Welcome to Springfield, a small city like any other in the United States. Though Springfield has changed a lot over the past 10 years — new job centers have popped up, gas prices have risen, the population has aged, and new housing developments are further and further from downtown — the transit network has stayed pretty much the same.
As a result, ridership is uneven across the network:
And productivity — the measure of how many passengers board per hour — varies considerably by route as well. On some bus lines, productivity is high, indicating cost-effective service. But on others, productivity is low enough to be concerning. Springfield invests a lot in its transit network, but they're only getting a good return on that investment on some bus routes.
With a whole network approach to transit planning — and access to the kinds of technologies required to implement seamless intermodal service — well-performing routes can be further optimized, while microtransit can be introduced in place of low-performing routes. When implemented carefully, microtransit can deliver both a higher-quality (as measured by wait time) and more cost-effective (as measured by cost-per-trip) service than low-frequency, low-ridership fixed-route buses.
The before and after is striking: passengers can get significantly further in a shorter amount of time, leading to broader access to jobs and other opportunities. Slide to see the difference.
A whole network approach can have a significant impact on a transit agency's bottom line as well.
With the same annual operating budget, a whole network approach means:
Curious what a whole network approach to microtransit can do for your community? Check out our article featuring real-world examples of integrated transit — and the technology that makes it possible.
And feel free to reach out! We're always happy to chat.
