Against TNCs

It seems reasonable to disaggregate trips by trip-type, and serve them with different vehicles, but that simply requires the duplication of services to serve the same route. Given that transit service costs are mostly labor, that means a dramatic increase in labor costs.

Further, TNC service is great, but it’s costly: every service mile requires an additional .67 non-service ‘dead-head’. Public-subsidy taxis are probably more efficient than most paratransit, simply thanks to the network effect—more riders, more OD pairs, more ‘dynamic carpooling’, but likely still inferior to regular buses in terms of cost per rider.

 

Undeniably, COVID has changed things. There is now a very real need to reduce crowding, and prevent people from sharing the same air. That can be achieved by limiting the # of people per vehicle (effectively turning 40’ buses into 15 passenger vans) but that lowers the efficiency per vehicle.

Until we reach the point were we have CAV transit vehicles (breaking the link between service and labor costs), ‘massification’ of persons into a single vehicle is going to be the most cost-effective strategy for transit.

I think often of what happened at UTA—COVID causes a ridership crash, so UTA cut service on most routes. But they maintained a few routes, but added buses/hour to reduce crowding and facilitate social distancing. That attracted more riders, so UTA had to add more buses, such that the routes now have more ridership during COVID than before it.