The False Promise of Microtransit

Earlier this month, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) has published a paper titled The False Promise of Microtransit," (pdf) a critique of flexible transit services like King County Metro's Via to Transit" and Pierce Transit's Runner.

From the ATU's press release:

The reality of microtransit, like other technology fads, is that it's less impressive and more expensive than proponents suggest," said ATU International President John Costa. It doesn't reliably deliver cost savings, real environmental benefits, or equitable service. What microtransit does do is threaten good transit jobs - real, long-term careers - by shifting service to gig workers and setting off a race to the bottom. Nobody wants to talk about that."

The paper describes four shortcomings of microtransit service:

Microtransit cannot efficiently scale to meet increased customer demand.

It has been shown to serve a younger, more affluent, and less diverse ridership than fixed route service.

Its environmental benefit is doubtful.

It encourages cost cutting through privatization and the degradation of transit jobs.

After discussing each of these shortcomings in detail, the ATU makes the following recommendations to improve transit without implementing microtransit services:

Investments should be made in the transit workforce to overcome the operator shortage and guarantee reliable service. Creating and sustaining good transit jobs is the best way to attract more workers to the industry. Good transit jobs benefit local communities, unlike microtransit companies that profit by misclassifying their workforce as independent contractors.

Bus routes should be reconfigured to better serve passengers when and where they need to travel. The reality is that commuting patterns have fundamentally changed. Transit agencies must also make changes to improve existing services, such as reducing headways, building better bus shelters, and enhancing pedestrian connections to stops.

The paper recognizes that microtransit may be used to meet coverage goals that would otherwise be unaffordable, such as service to low-population exurban and rural communities. In that case, the ATU makes the obvious recommendation that microtransit services be provided by public transit employees instead of independent contractors.

Transit planning consultant Jarret Walker has written extensively on the topic of microtransit, coming to the conclusion that although microtransit (also referred to as flexible transit", demand responsive transit", or on-demand transit"), is much less efficient than typical fixed-route transit. Unlike typical mass transit, which becomes more efficient with increased ridership, microtransit becomes less efficient with increased interest. However, Walker concedes that flexible transit may be the most efficient way to provide coverage (but not capacity) to very low density or otherwise low-ridership areas.

The transition of underperforming fixed-route service to microtransit has been ongoing in the Puget Sound, most recently with Pierce Transit's retirement" of routes 13, 63, and 425, each replaced by Runner microtransit service. Only time will tell if these changes are equitable or efficient.