DOCSLIB.ORG

Ashland Demand Response Microtransit Demonstration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ashland Demand Response Microtransit Demonstration Project Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼ Powered by ZoomGrants™ Oregon Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit STIF Discretionary and Statewide Transit Network 2/1/2019 deadline Rogue Valley Transportation District Ashland Demand Response MicroTransit Demonstration Project Jump to: Application Questions Budget and Project Tables Document Upload Rogue Valley Transportation District Submitted: 2/1/2019 2:00:29 PM (Pacific) 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Telephone541-779-5821 Medford, OR 97504 Fax 541-773-2877 Web www.rvtd.org Project Contact General Manager EIN 93-0645766 Paige West Julie Brown [email protected] [email protected] Tel: 541-608-2429 Additional Contacts none entered Application Questions top Provider Information 1. Transit Agency Type gfedc City gfedc County gfedc Mass Transit District gfedc Transportation District ✔ Special District gfedc Intergovernmental Entity gfedc Municipal/Public Corporation or other political subdivision gfedc Indian Tribe gfedc Non-Profit gfedc Private For-Profit 2. What is the main type of service that will be supported by this grant? gfedc Fixed Route ✔ Demand Response gfedc Deviated Fixed Route Risk Assessment Information This risk assessment section contains a subset of the entire risk assessment. The entire risk assessment will be populated with the answers you provide in this section and data already reported to RPTD. Please contact [email protected] for assistance. 3. Did your agency have any turnover of management or financial staff in the last 2 years? gfedc Yes ✔ No 4. Does your agency have an accounting system that allows you to completely and accurately track the receipt and disbursement of funds related to the award? ✔ Yes gfedc No 5. What type of accounting system does your agency use? gfedc Manual ✔ Automated gfedc Combined 6. Does your agency have a system in place that will account for 100% of each employee’s time? ✔ Yes gfedc No 7. Did your staff members attend required training and meetings during prior grant awards? ✔ Yes gfedc No 8. Was your agency audited by the Federal government in the past 2 years? ✔ Yes gfedc No 9. If yes, did the audit result in one or more audit findings? gfedc Yes ✔ No gfedc N/A 10. Did your agency stay on budget in the past two years? ✔ Yes gfedc No Applicant Qualifications 11. Describe how your agency has legal, managerial and operational capacity to perform and report on project progress within the scope, schedule and budget. (Operational capacity specifically for workload of projects in this application.) Enter response in text box or upload your response on the Document Upload tab of the application and write "See Upload." RVTD has operated public transportation services since 1975. Governed by a 7-Member Board of Directors, RVTD was incorporated as a special transportation district by the Oregon legislature in 1975. The management team consists of the General Manager, Operations Manager, Senior Planner, Finance Manager and Accessible Transportation Manager. Managers and support staff attend professional training regularly. RVTD has prepared for additional service by continuing to hire drivers, expand its support staff roles and purchase buses. Additional technical capacity has been achieved with local plans, including the 2040 Transit Master Plan, Coordinated Human Services Plan and local city plans such as the Ashland Transit Feasibility Study. 12. Capacity to Maintain Compliance ✔ By checking this box, the applicant certifies that if they are awarded funding they are able to meet or will have the capacity to maintain compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations including, and not limited to, those pertaining to passenger transportation, civil rights, labor, insurance, safety and health. 13. Does the applicant plan to use a Sub-Recipient or contractor to implement the grant supported activity? gfedc Yes ✔ No 14. If Yes, please list the Sub-Recipient(s) and describe how the applicant will provide sufficient Sub-Recipient/contractor oversight to ensure eligibility is maintained while receiving STIF Discretionary or Statewide Transit Network moneys. If Yes, enter response in text box or upload response on the Document Upload tab and write "See Upload." If No, write N/A. N/A Project Information Try to answer all questions, even if your project does not fit neatly within a category. No answer means a zero score. 15. Describe the project to be funded. See application instructions for required content. Enter response in text box or upload response as an attachment in the Document Upload tab and write "See Upload." RVTD in partnership with the City of Ashland are proposing to implement a demand response MicroTransit demonstration project. The project would provide a flexible curb to curb demand response service that would connect riders to regional routes and provide access to various residential neighborhoods and activity centers that are not currently able to be served by RVTD’s fixed route system. The project would utilize on demand scheduling that would be similar to taxi and ride-hailing services and allows riders to request trips up to 30 minutes before. Sophisticated software creates a user friendly trip reservation system that would be available to riders by telephone, website, or smartphone app. Passengers will share rides to reduce the trip cost and improve efficiency. Fleet vehicles used for the project would be wheelchair equipped Ford Transit Hybrid Vans which utilize hybrid technology to reduce emissions and increase overall fuel efficiency. The ridesharing software provided through DoubleMap utilizes ruggedized tablets as hardware and software for 2 vehicles has a startup cost of $2500-3000 and $4000 per vehicle annually. The vehicles are compliant with FTA and ODOT vehicle requirements and are readily available through regional bus vendors. The service would be available for residents to schedule rides Monday through Saturday between 6:00am and 8:00pm. The service would increase transit connectivity as well as connecting riders to many key destinations such as downtown Ashland, Ashland Hospital, Science Works, Ashland Senior Center, Mountain Meadows Retirement Facility, and several previously inaccessible neighborhoods. During the Ashland Public Transit Expansion Study stakeholder noted throughout interviews and surveys that they needed to get to and from places beyond the Route 10 corridor. However steep hills and narrow streets prevent RVTD from accessing much of the city. With the use of smaller Ford Transit vans, RVTD will provide additional coverage to never before served areas and track origin, destination and ridership patterns. The project seeks to demonstrate that in a smaller city of 20,000 people MicroTransit can be an attractive mode of travel. The project also seeks to understand the feasibility of using smaller vehicle types to access challenging areas. 16. What Local Plans include this project and elements of the project? See guidance for exemptions to this requirement. Ashland Transit Expansion Study City of Ashland City Council Adopted: TBD in early March 2019; Recommended for Council consideration by Ashland Transportation Commission December 21, 2018 https://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=17617 Page numbers: Executive Summary pg. X; see full report for needs and strategy development. Ashland Climate and Energy Plan https://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Ashland%20Climate%20and%20Energy%20Action%20Plan_pages.pdf Page numbers: 63 and 64 RVTD's DRAFT 2040 Transit Master Plan, adoption in July 2019. 17. What is the minimum award amount that will still allow your project to proceed? Enter an amount in dollars. 400,000 18. Select the fund source(s) that you think best aligns with your application. Check all that apply ✔ STIF Discretionary ✔ STIF Intercommunity Discretionary gfedc FTA Section 5311 (f) Intercity Discretionary Equity and Public Transportation Service to Low Income Households (Score weights: Discretionary = 20%, STN = 10%) 19. Describe how the project supports and improves access for vulnerable populations. The demand response pilot’s flexible design and accessible vehicles will provide mobility and convenience to Ashland’s vulnerable populations. Low income residents (in households earning less than 200% of the federal poverty guidelines) make up 37% of the city’s population. Residential neighborhoods in Ashland such as the Transit Triangle overlay, reach nearly 50%. Ashland’s University student population has typically low income populations, as they may have fixed incomes during the school year. Of Jackson County’s population 40% fall below 200% poverty. Ashland has a growing older adult population, which increased 27% from 2010 to 2016, making up 21% of the city residential population. Stakeholders participating in the Ashland Transit Expansion Study noted that residents in Mountain Meadows, a community for older adults, had been asking for shared ride services for many years, as the homes are outside the RVTD paratransit boundary and inaccessible by larger buses. Likewise, people asked for shared ride transit service to the Ashland Senior Center, which is just over ¼ mile from the nearest Route 10 bus stop. Ashland has a busy service industry, catering to regional visitors and far-flung tourists throughout the year. Many of these jobs – such as food services, hospitality and retail – provide work for low to moderate- income people, many of whom commute to Ashland from Medford, Phoenix, and other neighboring communities. This pilot service will provide local mobility for people working in Ashland, allowing them to commute by bus, bike, walk or car, and then reach their final destination on the demand response shuttle. Resident demographics (ACS 5-Year Estimate data): 32% are over the age of 60 (OR:23%) 13% identify themselves as having a disability (OR:14.7%), of those 5.17% identify their disability as an ambulatory type (OR:7.6%). 10.68% of residents are enrolled in college 7.2% speak a language other than English 37.32% of residents are below the 200% poverty threshold (OR: 35.2%) which is 3,594 households. Jackson County is 40.4% residents are below the 200% poverty threshold.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BIKE SHARE in LOS ANGELES COUNTY an Analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze
    BIKE SHARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY An analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze visit us at scag.ca.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) On behalf of Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) BY ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jean Crowther, AICP Michael Jones Mike Sellinger WITH MOORE & ASSOCIATES Jim Moore Erin Kenneally Kathy Chambers SPECIAL THANKS TO City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Bicycle Transit Systems CycleHop And the many community members who gave their time and energy to participate in our outreach efforts and whose insights added to the value and relevance of this study and its recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS ..............................1 02 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS ..........................................3 03 WHAT THE DATA TELLS US ........................................5 04 WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS TELL US .................19 05 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .................27 APPENDICES A - Technology Integration Memo B - Statistical Analysis Methodology and Find- ings C - Agency & Operator Interview Questions D - User Survey E - Survey Results LA BIKE SHARE STUDY 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in The study centered on five core phases of analysis: partnership with Los Angeles Metro (Metro), commissioned a • User Survey: An online and intercept survey targeted existing study to better understand the role of bike share within the Los bike share users, available for 2 months in spring of 2019, Angeles regional transportation system. The results are intended which garnered 351 valid responses (201 from Metro users to guide decision-making related to future system investments and 150 from Santa Monica users) and provided a 95 percent and new shared mobility programs in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Connect Mid-Hudson Regional Transit Study
    CONNECT MID-HUDSON Transit Study Final Report | January 2021 1 2 CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Service Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. COVID-19 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Public Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. Dutchess County ............................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2. Orange County ................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.3. Ulster County ..................................................................................................................................................11 3. Transit Market Assessment and Gaps Analsysis ..................................................................................................................12 3.1. Population Density .....................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern Wake County – NC Rural Microtransit Service Plan
    Northeastern Wake County – NC Rural Microtransit Service Plan Final Plan – March 2021 Photo by Google Maps KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, MD | Austin, TX | Seattle, WA Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... ES-1 What is Rural Microtransit? ............................................................................................................ ES-1 Northeastern Wake County Rural Microtransit Service ....................................................... ES-2 Study Tasks .............................................................................................................................. ES-4 Implementation Steps .......................................................................................................... ES-4 Key Takeaways & Recommendations ........................................................................................ ES-5 Chapter 1: Background Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 Northeast Wake County ............................................................................................................. 2 Connecting to Transit .................................................................................................................. 3 The Emergence of Microtransit ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019
    Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019 SUMC expresses appreciation to interviewees from the following organizations: Chicago Department of Transportation, District of Columbia, Center for Community Transportation (Ithaca Carshare), Ridecell, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Capital Metro, Zipcar, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and HourCar. Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC, led the research for SUMC, which also included researchers Brian Holland, Erin Evenhouse, and Peter Lauer, under the direction of Ellen Partridge and Sharon Feigon. The paper was edited by Leslie Gray. © 2019 Shared-Use Mobility Center. All Rights Reserved. Shared-Use Mobility Center Chicago, IL 312.448.8083 Los Angeles, CA 818.489.8651 www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org Contents Executive Summary 01 Introduction 06 Equity in Shared Mobility Services: What Is It? 07 Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs 08 Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions 08 Understanding Public-Private Partnerships 12 Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships 13 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 15 Vehicle Sharing Permitting and Partnerships 16 Concerns for Low-Income Communities 18 Focus on Bikeshare: Activists Organize to Advance Equity 20 Case Example 21 Focus on Carshare: Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers 26 Case Example 27 Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle 29 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 30 Sharing the Ride The Public Sector’s Role:
    [Show full text]
  • Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review
    Shared-Use Mobility Services: Literature Review Prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review Project Manager Michelle Scott Project Principal Annette Demchur Graphics Jane Gillis Kate Parker O’Toole Cover Design Kate Parker O’Toole The preparation of this document was supported by the Federal Transit Administration through MassDOT 5303 contracts #88429 and #94643. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. March 2017 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 Page 2 of 84 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 ABSTRACT This document provides an overview of shared-use mobility services, which involve the sharing of vehicles, bicycles, or other transportation modes, and provide users with short-term access to transportation on an as-needed basis. The report defines various types of shared-use mobility services and describes companies and service providers that operate in Greater Boston. It also includes a review of literature on the following topics: • Who is using shared-use mobility services? For example, many users are in their 20s and 30s, and use of these services tends to increase with income and education level. • When and why are they used, and how have these services affected riders’ mobility? The services can vary in terms of how they help users meet their mobility needs. For example, carsharing users report using these services to run errands, while ridesourcing users frequently take them for social or recreational trips.
    [Show full text]
  • Rideco Enables On-Demand Transit Public Sector Private Sector
    RideCo enables On-Demand Transit Public Sector Private Sector Headquarters: Waterloo, Canada | Founded in: 2014 | Patents: US 10248913 SAN ANTONIO 23 services – 10 cities Low density | Vans Low density | Shuttles Fleet Operator | Buses, Shuttles & Sedans LOS ANGELES First-last-mile | Shuttles Mixed density | Shuttles Employee transport | Sedans First-last-mile | Vans Paratransit | Shuttles Employee transport | Shuttles “Most notably unique to RideCo’s “[on-demand transit] has proven to be a true “We are excited to expand our expertise is the advance knowledge game-changer...The service has been “It is a giant Uber bus system pretty partnership with RideCo to of on-demand and emerging tremendously successful as a flexible travel option much. It was almost half the operating provide greater speed and technology and the ability to that helps us become more efficient and provides cost for the town (compared to a accessibility to our communities, leverage data and analytics to model connections to the places our customers go." – continuously circulating bus system).” – while keeping cost extremely opportunities for new deployments.” Jeffrey C. Arndt, President & CEO of San Antonio Jeff Genung, Cochrane Mayor affordable.” - Grab -Los Angeles Metro Metro Public Sector Microtransit Use Cases Low Density Area First-Last-Mile Transit Desert / Mobility Connectivity Overnight Service Case studies | San Antonio Metro Case studies | Metrolinx, Carlsbad Case studies | Jurong, Changi airport Underperforming Long Distance Paratransit Bus Routes Commuter
    [Show full text]
  • Microtransit Public-Private Partnerships
    Microtransit Public- Private Partnerships Sharon Feigon, Executive Director [email protected] S e s s i o n w i l l b e r e c o r d e d & 1 p o s t e d t o o u r w e b s i t e HOUSEKEEPING K e e p t h e s e t h r e e S e e l i n k b e l o w a n d i n c h a t p o i n t s i n m i n d d u r i n g 2 t h e w e b i n a r b o x f o r l i v e t r a n s c r i b i n g : https://tinyurl .com/microtr a n s i t S u b m i t q u e s t i o n s i n t h e 3 Q&A p a n e l 2 Presenters Sharon Feigon, Alvaro Villagran, Executive Program Director, Shared- Manager, Shared- Use Mobility Use Mobility Center Center Casey Gifford, Brian Brooke, Andrei Innovative Deputy Director Greenawalt, Head Mobility Project of Innovation and of Public Policy, Manager, King Performance, Via County Metro Sound Transit Ann Foss, Nicole Freedman, John Spears, Principal Planner, Director of Project Office of Transportation Coordinator, Strategic Planning, Newton, Grand Rapids, MI Initiatives, MA Arlington, TX Agenda • Microtransit overview by SUMC • Introducing Via • First/last mile on-demand transit in Seattle, WA • On-demand transit for seniors in Newton, MA • Paratransit on-demand in Grand Rapids, MI • Full public transit replacement with on-demand in Arlington, TX SHARED -USE MOBILITY CENTER C r e a t i n g a m u l t i m o d a l transportati o n s y s t e m t h a t w o r k s f o r a l l .
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan (PDF)
    Short Range Transit Plan FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Adopted May 2021 FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors Cindy Parra Rueben Pascual Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern Carlos Bello Leasa Engel Erika Dixon Director Director Director City of Bakersfield At-Large County of Kern A five-member Board of Directors governs Golden Empire Transit District. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members. GET coordinates with City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, and the Kern Council of Governments. Karen King Chief Executive Officer Short Range Transit Plan FY 20/21 – 24/25 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 CHAPTER 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................... 29 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS ........................................ 79 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ...................................... 83 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................ 95 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY .................................................................... 100 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................... 115 GET was formed in July 1973 and is the primary public transportation provider for the Bakersfield Urbanized Area. It is the largest public transit system within a 110 mile radius. The District’s legal boundary includes all of the area within the Bakersfield city limits as well as adjacent unincorporated areas. GET serves 16 routes, operating 7 days a week and transporting more than 6 million passengers each year with its fixed-route buses. In addition, GET operates 21 compressed natural gas GET-A-Lift buses.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2021 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan
    FY 2021 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan WAKE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan Table of Contents FY 2021 Wake Transit Work Plan Introduction 3 FY 2021 Operating Budget 7 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Operating Fund Budget Ordinance 8 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Operating Fund Budget Summary 10 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Operating Fund Budget Narrative 11 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Operating Fund Budget Detail 15 FY 2021 Operating Project Sheet Summary 17 FY 2021 Operating Project Sheets (Project Profiles) 22 FY 2021 Capital Budget 35 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Capital Fund Budget Ordinance 36 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Capital Fund Budget Summary 37 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Capital Fund Budget Narrative 38 FY 2021 Triangle Tax District, Wake Capital Fund Budget Detail 40 FY 2021 Capital Project Sheet Summary 41 FY 2021 Capital Plan Project Sheets (Project Profiles) 43 FY 2021 Projects in Unbudgeted Reserve 53 FY 2021 Financial Model Assumptions Update 92 Appendix: FYs 2021-2027 Multi-Year Operating Program and Capital Improvement Plan 94 WAKE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION FY 2021 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan Background The governing boards of GoTriangle, CAMPO, and the Wake County Board of Commissioners adopted the Wake County Transit Plan in 2016, including the Wake County Transit Financial Plan and the Transit Governance Interlocal Agreement, which guides the overall implementation of the expanded transit network reflected in the Plan. Included in the governance agreement is the creation of the Transit Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC), a team charged with facilitating planning activities and recommending funding for implementation elements reflected in the adopted Wake Transit Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Microtransit Feasibility Report July 2020
    Microtransit Feasibility Report July 2020 Prepared by SRF Consulting Group In collaboration with Microtransit Feasibility Report July 2020 Table of Contents Section 1: Service and Community Assessment ........................................................................................... 3 Overview of Current Transit Services ....................................................................................................... 3 Existing Performance by Route ................................................................................................................. 5 Systemwide Ridership Patterns ................................................................................................................ 7 Opportunities for Improvement ............................................................................................................... 8 Section 2: Microtransit Pilot Project ............................................................................................................. 9 Microtransit Basics .................................................................................................................................. 10 How to Ride ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Proposed Service Area ............................................................................................................................ 11 Proposed Service Hours .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Delicate Balance of Microtransit Service Vs
    THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEWS AND ANALYSIS MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2019 | VOLUME 77, NO. 15 The Delicate Balance Of Microtransit Service vs. Efficiency, or Transformational Opportunity vs. Just the Latest Fad? BY KATHERINE LEWIS WITH MANY PUBLIC TRANSIT neighborhoods without inconvenienc- or are you going to give a little piece AGENCIES seeing declining ridership in ing residents in the way full-size buses to everybody and have lower service?” recent years, and technology advances would. Meanwhile, the cost of these asked Jameson Auten, senior vice facilitating scheduling of small-capacity smaller, more nimble vehicles makes the president of operations and innovation vehicles, many systems are looking to service more affordable to provide and for the Kansas City Area (MO) Transpor- microtransit to improve customer ser- the convenience of on-demand sched- tation Authority (KCATA). “In the places vice and expand their service area. This uling makes it more appealing to riders where we need coverage, how do on- feeds into changing customer expecta- than existing paratransit. demand services fill those gaps?” tions—thanks to disruptive technology But in exploring microtransit, public To maximize your agency’s opportunity across a range of industries—for transit professionals should be aware for success, be sure to plan carefully, everything at our fingertips, from food of the many factors they will need to communicate with your customers, through DoorDash to movies on Netflix balance. As you expand the service launch the service aggressively enough and rides via Uber and Lyft. area, you risk increasing wait times. The to be noticed, expect to adapt and never Microtransit holds the potential of more closely you try to meet customers’ take your eye from the prize, driving bringing new riders to fixed routes, expectations of a personalized experi- efficiency as microtransit gets underway, reaching suburban areas seeing the ence, the more your costs will rise.
    [Show full text]