Maximizing patronage by decreasing coverage yet increasing demand response

Walker discusses how public transportation planners, policymakers, and decision-makers can best analyze the trade-offs between transit patronage and coverage (Walker 2008). I was aware and had a general understanding of the wicked problems associated with such trade-offs, but I gained a better understanding of how to analyze this issue after reading Walker’s article. Later on, Walker also differentiates demand-responsive transit from “paratransit” and discusses them as separate services (Walker 2008). However, I push back on this notion and propose that demand-responsive transit and “paratransit” services ought to be identical, such that all demand-responsive transit services are identically ADA-compliant if this is not already the case.

I secondly propose that fixed-route transit service designed for coverage ought to be decreased in ratio with or entirely substituted for this more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. The vehicle fleet comprising this fixed-route transit service designed for coverage could then be sold to purchase outright or finance the vehicle fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. Let us assume that each vehicle of the fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage is worth more on resale than what it costs to purchase outright or finance an additional vehicle for the fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. Under this assumption, we can then assume that only a portion of the vehicle fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage would have to be sold to purchase outright/finance and decrease in ratio with/entirely substitute for the vehicle fleet comprising the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service. The unsold portion of the vehicle fleet comprising the fixed-route transit service designed for coverage could then be reallocated to maximize the fixed-route transit service designed for patronage.

Even under these assumptions, I still want to consider that entirely substituting a fixed-route transit service designed for coverage for the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service could be more socially and politically costly than decreasing the ratio. Therefore, an entire substitution is one extreme end of the production possibilities frontier, whereas decreased ratios are points along that frontier, and doing nothing is the opposite extreme end of this frontier. The main point is that Walker has already suggested that doing nothing is inefficient, making an example of the empty vehicles that serve fixed routes designed for coverage. Introducing the more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service in place of some, if not all, of these empty vehicles would alleviate this inefficiency, while simultaneously increasing equity and access and more efficiently serving routes designed for coverage. This is a very rough idea. These propositions do not consider the possibility of this more inclusive form of demand-responsive transit service being able to pick up riders en route from their origins and/or destinations. This could be accomplished, for example, by requiring riders to call 15 to 20 minutes in advance of when they would like to depart (effectively creating a headway), among other possibilities.

By Asif Haque

Edited by Manuel Suarez Pallas

Source:

Walker, J. (2008). Purpose-driven public transport: creating a clear conversation about public transport goals. Journal of transport geography, 16(6), 436-442.