Let’s talk about Microtransit. Loosely, microtransit is described as:
Microtransit refers to a flexible, on-demand transportation service that operates in smaller vehicles, typically within a defined area, to provide convenient and efficient transit options. It is designed to complement traditional public transit by offering personalized routing and scheduling, often using mobile apps for ride requests. This system can effectively replace low-performing bus routes by catering to specific community needs and improving overall accessibility.
and the city is exploring just that. We may see some low-performing bus routes replaced with a microtransit zone. Users can use an app to call a ride starting and ending within each zone.
This proposal here lists several potential zones around Raleigh and I’m curious to get thoughts from the community.
For me, this seems to make sense, at a high level, as we shift to more higher frequency routes serving areas closer in town. The suburban areas around the edge of the city could see better coverage and service at the same, or even lower, cost than running a bus there now.
That’s certainly simplifying the argument but any other perspectives would be appreciated and I’ll share what I know as we go through this. This is from a much longer doc that I’ll save for later as it’s still under review.
I think microtransit is a great move for capturing demand in areas that are too sprawled for fixed-route service. It frees up buses (and, by extension, CDL drivers) for higher-demand routes while ensuring you still have coverage in the less-dense parts of your service area.
A personal example: my office is in Zone 2 (Wade Park), and the existing fixed-route service (GoRaleigh 26) is just not working out. Edwards Mill has a massive ROW that is a pain to cross at many points and has minimal frontage, often making for a decent walk after you alight at your stop. On top of that, all the direct connections to the 26 are on the northern half of the route, making the trip to downtown from the southern end very indirect. I’ve often been the only person on that bus. Taking the 100 to the fairgrounds and then transferring to microtransit would probably shave close to 30min off that trip, assuming wait times were relatively short.
Like anything, there are great examples and terrible ones. I’m just going to rattle off a bunch of scattered observations and see if I can get a conversation going:
Microtransit should feed into fixed-route corridors, not replace them altogether. The more frequent those routes are, the better, as it can be hard to time transfers for microtransit when demand is high.
On that note, microtransit gets much harder to book when the zones are too large. Unlike Uber/Lyft, your roster of drivers is generally much more limited, and wait times can become entirely unreasonable when demand is high. I noticed this with the initial pilot for GoWake SmartRide NE when it first rolled out a couple years ago: the zone was all of Wendell, Zebulon, and Rolesville, as well as a small portion of Knightdale. I tried using it once for fun and ended up having to book an Uber after like four or five failed attempts due to high demand. I’ve been keeping an eye on the new Go Wake Forest microtransit and am noticing a similar issue (though GoRaleigh’s new MicroLink service in Rolesville seems to be doing okay). If it’s unreliable, people will eventually give up on it.
One thing I really, really like about Morrisville’s Smart Shuttle service is the nodes. Granted, Morrisville is the perfect place for something like this, where there are a bunch of little semi-walkable hubs that aren’t really arranged in a way that is conducive to fixed-route service. I can see this model working well in some of the zones on @dtraleigh’s map (like West Raleigh and Brier Creek) and failing miserably in others (Southeast Raleigh).
If riders find themselves relying on microtransit on a regular basis (such as for a commute), I think the ability to schedule in advance is pretty huge, especially if I’m connecting to a bus route that isn’t very frequent. Advanced scheduling ensures that I’m a) making my connection on time and b) prioritized when demand is high.
I’d love to see integration into route planning apps like Transit. Even if all it does is direct you to another app, just knowing that the option exists is huge. I have yet to see something like this in Google or Apple Maps, but there’s now a GTFS standard for microtransit (GTFS-Flex), so hopefully we see that in the near future.
Personally, not a huge fan of the whole “$10 stipend to use Uber/Lyft” thing. They have this in RTP (RTP Connect), and, on the surface, it’s a pretty convenient way to pilot a microtransit service… but there are downsides. For one, this type of service typically isn’t exempt from surge pricing, so if you book at peak times and it ends up costing you an extra $5, too bad. Similarly, you’re still expected to tip (and you should, because Uber/Lyft get the majority of that base fare). Also, if the service is supposed to be seen as an extension of your transit agency, it’s probably best to have professional drivers and branded vehicles operating it.
Lastly, I should be able to sign up for this thing on my phone in less than a minute. Via is great for this (and I know that’s what GoRaleigh MicroLink is using, so hopefully we stick with that). By contrast, you currently have to call to set up an account for GoWake SmartRide NE, which is, frankly, kind of annoying. In that same vein, though, not everyone has a smartphone (even in 2024), so it’s still best to have a dial-in option as well.
I meant to put like three things here and ended up getting kind of carried away, but those are my initial thoughts. Hopefully this is helpful. I should probably just apply for Raleigh Transit Authority at this point… I already stream all the meetings.
To add to this, I think there should be an emphasis on targeting those with disabilities and people over the age of 65.
I say this because these populations are steadily increasing throughout the Triangle and they are the most vulnerable (along with children) when it comes to traffic safety. Also, many of these individuals may be living alone or living in no-car households, which prevents them from getting to their doctor’s appointments, etc. safely.
Microtransit is a questionable allocation of resources.
For paratransit, it may be the only practical way to go. But for general transit, it performs poorly compared with fixed route service.
GoRaleigh: 14 passengers per revenue hour systemwide.
GoTriangle and GoCary both average about 7.
Morrisville’s Smart Shuttle is just over 3.
I am not 100% sure on this but my inclination is to say that: when you get to the point in terms of density where fixed routes are no longer practical or possible, let the transit end there. Microtransit generally maxes out around 4-5 passengers per revenue hour - and that’s peak. Trying to go much above that results in long waits or refused rides. Of course a system can add more buses, but in an area like Morrisville each bus will again struggle to exceed 4 or 5 passengers per hour. It’s just not very efficient.
As for what Morrisville should do instead: GoTriangle’s 310 covers the NC54 side of town pretty well, duplicating much of the Smart Shuttle’s service area. It is getting set to move to 30 minute frequency in February 2025.
For the rest of town, they could take the Smart Shuttle funds, and work with Cary to start a fixed route that goes up and down Davis Drive - and probably get twice the ridership of the Smart Shuttle for the same amount of money spent.
Ehh it’s a somewhat wider range of options, from Uber/Lyft to vans/mini-buses that have flexible routes and can be ordered. The most popular option for municipalities is the latter since that option is more feasible due to financial constraints.
In general I don’t think it’s too bad. I keep going back and forth on it, but don’t really see a huge reason on why it shouldn’t be done; Especially if it leads to lower costs. I would still like to see additional funding going towards complete streets infrastructure. Maybe the saved funds could be allocated to that. I don’t think it’s likely since it’s a separate budget.
I’d be curious on how it would operate and what changes that would entail as far as coverage zones.
When I lived near RTP, I used the RTP connect that @colbyjd3 mentioned above. Before it, there was a shuttle that you could call through an app. The problem is that it took a very long time to get the shuttle to come out. Once I was on the shuttle, we also ran into an issue where we went to pick up one other person; That person never showed which added to my travel time.
Microtransit isn’t great because it cannot become efficient. Efficiency doesn’t scale with more ridership, beyond a ceiling of about 4 or 5 passengers per bus-hour. If your system carries 20 passengers during the peak hour, you need at least 4, possibly 5 buses running.
Is the rider experience much better than an hourly bus? Debatable. Half-hourly? Probably not. It can take a really long time for the ride to arrive. Door-to-door, or node-based quasi door-to-door service sounds convenient, but when you have to wait 45 minutes for your ride to show up, and then divert to pick other passengers up or drop them off, the trip becomes circuitous and slow. For the able-bodied, it would be better to time your departure according to a schedule, and just walk the longer distance to a bus stop.
So for fixed-route transit, when an operating agency starts a new route. It might have low ridership at first, but often as time goes on people adjust to it and ridership increases, especially if the route is in an area that is developing. But the productivity ceiling is much higher. Often if a new fixed route doesn’t clear at least the 5 passenger per revenue hour benchmark (which is the max that is generally even possible with microtransit) the route will be cancelled after a year or two and the resources reallocated somewhwere else.
Easily half of these transit deserts can be resolved by just PUTTING A PROPER BUS LINE! Especially Brier Creek and North Hills. Paratransit? Sure, if you want to, but not after you tried a fixed-route bus route. For North Hills and the 27L corridor, there needs to be a frequent bus route going from the Fairgrounds, past the Museum of Art, Rex Hospital, Crabtree, North Hills, the Midtown area, and out to Capital Boulevard. Maybe even extend it to New Bern Avenue.
For half of these proposed microtransit zones, the rationale is a lack of crosstown connectivity. For North Hills, the rationale is “East-west connectivity is very limited, with no direct route from North Hills to the Crabtree Valley Mall area.” Then put a bus line there! Are you seriously telling me there is not enough demand for a bus route between two of the busiest shopping areas in Raleigh? Do you know what the biggest complaint about the bus system I hear from people around here, besides the frequency? That, to get anywhere, you need to go through downtown. Sure, for seniors, microtransit may be useful. But for somebody like me, all I want are proper crosstown connections! Still waiting on that bus route along Lynn Road.
As for Brier Creek, that area just needs proper transit. Raleigh keeps forgetting Brier Creek exists and that it’s actually fairly dense. They just finally got an all-day bus connection to the rest of Raleigh. Expand that route, add a route to RDU and RTP, and include a bus circulator around the shopping area and connecting the apartment areas to the west and east of the shopping centers.
I keep going back and forth. If anything I would say user smaller/cheaper buses on fixed routes services where the demand isn’t that high. I have a feeling the proposed service areas provided would be way too large. This could also in a way compete with existing fixed route service. Route 27 could be replaced with the microtransit during less busy times. I like route 27 as is since it serves areas of interest such as the mall, hospital, NCMA, and fairgrounds. It goes by a few apartment complexes and technicially is within half a mile of a few more. My main complaints are that it was poorly utilized during the fair along with GoTriangle routes (Click here to see my post).
If microtransit is going to be used, then use it to create new fixed routes in areas of at least moderate density or as connector routes. Using them for people in less dense areas doesn’t do much for reducing traffic or overall carbon emissions. These are 2 things that public transit should be used to accomplish. I wouldn’t have an issue with one being used to create a local Brier Creek fixed route. Brier Creek has a lot of apartments. I would avoid going down the neighborhood next to Arnold Palmer Drive. It should be expected that if you live in a less dense area, that you are not going to have amenities that come with higher density. Connector routes between routes 36, 8, and 2 would also be good. A while ago, there was the GoTriangle route which went along Lynn Rd. A smaller fixed route from Lake Lynn to North Ridge Shopping Center would provide a connector between the 3 routes.
The fixed routes also set a precedent for planning. This is helpful for transit oriented development.
Fwiw the reason they advertise the shuttle buses and not regular transit to the state fair is that they charge an arm and a leg to ride the shuttle and ridership is so intense to the point that I can’t imagine it doesn’t at least break even. It might well be profitable for the transit agencies who run them.
I’m pretty against “microtransit”, although less against Via (the contractor that operates the Morrisville Smart Shuttle and would operate GoRaleigh Microtransit) than things like RTP Connect. My understanding is that Via shares more data with transit agencies, so they know where the demand is and are generally a better contractor than Lyft but it doesn’t take much for a fixed route service to out perform a demand response “microtransit” service in financial effectiveness. My understanding is GoApex Route 1 was started in part on data provided by a Via Microtransit pilot.
Jarrett Walker has covered “Microtransit” pretty extensively in posts like:
TLDR: if your route does more than 5 boardings per service hour, which isn’t much, it’s more cost effective as a fixed route.
Replacing Fixed Route service, with “microtransit” is on average a decrease of access to transit riders. I don’t think that GoRaleigh would be benefited by introducing one more contractor in order to operate microtransit unless we combine it with Paratransit, I don’t think it’s worth it. Via does operate Paratransit, and I imagine we could combine the contracts but right now Paratransit in Raleigh is mostly Taxi’s. I don’t know how they would act, if we were to start contracting with Via.
Denton, TX replaced their whole system besides their rail line with “microtransit” branded “GoZone” contracted through Via and are now reintroducing fixed routes at the begging of riders. Their advocacy group made the greatest stickers “Sorry I’m late, I took a GoZone.” since the system did not handle the number of riders they had.
I think this is my biggest issue with microtransit, too. For me, the problem microtransit is solving is not one of efficiency, but one of transportation access and equity for people with mobility impairments who can’t get much further than their front door. Microtransit is just the wrong tool for the job when it comes to mass public transit.
I agree with this too. Whereas with a fixed route all you have to do is show up at the stop, microtransit requires an additional step of ordering the ride. Fixed routes are also much more visible to the community that they serve since they can be seen on the same road at the same time every day.
Here’s my idea: Deviated fixed routes on small vehicles (capacity for fewer than 15 passengers so they can be operated by drivers who don’t have a CDL) may be a good compromise because it means that the bus is at the same place at the same time every day, but it can also cater to those who may have mobility impairments. The route schedules can be synched up with their nearest bus route and also serve neighborhood destinations and can help the existing fixed route service area penetrate deeper into areas not suitable for a full-length bus.
Deviations are a necessity for paratransit service, where door-to-door / curb-to-curb / origin-to-destination service is a non-negotiable statutory requirement. In an area as suburban and sprawled as ours, this means that microtransit is the only option.
On the other hand, able-bodied people have the abilty to walk to bus stops, half a mile or more if necessary, so keeping the route predictable and direct is important for the efficency and usefulness of the system on the whole. No deviations, no scheduled pick ups, as few jogs away from a straight line as possible.
It may be superficially appealing to collapse transit and paratransit into a single operation, but the needs and statutory requirements are so different that with the built environment of our region this is just too inefficient and not sensible. It is unfortunate that service for disabled people vs able-bodied people have to be almost completely independent of each other, and superficially this might even seem discriminatory in some way - but this is reality.
Therefore, our region should put all its transit eggs into the following two baskets, and these two only:
Fixed route transit. Scheduled service along consistent routes that are as simple and direct as reasonably possible.
Paratransit. Schedulable, dial-a-ride service for disabled people.
