2050 Regional Transit Plan: Transit Trends and Technology

Overview

With advancements in technology, public transportation is at the brink of a transformative era. We have more data than ever to help our customers. Cutting-edge technologies have made it easier to serve both urban and low-density rural areas. These advancements hold the potential to increase transit ridership. This tech memo presents an overview of different transit technologies, their benefits, and associated challenges that can potentially impact the long-term future of MMT and human service providers. Transit technologies that are briefly discussed include:

• On-Demand Transit
• Micromobility
• Zero-Emission Buses (ZEBs)
• Real-Time Transit Information
• Contactless Fare Payment
• Autonomous/Driverless Vehicles

On-Demand Transit

On-demand transit (also referred to as ‘microtransit’) is an approach to provide public transportation service that is more flexible, and responsive to the travel needs of the riders in comparison to traditional fixed-route services. On-demand transit can aid agencies in enhancing public transit service without significant infrastructure investments. On-demand transit uses technology to match the real-time travel needs of riders with vehicles that operate on routes that are flexible. This type of service is usually provided via smaller vehicles such as shuttles or vans.

Usually, users make their service request via mobile application or by calling customer service.  The most common service design includes a defined zone where customers can be taken from any origin to any destination within the zone.  Curb-to-curb service is common, although more systems are defining stops where pickups and drop-offs are possible.

On-demand service can supplement existing human service transportation options.  It is often popular with those with less mobility because the response times are faster, and one does not need to reserve a ride more than 24 hours in advance.  However, on-demand service does not include door-to-door service, so potential passengers must meet the vehicles.  Therefore, it is not a replacement for all trips operated by human service transportation providers. 

There are different operational models of on-demand transit:

• Software as a Service: In this model, a vendor provides the software used by the agency to operate the on-demand service. The remaining facets of operations are taken care of by the local agency.
• Transportation as a Service: In this model, the vendor procures vehicles and drivers in addition to the technology.
• User-side subsidy: User-side subsidy aids users in making a trip through private transportation service providers like Uber or Lyft by providing a subsidy from the local agency that has partnered with the private transportation service providers. The subsidy covers the trip cost partly or completely based on the decided terms of the partnership agreement.

Some of the benefits of on-demand service include:

• Dynamic: On-demand service isresponsive to the users’ needs in real-time.
• Mobility in low-density areas or during times when demand is low: On-demand service is particularly helpful in expanding the coverage of transit in low-density areas where a fixed-route service is not feasible or during times when demand is low.
• Mobility in areas where big buses cannot go: On-demand service uses smaller vehicles which can access neighborhoods and destinations that may not be suitable for big buses.

Some of the drawbacks of on-demand transit include:

• On-demand service is usually less cost-effective than fixed-route service. The cost per passenger is almost always higher.
• On-demand service does not scale well. If demand increases, costs typically scale up in direct proportion to the additional demand.
• Not all users can easily access on-demand services. Access to on-demand service is facilitated by smartphones and on-line payment mechanisms. Those without access to smartphones or those who are unbanked must be offered a workaround.

The drawbacks must be balanced against the ability to access areas where bigger buses cannot go. On-demand service can be a way for agencies to improve temporal and geographic coverage.

Micromobility

FHWA defines micromobility as “any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances”. Micromobility serves as an alternative travel mode for short-distance trips. There is an increasing trend in the usage of micromobility devices in the United States with 136 million trips being taken on shared bikes and scooters in 2019, a 60% increase from 2018. With the increasing consumption of micromobility, U.S. cities continue to formalize shared micromobility systems for the best outcomes. As of December 2019, 21 of the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. issued requests for proposals or other similar application methods to determine the number of micromobility vendors that could operate within the city limits.

Micromobility may be useful for making first-mile/last-mile connections to transit that improve transit accessibility. In particular, micromobility can provide access to hard-to-reach neighborhoods where bigger buses may not be able to enter or provide a faster way to access a bus stop.

However, few cities have effectively integrated micromobility with their transit systems, particularly from a fare perspective.  In addition, several cities such as Atlanta and Indianapolis have found that micromobility competes with and reduces transit ridership.  In downtown Colorado Springs and in Manitou Springs, additional micromobility options would likely compete with MMT for short trips.  In addition, access to micromobility is facilitated by smartphones and on-line payment mechanisms. Those without access to smartphones or those who are unbanked must be offered a workaround. Micromobility typically does not improve access to those with mobility challenges. 

Zero-Emission Buses (ZEBs)

The ZEB market, which includes battery electric buses and hydrogen fuel buses, has seen significant growth recently in the United States. Transit agencies have procured over 1,000 ZEBs nationwide (Horadam, N., & Posner, A. (2021). A zero-emission transition for the US transit fleet.) ZEBs implementation has been driven by the desire to have less polluting, more efficient buses.  Some anticipated benefits include: 

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions: ZEBs are a cleaner alternative to traditional diesel buses producing no harmful emissions while operating. Each ZEB is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 270,000 pounds per year as compared to diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses.
• Lower fuel cost: Electricity and hydrogen are more economical substitutes to diesel, as a result ZEBs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year less to fuel as compared to diesel/CNG buses.
• Reduced maintenance cost: Engines, transmissions, and exhaust systems need lesser maintenance than diesel buses.
• Noise reductions: ZEBs operate more quietly than diesel buses and contribute to a better experience for other users sharing the road space.

However, ZEBs also have multiple drawbacks. 

• Higher up front capital costs: ZEBs cost significantly more than diesel buses.
• Maintenance facility costs:  ZEBs require modifications to maintenance facilities, some of which may require wholesale changes to the maintenance space due to charging or ventilation requirements.
• Training costs for mechanics:  Mechanics must be retrained to work on an entirely new propulsion system.
• Charging stations and infrastructure for Battery Electric Buses (BEBs):  Most BEBs do not have the same range as diesel buses, requiring on-street charging at select locations.  In addition, electric utility companies may not have sufficient infrastructure to charge large fleets of BEBs, which requires expensive upgrades.

As of 2024, the transit agency implementation costs have so far outweighed any savings from adopting ZEBs. The first generation ZEBs have not met their advertised range, are unreliable, and require higher operating and operator costs.

MMT and human service providers should carefully evaluate the experiences of their peer agencies before adopting a preferred ZEB technology due to the potential for unanticipated costs.

Real-Time Information

The integration of real-time information with public transit operations is a pivotal advancement in the transit sector. Global Positioning Systems (GPS), mobile applications, and data analytics are the technological foundations of real-time transit information. GPS enabled devices provide the real-time location of the transit vehicle, mobile applications serve as the interface for delivering real-time information to the users and data analytics help generate insights from the real-time data.

There are two components of real-time information: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and real-time passenger information. From an agency perspective, AVL features are important for incident management and dispatching. Real-time information is useful to both transit agencies and riders in several ways:

• Transit agencies and human service transportation providers can optimize operations by monitoring vehicle locations and traffic conditions and subsequently modify schedules and resource allocation.
• Fixed-route, paratransit, and human service transportation riders can obtain accurate data about the location of transit vehicles enabling them to make informed travel decisions. This convenience reduces travel time and enhances the overall travel experience, which in turn increases ridership and revenue.
• Trips involving multimodal options can be planned more effectively well in advance.
• Service updates during emergencies and unexpected events like crashes and detours can help ensure passengers’ safety and security.

MMT currently uses the My Next Bus app/website to provide real-time information to passengers.  Human service transportation providers do not currently have this feature.

Contactless Fare Payment

Contactless fare payment refers to paying for a transit service with the help of a contactless technology that uses Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or Near-field Communication (NFC) technology. With the help of RFID or NFC, payment information is transferred from a card to the payment terminal. With the innovations in smartphones and debit/credit card technologies, more and more transit agencies are switching to open-loop contactless payment systems. For instance, Metropolitan Transit Authority (New York City) accepts RFID-enabled debit/credit cards to pay for all transit services.

There are several benefits associated with the usage of contactless fare payments:

• Convenience: Elimination of cash transactions reduces the time passengers spend purchasing tickets and boarding transit vehicles.
• Cost efficiency: Transit operators don’t have to manually sell tickets and handle cash.
• Safety: Minimizes physical contact which is particularly helpful in the context of public health considerations, as demonstrated with the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
• Security: The robust security features of smart cards minimize the risk of fraud.
• Data generation: Data on riders’ travel patterns can aid agencies in planning and delivering services more efficiently.

There are several drawbacks, primarily related to costs.

• Costs: For agency-provided contactless fare cards, there is an upfront cost for the cards, vending machines, and ongoing agreements with the ticket machine vendors.  For contactless smartphones and debit/credit cards, there may be a fee from banks for each transaction, which reduces fare revenue. Overall, the benefits of faster boarding and less confusion about fares typically offset any decreases in revenues.
• Not all users have smartphones, RFID cards, or banks.  Contactless fare payment is facilitated by smartphones and online payment mechanisms. Those without access to smartphones or those who are unbanked must be offered a workaround.  Moreover, very low-income riders are unlikely to have the ability to pre-load cards with funding.

Autonomous/Driverless Vehicles

Transit agencies have begun testing autonomous/driverless technology. Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) navigate with the help of advanced sensors and artificial intelligence with no human intervention. There are a handful of initiatives and pilot programs running in different U.S. cities. For instance, an on-demand transit service was launched by May Mobility in Sun City, Arizona. The service was intended to serve the aging population to enhance their mobility and accessibility. Cobb County, Georgia is another example that launched a driverless shuttle called “Cumberland Hopper” to serve a three-mile path around the core of the Cumberland District and connect people to jobs and Cumberland’s major assets The integration of autonomous technology with public transportation could deliver the following benefits:

• Enhanced safety: Human error is a major cause of crashes, and is a factor reduced by autonomous vehicles equipped with advanced sensors and artificial intelligence technology.
• Cost savings: In the longer term, autonomous fleets can help reduce the cost of operation by eliminating the need for human drivers and improved fuel efficiency.
• Improved mobility and accessibility: On-demand autonomous services can help expand the coverage of the public transportation network by serving the diverse needs of the local community.
• Data-driven solution: Vast amounts of data can be generated through the technology incorporated in autonomous vehicles which can be used for continuous improvements in transit service operation.

Autonomous bus technology is not advanced enough for full-scale adoption at this time.  There are a number of elements needed to facilitate widespread adoption that are not quite fully developed, including a regulatory framework, infrastructure requirements, safety concerns, and public acceptance. As technology advances, autonomous vehicles may be an option for improved transit.

Challenges

Emerging transit technologies present opportunities to re-shape utilization of public transportation to serve the day-to-day travel needs of the users. Despite significant benefits, adoption of these technologies may not be an easy task because of the following associated challenges:

• Infrastructure requirements: Significant capital investment is needed to establish the supporting infrastructure.
• Regulatory and legal issues: The regulatory landscape regarding emerging transit technologies is still in its infancy. Further, the lack of a regulatory framework that is universally applicable adds to the barriers for the seamless implementation of these technologies.
• Public acceptance: Gaining public acceptance is critical for implementation of any new technology, especially when there are concerns about cost, safety, security, privacy, and job displacement. Public skepticism, including privacy concerns, can limit the penetration of transit technologies.
• Equity issues: Emerging transit technology relies heavily on digital platforms for booking, navigation, and payment. Low-income communities with limited access to (or trust in) smartphones, reliable internet service, and banking may face challenges in using the services. 
• Accountability of contractors: Before contracting any services, agencies need to ensure the accountability of the contractors in regard to safety standards, licensing and insurance and make sure that they comply with local, state or federal regulations.

Priorities

It is important to note that some of the emerging transit technologies have greater applicability to improve mobility in the Colorado Springs area than others. While all have applications, several are more relevant from an implementation and planning perspective. Table 26 presents transit technologies and their priority (relevance) in context of the 2050 RTP for the City of Colorado Springs.

Table 26.Transit Technology and Priorities

Emerging Technology	Priority	Rationale
On-Demand	Short-Term	On-demand can help the region expand geographic coverage to build a market for fixed-route transit.  On-demand service can also be operated later at night instead of extending span of service on fixed-route transit. Both are cost-effective ways to improve geographic and temporal coverage.
Micromobility	Long-Term	Bicycles and scooters are effective mobility tools for short trips, particularly in denser areas.  These short trips could also be taken on transit, however.  The market opportunity for MMT is to utilize bicycles and scooters to address first/last mile issues and to extend the reach of existing transit investments. To maximize this opportunity, infrastructure is necessary at stops (mobility hubs, secure parking space) and fare payments between transit and micromobility must be coordinated.
ZEBs	Mid-Term	Due to federal guidelines, transitioning to ZEBs is a priority.  Given the upfront capital expenses of potential alternatives, the region should let experiences at other agencies regarding the chosen propulsion technology drive the choice.
Real-Time Information	Short-Term	Better information on the location of transit vehicles helps transit providers, human service transportation providers, and all customers.
Contactless Fare Payment	Short-Term	Adding the option of using RFID enabled credit/debit cards and smartphones to pay fares makes it easier for existing and potential customers to use transit.
AVs	Long-Term	AVs have the ability to enhance mobility.  However, current state of the art is not sufficiently developed for implementation. As technology develops further, AVs should be considered.