulting in a single new route with lower operating costs. The web site for Flex is http://www.actransit.org/flex/.
4.4.3 Performance According to AC Transit data, Flex carried over 23,000 trips in 2017. More recent daily ridership has been averaging about 59 passengers for Newark and 41 passengers for Castro Valley. The agency estimates that there are over 700 unique riders, 70% of whom are return customers. Productivity in the respective service areas has slipped, however. For example, Route 275 that formerly served Newark averaged 7 passengers per hour, and AC Transit was shooting for 5 to 7 passengers per hour with Flex. However, the Newark service has yielded just over 2 passengers per hour and the Castro Valley service just under 3; the Castro Valley service does reach 7 passengers per hour during the morning peak. AC Transit’s fixed‐route bus lines typically achieve over 10 passengers per hour, with a few exceeding 50.13 However, there is no service standard for routes categorized as Very Low Density, which included the curtailed Route 275. AC Transit estimates that about a third of Route 275’s ridership switched over to Flex, while about half switched to other nearby routes.14 As was noted earlier, ridership had been falling in Newark even before Flex was initiated, and it’s tempting to conclude that Flex did not change that. However, it may have stabilized ridership, since 90% of those polled desired Flex to stay, rather than reverting back to Route 275. The Flex services in Newark and Castro Valley have been cost‐neutral for AC Transit. From a capital point of view, the agency was able to take advantage of the unique circumstance of having suitable vehicles in storage that cost almost nothing to commission. On the operating side, the expense of maintaining and fueling the 26‐foot cutaways is about two‐thirds that of standard transit buses. Other savings are achieved through fewer miles operated due to more efficient routing and fewer passengers served. There are additional operating costs stemming from the new software and routing technology, but these are offset by the savings just described. In total, Flex operating costs do not exceed the costs of operating the fixed‐route bus lines that were eliminated or restructured. An important factor in this calculus is that the same number of drivers needed for the former bus lines is used for the Flex services..
19
AC Transit’s fully allocated cost is $206 per hour for its fixed routes, and very similar for Flex. In Newark, with an average of about 28 operating hours a day (including layover), Flex incurs an average daily operating expense of $5700; with daily ridership averaging 59 passengers, the fully allocated cost per passenger is $96.61. In Castro Valley, the service operates about 14 hours and costs $2850 a day; with average daily ridership of 41 passengers, the fully allocated cost per passenger is $69.49. In comparison, the AC Transit fixed‐route buses average $6.83 per passenger, while its ADA paratransit service averages $51.35 per passenger.
4.4.4 Administrative Arrangements15 Two members of AC Transit’s elected board of directors stepped up as champions of the Flex program and helped see it through to fruition. No government or venture capital grants were used to subsidize Flex, which is financed from AC Transit’s general operating funds. Marketing the service was very limited at the outset, consisting of a brochure and website, so the onus was on prospective passengers to learn about it themselves. Once the pilot services began, an extensive marketing campaign was undertaken; this included a direct mail campaign, distribution of brochures, and the posting of ambassadors at one of the BART stations. In order to procure the scheduling software, AC Transit released an RFP in 2015 and went through a formal procurement process before selecting DemandTrans Solutions. In preparing for the launch of the service, AC transit and its chief labor union, ATU, negotiated a memorandum of understanding that allowed operators to be selected without bidding during the pilot. After regular service began, operators could bid based on seniority and a statement of interest in driving the route. Financial incentives were initially provided to increase that interest. Both routes are expected to transition to the normal bid and training process next year. AC Transit’s objective with Flex was cost neutrality, allowing it to shift resources from poorly performing feeder routes to trunk line services with more ridership potential. The agency hopes to get more ridership and revenue from the higher‐frequency fixed routes; Flex is just a means of retaining coverage to enable this strategy. Flex is not expected by itself to be cost‐effective. Based on its experience in Newark and Castro Valley, AC Transit is planning to expand the Flex concept to several nearby communities in the next few years.
5.0 Adaptation of Shared Mobility Partnerships to San Diego County Reviewing the experience of public/private partnerships in shared mobility certainly reveals very mixed results. Many partnerships across the country have been initiated as pilots, and several have been curtailed when those programs ended. Two of the case studies discussed here—in Pinellas County and Alameda County—have been considered successful enough by
20
their public sponsors to be continued or expanded. (Since the third, in West Sacramento, began so recently, no decision has been made on its desirability for continuation.) The little data available on operations point to low effectiveness compared to conventional fixed‐route transit. In spite of this, many public agencies are considering the incorporation of shared mobility partnerships as components of their transit systems. Two explanations are that (1) the areas they serve would not be cost‐effective for any form of transit, so it’s less expensive to provide shared mobility options than fixed‐route bus lines, and (2) shared mobility that overlaps fixed‐route service fills travel needs not satisfied by the fixed routes alone. Prevailing public policies on service equity are a major consideration. If geographical or socio‐economic policies promote such service, then the public body wishing to sponsor it should undertake a comparative analysis of fixed‐route versus shared‐route approaches. Assuming that labor contracts and other administrative issues can be reconciled, then whichever approach is more cost‐effective would appear to be the desirable solution. However, in the absence of such policies, the perennial shortage of funds for transit operation dictates a more stringent approach. The Metropolitan Transit System already has standards for acceptable performance to guide it in deciding whether or not transit service is warranted. Existing service is always difficult to eliminate, so transforming it to a shared mobility service, with or without a private partner, may be one way to provide lifeline service at reduced cost, assuming the calculations bear this out. This approach doesn’t do much for improving the overall performance of the system but at least minimizes the overall cost to MTS while retaining a measure of mobility to residents. When considering a service request in an area not currently served, the converse is true. A shared mobility solution may prove to be less expensive for the agency to assume while providing some mobility to residents. If the demand for this service exceeds expectations, the service could be considered for conversion to a fixed route. It should also be noted that MTS is no stranger to shared mobility, having operated dial‐a‐rides,
DART, and flexible fixed‐route services in the past. Most were discontinued in favor of fixed
routes, the predictability of which the public seems to favor. What could make these operations
more viable today are smartphone apps and the operation of such services through private
sector partnerships. Nonetheless, whether operated publicly or privately, the question comes
back to whether any form of transit service is warranted in a low‐performing area. A recent
post on Streetsblog USA warned that extending transit into areas that are not productive may
only accelerate the downward trend in ridership by diverting scarce resources away from areas
of where productivity is high. 16
21
Nevertheless, the situation in most communities, San Diego included, is that political necessity
sometimes overcomes objective analysis. In such cases, shared mobility solutions may prove to
be the more cost‐effective way to go. Whether these take the form of MTS operating its own
microtransit or partnering with a private firm will depend upon the calculations involved in the
specific situation. Given the variety of forms of public/private partnerships—sharing of apps,
private operation of microtransit, or subsidizing ride‐hailing services—a solution may be
attractive that wouldn’t have been just a few years ago. However, from current experience, it
appears that such partnerships, at least for the next few years, will be confined to niche
markets and special circumstances, rather than adopted wholesale as a new direction for the
system.
Perhaps a fitting closure to this discussion is a quotation from AC Transit’s John Urgo, who has
been overseeing the Flex program described earlier:
To borrow a concept from transportation consultant Jarrett Walker, transit agencies
have dual and often competing goals of “coverage”—ensuring everyone, particularly
those in need, have access to some transit service—and “frequency”—investing in
service levels that make taking transit convenient and useful to more people.17
Shared mobility partnerships should be considered as possible options for satisfying the
coverage goal.
22
6.0 Endnotes
1 https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/tncs‐existential‐threat‐to‐public‐transportation/ 2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/falling‐transit‐ridership‐poses‐an‐emergency‐for‐cities‐experts‐fear/2018/03/20/ffb67c28‐2865‐11e8‐874b‐d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.7c286ddd6bae 3 Shared‐Use Mobility Center (for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)), Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit Research Analysis, March 2016. p. 2 4 http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/research/what‐can‐transit‐agencies‐learn‐from‐tncs‐late‐night‐popularity/ 5 Walker, Jarrett. Human Transit series of blogs in February 2018 6 https://gainesvillebizreport.com/uber‐uf‐launch‐long‐term‐safe‐rides‐program/ 7 Much of the material in this section was provided by Bonnie Epstein of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. 8 https://medium.com/sidewalk‐talk/where‐new‐mobility‐and‐traditional‐transit‐are‐actually‐getting‐along‐15b235242430 9 Westervelt, Marla & Schank, Joshua & Huang, Emma. (2017). Partnerships with Technology Enabled Mobility Companies: Lessons Learned. Transportation Research Record, pp. 106‐112 10 Much of the material in this section was provided by Sarah Strand of the City of West Sacramento 11 Much of the material in this section was provided by John Urgo of AC Transit 12 http://www.actransit.org/flex/ 13 AC Transit. (Sept. 2017). 2017 Annual Ridership and Route Performance Report. 14 Westervelt, Marla et al. (2018) UpRouted: Exploring Microtransit in the United States. Eno Center for Transportation, p. 13 15 Westervelt, Marla et al. Ibid., pp. 12‐15 16 https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/06/26/the‐story‐of‐micro‐transit‐is‐consistent‐dismal‐failure/ 17 http://transitcenter.org/2018/05/15/adding‐flexible‐routes‐improve‐fixed‐route‐network/
23
Attachment 1. Urban Areas Similar to San Diego
MSA2010
Population
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.)
Transit Service
Area Pop.
Transit Service
Area (Sq. Mi.)
Annual Transit
Passenger Miles
Annual Transit
Vehicle Rev. MilesRank
San Diego‐Carlsbad‐San Marcos, CA 2,956,746 732 2,218,791 716 423,809,937 29,349,435 ‐
Minneapolis‐St. Paul‐Bloomington, MN‐WI 2,650,890 1,022 1,843,207 657 374,842,330 28,508,353 1
St. Louis, MO 2,150,706 924 1,540,000 558 311,089,167 30,068,819 2
Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 905 1,415,244 775 285,039,871 30,761,032 3
Portland, OR 1,849,898 524 1,542,044 533 516,666,002 34,933,108 4
Dallas, TX 5,121,892 1,779 2,334,880 650 483,808,003 47,654,717 5
Baltimore, MD 2,203,663 717 2,203,663 1,795 794,420,383 56,297,698 6
Denver‐Aurora‐Broomfield, CO 2,374,203 668 2,876,000 2,340 597,776,710 57,232,599 7
Tampa‐St. Petersburg‐Clearwater, FL 2,441,770 957 2,395,997 2,554 82,678,376 10,813,773 8
Seattle‐Tacoma‐Bellevue, WA 3,059,393 1,010 2,017,250 2,134 611,738,544 59,786,964 8
24
Attachment 2. U.S. Public/Private Partnerships, February 2018
Continued on next page
State Community # Program Public Partner Private Partner Type of Service Year Initiated S C
CAAlameda
County3 FLEX
AC Transit
(transit authority)
DemandTrans
Solutions
FM/LM microtransit in two service
areas, feeding BART2016
5Mobility‐on‐
Demand Prtnrshp
LA Metro
(transit authority)Lyft FM/LM connectivity to transit 2017
Tallahassee 21 Pace city Zagster Citywide bike share 2017
GA Atlanta 22Last Mile
Campaign
MARTA
(transit authority)Uber
Information sharing between MARTA
& Uber to provide FM/LM links2017
IN Noblesville 23 ‐none‐ city Zagster Downtown bike share 2018
LA New Orleans 24 Blue Bikes city Social Bicycles, Inc Citywide bike share 2017
MA Boston 25 Blue Bikes4 cities and Metro
Planning Council
Blue Cross Blue
ShieldRegional bikeshare 2018
MD Baltimore 26 ‐none‐ cityBaltimore Bike
Share, Lyft
Integrated ride‐sharing/bike‐sharing
at downtown locations via apps
2018‐2021
(3 years ‐ planned)
MI Dearborn 27Dearborn Bike
Share Programcity
Zagster, Beaumont
Health
Downtown bike share (discounted
for members)2017
citywide bike share
Discounted FM/LM for selected areasUber
Lyft
Uber
Bcycle
Lyft
Uber
2017
2017
2017
2016
2016
2016
2016
2018
2017
Uber, Lyft, zTrip
Uber
2016
(3 days only)
2017
(6‐month pilot)
2016
(6‐month pilot)
App for FM/LM fixed‐route public
shuttle for LRT station
Scoop Technologies
(software company)
RideCell
(software company)
city and downtown
partnership group
Discounted fares for shared mobility
trips to/from downtown during Xmas
Discounted FM/LM for bus stops on
two routes
RTD GO!
BART
(transit authority)
RTD
(transit authority)
VTA
(transit authority)
SMART Station
Access
Santa Clara
County
SC Ride
RT Station Link
VTA FLEX
city
city
city
P3GM, Noa Tech.,
NH Bike Share 17
14
16
7
4
2
1
13
12
11
10
9
Discouned FM/LM for bus stops in
selected areas
Discounted bike share near
university and downtown
PBSC Urban
Solutions
Lyft and
Whistlestop
SMART
(transit authority)
Discounted FM/LM for commuter rail
stations
city transit
department
San Joaquin
County
Phoenix
Tucson
Marin County
Pasadena
Sacramento
San Clemente
Discounted FM/LM for selected LRT
stations during launch of service
Lyft, Uber, Yellow
Cab
Discounted FM/LM for selected LRT
stations
FL
CT
2017
(6‐month pilot)
CO
HART
(transit authority)
PSTA
(transit authority)
App for free Lyft FM/LM for LRT
station2016‐2017
Discounted citywide and FM/LM for
commuter rail station2016
Door to
Downtown (D2D)
Loan Tree Link On‐
Demand
Hillsborough
Co. (Tampa)
Pinellas Co.
(St. Pete.)
Boulder
Lone Tree
(Denver area)
New Haven
FM/LM microtransit for bus stops or
areawide within selected area
Software for FM/LM public shuttle in
selected areas
20
19
AZ
LA Metro
(transit authority)
Integrated Car‐
pool to Transit
App for reserving a parking space at
rapid transit stations
Discounted FM/LM for transit centers
in areas beyond regular service
city
2017
(1‐year pilot)
2016
(1 month)
Los Angeles
Discounted FM/LM trips for selected
commuter rail stations2016
San Francisco
Bay Area
Discounted bike share citywidecity, LA Metro
(transit authority)
SacRT
(transit authority)
First Mile Last
Mile
Tugo
Expo Line Launch
Metro Bike Share8
Transdev
(transit operator)
Los Angeles
County6 ‐none‐
LA Metro
(transit authority)Lyft
Centennial
(Denver area)15
First Mile Last
Mile Pilot city, TMA, PID
Lyft, Via, Conduent
(software company)
Altamonte
Springs 18 ‐none‐ city Uber
Bike New Haven
HART HyperLINK
Direct Connect
25
Source: Shared‐Use Mobility Center
MN Twin Cities 28 ‐none‐cities (Minneapolis,
St. Paul)HOURCAR Transit/car‐share system integration 2015
MO Kansas City 29 Ride KC: BridjKCATA
(transit authority)Bridj Radial peak‐hour microtransit
2016
(1‐year pilot)
NJ Summit 30 ‐none‐ city UberDiscounted rides to transit to ease
station area congestion
2016
(6‐month pilot)
NYAlbany and
Vicinity31 CDPHP Cycle!
CDTA
(transit authority)
Cap. Dist. Phys.'
Health Plan
Discounted rides for members via
app2017
OH Dayton 32 RTA ConnectRTA
(transit authority)Lyft
Rural FM/LM connections to transit
stations2017
OR Portland 33Adaptive
Biketown
city bureau of
transportation
Different Spokes,
Nike
Access to tandem, hand‐cycle, and
three‐wheeled bikes2017
PA Philadelphia 34 ‐none‐SEPTA
(transit authority)Uber
FM/LM discounted rides to/from
suburban rail stations
2016
(4‐month pilot)
Pittsburgh 35 Healthy RidePAT
(transit authority)
Pittsburgh Bike
ShareFM/LM connections to transit 2017
TX Austin 36 PickupCapital Metro
(transit authority)Via
Ride‐hailing bus service App
(microtransit)2017
37First and Last Mile
Solution
DART
(transit authority)
Uber, Lyft, Irving
Holdings
FM/LM connectivity to transit,
especially in non‐walkable areas2017
38 ‐none‐DART
(transit authority)Uber, Lyft
FM/LM connectivity from areas not
served by transit2015
San Antonio 39Take Uber.
Ride Via.
VIA
(transit authority)Uber
Discounted rides to from VIA Park &
Ride stops during Fiesta San Antonio
April 2016
(2‐day promo)
VA Roanoke 40 ‐none‐ cityRIDE Solutions,
Zagster, Carilion Cl.
Discounted rides for citywide
bikeshare2017
WA 41Mobility‐on‐
Demand Prtnrshp
Sound Transit
(transit authority)Lyft FM/LM connectivity to transit 2017
42Don't Leave It to
Luck Partnershipcity Uber
Discounted rides for people after
alcohol consumption
2017
(10‐month pilot)
43 Zip and RideWashington and
Oregon DOTsZipcar Transit/car‐share system integration 2017
44 ‐none‐ cityScoop Technologies
(software company)
Microtransit carpooling (discounted)
in specific zip codes
2017
(3‐month pilot)
45You Drink, We
Drive Partnershipcity Lyft
Discounted rides for people after
alcohol consumption
2015‐2016
(1 year pilot)
Tacoma 46Limited Access
Connections
Pierce Transit,
Sound Transit
Pierce College
Puyallup
FM/LM rides, guaranteed rides
home, rides to Park‐and‐Ride2016
WI Milwaukee 47 Buslr PassMCTS
(transit authority)Bublr
Integrated pass valid for both transit
and bike share2017
Column S: Areas similar to San Diego
Column C: Suggested candidates for white paper
Seattle
Dallas