Transit in Flex: Examining Service Fragmentation of App ... · This project seeks to understand: 1)...

Transit in Flex:Examining Service Fragmentation of App-Based, On-Demand Public Transit Services in Texas

David Weinreich, Ph.D.

Matt Reeves

Amruta Sakalker

Shima Hamidi, Ph.D.

The Cost of Transfers

• Reduces ridership about 25%

• Transfer between modes reduces ridership by 55%

(Liu, Pendyala and Polzin 1998; 91-92)

Photo by David Weinreich

Managing Transfers, Reducing Impacts

• Smart cards

• App-based fare payment

• Shared transfer facilities

• Coordinated scheduling/timed transfers

• Shared Maintenance facilities

• Shared information across agencies

• Institutional Solutions

(Rivasplata, 2012; Miller et al., 2005; Weinreich, 2016 & 2017)

Governance Impacts on Transit Coverage

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). DART History. https://www.dart.org/about/history.asp; Texas Association of Counties. Dallas County Profile.http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/profile.php?FIPS=48113

To what degree are boundaries overcome?

Public choice / regional reform debate: Feiock (2007; 2004); Norris (2001); Lowery (1999); Ostrom & Ostrom(1972); Ostrom, Tiebout & Warren (1961); Lowery (1999)

Networks literature: LeRoux & Carr (2010); Thermaier& Wood (2002)

Policy integration literature: Miller (2004); Preston (2010); Stead & Meijers (2009)

Service integration literature: Miller & Lam (2003), Miller et al. (2005)

Transit collaboration literature: Bollens (1997); Crisholm (1989)

How can we tell if a metropolitan public transportation system is “regionalized”?

Weinreich, Skuzinski et al., 2018

Are higher-scale organizations making decisions?

Multilevel governance literature:

Vogel (2007), Hamilton, Miller & Peytas (2004)

How can we tell if a metropolitan public transportation system is “regionalized”?

Weinreich, Skuzinski et al., 2018

Typology of On-Demand Services in LiteratureType Criteria Literature Examples From This Study

Ridesourcing/Ride-Hailing/Transportation Network Companies/TNCs

App-based service that connects community riders who drive private cars for customers

(Rayle et al., 2016; Clewlow et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2018)

-Capital Metro (MetroLink),-DCTA (Highland Village Lyft-Frisco AV-Frisco On-Demand(UNT Lyft)

E-Hail Taxi service equipped for apps (Jin et al., 2018) Houston Arro

Shared Ride-Hailing/Ridesplitting Combines passengers with a similar route, splits their fare

(Rayle et al., 2016; Clewlow et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2018)

DART was interested in putting UberPool in GoPass, but technology was not yet available to integrate it.

Microtransit/Shared Minibus Private commuting services similar to fixed route, with rides reserved by app

(Barbar & Burtch, 2017; Rayleet al., 2016; Clewlow et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2018)

-Alliance Link,

-DART Rylie & Kleberg service

Demand Responsive Connectors Connects passengers with rail station

(Errico et al., 2013; Koffman et al., 2004)

-Via,

-DART,

-Capital Metro (both services),

-San Antonio (planned)

Zone routes Trips around town, within a specific zone

(Errico et al., 2013; Koffman et al., 2004)

-DART,

-Denton (all six services),

-Arlington Via,

-Capital Metro Pickup Pilot,-San Antonio (planned)

Semi-Flexible Route Models

(Errico et al, 2013; Koffman, 2004)

Research Questions

This project seeks to understand:

1) Employment of app-based, on-demand TNCs for public transit & purposes of these services.

2) Does government-planned, app-based, on-demand transit serve areas outside formal jurisdictional boundaries?

3) What app-based, on-demand providers have done to overcome jurisdictional fragmentation, and what they can do.

• Survey Population: 2,997, from Texas Municipal League list, Counties, MPOs, Transit Providers

• Responses: 353

• 333 completed survey

• Indicated on-demand service: 90

• Indicated app-based, on-demand service: 23

• Most cases were paratransit, rural, or suburban. Few urban.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Descriptive Data

Most= Supplement Traditional Transit, Not a Replacement

Supplement Replacement

Purpose of App-Based, On-Demand Services

Summary of App-

Based, On-Demand

Services

Arlington On-Demand

w/ VIA Rideshare

• Arlington On-Demand, operated by Via, offers a MOD zone for a flat fee of $3 (M-F 6am – 9pm, S 9am-9pm.)• Currently there are no monetary incentives to

transfer between Arlington’s On-Demand service and existing transit.

• Minimal advertising to reduce cost to city.

• No signage at key transfer points.

About VIA: http://www.arlington-tx.gov/residents/via/

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

MOD zones are for first and last mile. Zones are currently not catering to all cities within DART service area.

Findings:

1) Physical Infrastructure

-Stations-Parking Bays-Signage-Shelters along routes

Photo by David Weinreich Photo by S. Matthew Reeves

2) Scheduling & Coordination

-Requires:-Frequent fixed route service-Arrival time scheduled in advance.-Timed transfers-Service time coordinated with fixed route schedule.

(Further research needed to quantify the effect on ridership and the rider experience).

3) Fare

-Lack of transfer discount will discourage ridership (e.g. when covered by two agencies, or service by a private contractor like Uber or Via).

4) Information Sharing

-Need better sharing between transit agencies, and with private contractors like Uber.

-Makes difficult to coordinate services, and sync supply with demand.

TapRideApplication, DART GoLinkpilots. (Reeves, 2019)

5) Special Events

-Found little evidence of integration in our cases.

-One service avoided providing rides after 9pm, as many special events occur then—to reduce costs.

Photo by David Weinreich

6) Apps

-Multiple apps, sometimes overlapping in the same city or same agency.-Private apps exacerbate situation-Makes coordination difficult for the other five areas.-Hampers use of services as first/last mile feeders.

Moving Forward

-Don’t assume app-based, on-demand services will be good feeders into fixed route transit.-Some permanence is good: e.g. sheltered waiting areas, signage.-Financial disincentives for high level of service in dense areas.-Funding at higher levels of government (E.g. MPO, State, Federal)-Leverage existing programs like Sandbox Grants to require coordination.-Coordination across agencies: MOUs, multi-jurisdictional funding, informal agreements.

Thank You

david.weinreich@uta.edu

https://www.autocar.co.nz/commercial-news-app/via-and-mercedes-benz-launch-london-rideshare-service

Number Rate (%)

Population 2,997

Starts 418 13.9

Responses 353 11.8

Non-consent 6 1.7

No item

completion 14 4.0

Completions 333 94.3

Survey Distribution and Response Characteristics

Regional Transit Operations Decisions

Localizedpatterns of interaction

Inst

itu

tio

ns

increased measures of gaps in coverage and access

Regionalpatterns of interaction

decreasedmeasures of gaps in coverage and access

Research framework