Transit in in Fle lex: Examining Service Fragmentation of App- - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

David Weinreich, Ph.D. Matt Reeves Amruta Sakalker Shima Hamidi, Ph.D.

The Cost of f 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 Im 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 Literature

Type 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; Rayle et 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

(Erric ico et al, l, 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.

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Descriptive Data

Most= Supplement Traditional Transit, , Not a Replacement

Supplement Replacement

Purpose of f App-Based, , On-Demand Services

Summary ry of f App- Based, On-Demand Services

Arlington On 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.

Fin indings: 1) ) Physical In Infrastructure

• Stations
• Parking Bays
• Sig

ignage

• Shelters alo

long 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) ) In Information Sharing

• Need better sharing between

transit agencies, and with private contractors like Uber.

• Makes difficult to coordinate

services, and sync supply with demand.

TapRide Application, DART GoLink

• pilots. (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
• verlapping in the same city
• r 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 Localized patterns of interaction

Institutions

increased measures of gaps in coverage and access Regional patterns of interaction decreased measures of gaps in coverage and access

Research framework