Masters Project

Authors
Abdulaziz Alqadhib
Michael Beck
Yiming Cai
Deanna Dupuy
Daniel Mihalov
Shuyi Shen
Tian Tian
Russell Pildes
Xue Yuan
Advisors
Eric Dueweke
Jonathan Levine

Pilo ng Demand Responsive Transit in
Ypsilan Township
Urban + Regional Planning Program
Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning
University of Michigan
December 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
would like to thank our client and faculty advisors who
made this project possible.
Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority
Bill De Groot
Julia Roberts
All photos were taken by the contributors unless
otherwise sourced.

i
Executive Summary
Chapter 1
Foundations
Chapter 2
Pilot Area
Chapter 3
Demand Responsive Transit
Chapter 4
Ridership Forecasts
Chapter 5
Recommendations
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Chapter 5
Appendices
Glossary
CONTENTS
1
10
30
62
90
114
116
vi
137

ii
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2
Table 2-1 Population, Density, and Number of Households p. 12
Table 2-2 Potential Future Land Use at Full Build-Out (New Zoning) p. 17
Table 2-3 Median Income and Average Household Size p. 18
Chapter 3
Table 3-1 Days in Operation by Number of Benchmark Agencies p. 46
Table 3-2 Advance Notice Requirements for Demand Responsive Boardings and Drop-offs p. 47
Table 3-3 Speci ic Wait Time Policies p. 48
Table 3-4 Software Platforms Used for Flexible Transit Service p. 48
Table 3-5 Kalamazoo Metro Transit (Kalamazoo, MI) County Connect 2015 Performance p. 50
Table 3-6 Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO) 2005- 2011 Call-N-Ride Performance p. 50
Table 3-7 Ashland Public Transit (Ashland, OH) and Greenville Transit System (Greenville, OH) 2012 Performance p. 51

iii
Chapter 4
Table 4-1 TRCP Model Annual Ridership p. 67
Table 4-2 Analogy Model Applied to Pilot Area p. 68
Table 4-3 Inputs and Outputs of Each Regression Model p. 69
Table 4-4 Estimated Usage Results p. 70
Table 4-5 The 11 Stops of Route 46 p. 73
Table 4-6 Survey Types and Adjusted Response Statistics p. 79
Table 4-7 Process of Weighting the Survey Sample p. 80
Table 4-8 Household Size-Car Ownership Gap p.82
Table 4-9 Frequency Analysis of Survey Results p.83
Table 4-10 Statistic on the Age and Destinations p.84
Table 4-11 Cross-tabulation of Survey Results p.85
Table 4-12 Comparison of General Population and Likely User Groups p. 87
Chapter 5
Table 5-1 Summary Table of Recommendations p. 93
Table 5-2 Comparison of Capacity Simulation Results for Alternatives p. 101
Table 5-3 Performance Metrics p.111
Table 5-4 Summary of Service Adjustment Benchmarks p.112

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
Figure 1-1 Framework p. 3
Figure 1-2 Paint Creek Pilot Area, Ypsilanti Township, Michigan p. 6
Figure 1-3 Census Tracts p.7
Figure 1-4 Demographic Snapshot of the Paint Creek Pilot Area p. 7
Chapter 2
Figure 2-1 Destinations within One Mile of the Pilot Area p. 14
Figure 2-2 Labor Force Participation Rate p. 19
Figure 2-3 Car Ownership, Comparison Between Washtenaw County, Ypsilanti Area, and Pilot Area p. 20
Figure 2-4 Share of Commute to Work Comparison Between Washtenaw County, Ypsilanti Area and the Pilot Area p. 20
Figure 2-5 Map of Employment Density - Pilot Area Residents p. 21
Figure 2-6 Percentage of Households with Fewer Cars than People p. 22
Figure 2-7 Paint Creek Pilot Area in Relation to Route 46 p. 24
Figure 2-8 A-Ride Service Areas p. 25
Figure 2-9 High, Medium, and Low Potential Destinations by Age p. 26
Chapter 3
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Diagram for Full Flex p. 36
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Diagram for Point Deviation p. 36
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Diagram for Route Deviation p. 37

v
Figure 3-4 Dallas Area Rapid Transit On-Call p. 38
Figure 3-5 The Rapid P.A.S.S p. 39
Figure 3-6 RIPTA Flex Service p. 40
Figure 3-7 RTD Call-n-Ride p. 41
Figure 3-8 Surveyed Transit Agencies Across the Country p. 44
Figure 3-9 Performance Measures p. 52
Figure 3-10 Olli Bus p. 54
Figure 3-11 Bridj Vehicle p. 57
Figure 3-12 Rac Intellibus p. 58
Chapter 4
Figure 4-1 Map of Route 46 and the Pilot Area p. 72
Figure 4-2 Monthly Boardings and Alightings at Stops in the Pilot Area p. 74
Figure 4-3 Distribution of Monthly Ridership at Stops for Route 46 p. 75
Figure 4-4 Distribution of Forecasted Usage of DRT Service p. 75
Figure 4-5 Approximate Distribution of Survey Respondents by Type p. 78
Chapter 5
Figure 5-1 Effect of Price on Boardings and Subsidy per Passenger Using Average Elasticity p. 106

vi Executive Summary
Transit agencies are increasingly turning to demand
responsive transit (DRT) as a tool to provide transit service
to low density neighborhoods within a larger metropolitan
service area. DRT service allows transit agencies to expand
coverage by providing crucial transportation connections
for people in low-density suburban or rural locations.
This report analyzes DRT service both in terms of the
expected usage and the suitability of speci ic deployment
options within the Paint Creek pilot area in southern
Ypsilanti Township, Michigan. The report proposes
three variations of DRT service that the Ann Arbor Area
Transportation Authority (also known as TheRide) can
implement. While the recommendations in this report
speci ically apply to the Paint Creek pilot area, TheRide
can use the methods demonstrated here to assess the
suitability of DRT in other low-density areas of Washtenaw
County.
The Paint Creek Pilot Area
The report provides a land-use and demographic pro ile
of the Paint Creek pilot area, located south of TheRide’s
Route 46 along Textile Road. The low-density, suburban/
rural nature of the pilot area would not currently support
productive ixed route transit.
The study team researched DRT deployment across the
country. The DRT services offered by TheRide’s peer
agencies to determine available service models and best
practices. From this, the team identi ied and de ined three
common models of DRT service deployed throughout the
country: full lex, point deviation, and route deviation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary vii
Ridership Forecasts
The team used several methods to forecast usage of
the DRT service in the Paint Creek pilot area, and its
distribution throughout the day. To understand residents’
speci ic nonwork travel behavior, the study team
conducted a survey in the pilot area. The analysis of the
survey results, coupled with the forecasts of ridership,
informed the study team of where and when DRT service
would be useful to riders.
Recommendations
The report af irms that DRT service in southern Ypsilanti
Township has the potential to satisfy several different
types of transit needs. Based on an assessment of the
pilot area, interviews with peer agencies, and forecasts of
ridership, this report recommends three potential types of
DRT service, each prioritizing a speci ic purpose:
• The 46 Connect: to link riders to Route 46
• The Paint Creek Cruiser: to connect riders to
community destinations
• FlexRide: to provide riders choice.
This report makes recommendations about speci ic service
requirements of DRT, such as hours of operation, number
of vehicles, and frequency of headways. A full list of
recommendations can be found in Chapter 5. This report
also provides speci ic operational recommendations that
the TheRide can include in a Request for Proposals (RFP).
These recommendations demonstrate the variety of
options that exist within the realm of DRT and identify
what services will be most bene icial to riders within the
Paint Creek pilot area. The study team hopes that TheRide
can use the report’s framework for the implementation of
DRT service in the Paint Creek pilot area and for accessing
the viability of DRT as TheRide expands DRT service
across Washtenaw County.

Chapter 1 | Foundations 1
FOUNDATIONS
TheRide
Service Expansion

2 Chapter 1 | Foundations
The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA;
TheRide) operates public transportation across much of
Washtenaw County, Michigan. TheRide primarily provides
ixed-route bus service; however, many of the low-density
suburban and rural communities within the expanded
service area are not well suited for this kind of transit.
Leadership at TheRide views demand responsive transit
(DRT) as a promising alternative, and have selected an
eight-square-mile area in southern Ypsilanti Township to
pilot a new DRT service. The selected area is referred to in
this report as the Paint Creek pilot area, or the pilot area.
Goals
This report analyzes the suitability of demand responsive
transit service, and proposes a set of alternative
deployments for a DRT service in southeastern Ypsilanti
Township. While the recommendations in this report
are speci ic to the Paint Creek pilot area, the methods
provided could be used to assess other geographic areas in
Washtenaw County. This report includes:
• Recommendations for a DRT pilot service in
Ypsilanti Township
• Performance monitoring for adjusting service.

Report Overview
The following analysis was conducted by a team of
Master of Urban Planning students from Taubman College
of Architecture and Urban Planning, with two faculty
advisors. The team coordinated with TheRide staff
periodically throughout the four-month project timeline of
September to December 2016.
• Chapter 2 of this report analyzes the Paint Creek
pilot area’s key demographic characteristics to
assess the viability of DRT and identify potential
DRT riders
• Chapter 3 provides a review of DRT services
elsewhere in the United States, with attention paid
to service areas similar to the pilot area
• Chapter 4 describes the project’s methods for
forecasting ridership, and determines which DRT
models are most applicable to the Paint Creek pilot
area’s characteristics
• Chapter 5 recommends service models for the
Paint Creek pilot area, and concludes the report
with a roadmap for adapting DRT service to future
conditions.
Identify
Service Area
Needs
Assess Service
Models
Forecast
Service
Demand
Recommend
Deployment
Options
Figure 1-1: Framework

These services include:
• A-Ride: Complementary paratransit shared-ride
transportation for individuals with disabilities.
• AirRide: Public transportation between Ann Arbor
and Detroit Metro Airport.
• CarPool: Flexible coordinated travel for two to
seven people to share a ride to school or work.
• VanRide: For a monthly fee, provides seven-
passenger vans to a group of riders who drive,
wash, and maintain the vehicle.
• NightRide/HolidayRide: Curb-to-curb service
during late-night hours and on major holidays
when ixed routes are not operating.
• ExpressRide: Non-stop service between Canton
and Chelsea areas to downtown Ann Arbor and the
University of Michigan campuses.
• MyRide: Provides transportation coordination
assistance to transit-dependent individuals.
THERIDE
TheRide was founded in 1969 as the Ann Arbor
Transportation Authority, and over four decades has
expanded service into providing 6,291,695 unlinked ixed-
route passenger trips to date in 2016.
TheRide recognizes the need to increase service into the
growing urbanized area around Ann Arbor. Motivated
by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’
(SEMCOG) forecast of continued growth and urban
consolidation in the region, TheRide developed its 30-
year Transit Master Plan for Washtenaw County in 2011,
calling for the expansion of service in both coverage and
frequency. In 2014, voters approved these expansions and
TheRide grew to include Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township,
Saline, and Pitts ield Township.1
Under this greater service umbrella, TheRide now offers
33 ixed bus routes, and seven specialized services meant
to meet speci ic transportation needs within the area.

The proposed pilot DRT service detailed in this report
demonstrates a commitment to better serve constituents
in Ypsilanti Township. As discussed below, the pilot
area is not currently served by transit. In devising this
project, TheRide deemed this an appropriate pilot area
due to its proximity to existing ixed-route service and its
appropriate residential character.
The Paint Creek Pilot Area
The Paint Creek pilot area, shown in Figure 1-2, is located
in southeastern Ypsilanti Township. This pilot area is
roughly eight square miles and located south of TheRide’s
ixed-route service, Route 46, along Textile Road. The area
is bounded by Textile Road to the north, Rawsonville Road
to the east, Bemis Road to the south, and Hitchingham
Road to the west.
The pilot area’s land-use characteristics deviate from the
denser urban environment TheRide has historically served
in downtown Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The area was used
for agriculture until extensive residential development
began in the 1990’s.
As of September 2016, ixed routes saw an average of
22,079 weekday passengers, while the demand responsive
services – including ARide, NightRide/HolidayRide – had
an average of 528 weekday riders.2
TheRide added about
40 weekday ixed-route service hours each day in 2016,
and plans to add an additional 18 hours of service daily in
the 2017 iscal year.3
SERVICE EXPANSION
The 2014 Five Year Transit Improvement Plan for the
Urban Core of Washtenaw County informs TheRide’s
commitment to improved service in Ypsilanti Township.
The plan called for an expansion of TheRide’s service
area, and details the need to expand services to a growing
southern Ypsilanti Township – an area whose residents
currently receive relatively few public transit options.
Plans for service in this area were funded through the
2014 “More Buses” millage campaign. Voters in Ann Arbor,
Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township approved a 0.7-mill tax
to fund the expansion. The millage passed in all three
jurisdictions.

Figure 1-2 Paint Creek Pilot Area, Ypsilan Township, Michigan

Population
13,871
Households
4,690
Age Comparison
Percent Owner
Occupied
Housing
Median
Household
Income
Means of
Transportation
to Work by Car
Travel Time to Work
Pilot Area 89% $81,377 98.6% 15 to 34 minutes
Ypsilanti Area 46% $43,218 92.6% < 24 minutes
Avg. Household Size
2.95
Car Ownership
99%
Income and Travel Comparison
Paint Creek Pilot Area
17
Percent Youth
< 15
Washtenaw
County
Ypsilanti
Area
Pilot
Area
19
26
Percent Elderly
> 64
t Eld
Washtenaw
County
Ypsilanti
Area
Pilot
Area
6911
Figure 1-4: Demographic Snapshot of the Paint Creek Pilot Area
Today, the Paint Creek pilot area is home to about 13,870
residents in 4,690 households.4
Most residences are
single-family houses in typical suburban subdivisions
in both western census tracts (Figure 1-3). There is a
mobile home park in the eastern census tract of the pilot
area. In general, the pilot area’s land use suggests that
residents are largely automobile dependent. The area has
overall low building density and a low-connectivity street
network. The following chapter assesses characteristics
of the Paint Creek pilot area in depth to understand the
environment and demographics, and determines whether
demand responsive transit is viable for the pilot area.
Source: ACS-2014 (5-year)
Figure 1-3 Census Tracts

Endnotes
1. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (2014). Five Year
Improvement Plan. www.theride.org/AboutUs/Moving-You-
Forward/5Year-Transit-Improvement-Plan
2. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (2016). Performance
Report – Year to Date. www.theride.org/AboutUs/Dashboard-Facts/
Financial-Information
3. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority ( 2016). FY 2017
Operating Budget. www.theride.org/AboutUs/Dashboard-Facts/
Financial-Information
4. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). Population Demographics, American
Community Survey 5-year estimates. www.socialexplorer.com/tables/
ACS2014

10 Chapter 2| Paint Creek Pilot Area10 Chapter 2| Paint Creek Pilot Area
Whittaker Road

Chapter 2 | Paint Creek Pilot Area 11
PAINT CREEK
PILOT AREA
Density and Land Use
Demographics
Current Transit Serivce

12 Chapter 2| Paint Creek Pilot Area
This chapter examines land use, demographic
characteristics, and current transit service for the Paint
Creek pilot area. Demographic data for this report were
derived from the US Census Bureau’s 2014 Five-Year
American Community Survey Data. Two reports helped
frame this assessment: The Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP) Report 140 – A Guide for Planning and
Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services, and
the 2009 TCRP report Best Practices in Transit Service
Planning.
These reports recommend population density, current
route productivity, senior citizen density, youth density,
and income levels as important indicators for determining
the viability of DRT.1
The chapter provides a general
community pro ile while paying particular attention to
these factors.
DENSITY AND LAND USE
Population
Two primary determinants for viability of DRT are
population and household density. The Paint Creek pilot
area had 13,871 residents in 2014 (2014 ACS). Population
density of the pilot area was 1,705 people per square mile
in 2014. Population density increased by 9% between
2006 and 2014, driven by a large in lux of single-family
residential development within the area (Table 2-1).
Overall, the pilot area’s residential density of one dwelling
per acre is below the seven dwellings per acre needed
to maintain traditional ixed-route transit’s mode share
above ive percent.2
Pilot Area Northwest Southwest East Ypsilan Area Washtenaw County
Popula on 13,871 4,448 5,220 4,203 72,857 351,454
Popula on Density
(per sq. mile)
1,705 2,240 2,535 1,028 2,127 498
Households 4,690 1,473 1,634 1,583 29,427 136,471
Table 2-1 Popula on, Density, and Households in the Service Area, Por ons of the Service Area, Ypsilan Area, and Washtenaw County
Note: Ypsilanti Area includes: Ypsilanti City and Ypsilanti Charter Township
Source: United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014: 5-Years-Estimate

Residential Land Use
The pilot area primarily consists of single-family
residential and agricultural land uses. During the 1990’s,
a substantial amount of new residential development
occurred within southeastern Ypsilanti Township. New
housing developments in the pilot area are high relative
to the rest of Washtenaw County.3
The pilot area is a
patchwork of suburban subdivisions surrounded by the
remaining agricultural and rural-style residences that
historically characterized the area.
Most parcels in the pilot area are zoned for residential
dwellings. Nearly 85% of the parcels in the eight-square
mile area are zoned residential, and 85% of this housing
stock is designated for single-family homes; the western
portion of the pilot area consists almost exclusively of
single-family dwellings.4
The homeownership rate in
the pilot area is high with 89% of housing tenure, while
rentals represent 11% of the housing stock in the pilot
area. The pilot area experienced a 49% increase in renter-
occupancy between 2006 and 2014. Median home value
dropped from $198,995 to $156,340 during the same
period (adjusted to 2014 dollars).5
Commercial and Industrial Land Use
Little of the pilot area is zoned for commercial use.
Only one area is zoned as “Local Business”, but is
currently undeveloped. However, several commercial
destinations are located just outside of the pilot area.
Nearby commercial destinations are concentrated in the
northwest at the Paint Creek Crossing shopping center
(Figure 2-1). Existing industrial uses are located in the
eastern half of the pilot area, consisting primarily of the
Ford Rawsonville Plant. The plant employs 720 people,
many of which reside outside of the pilot area.6
Zoning
for light industry continues along the southeastern edge
of the pilot area, with greenhouses and other industrial
development.

Figure 2-1
Des na ons within One Mile of the Pilot Area

The Paint Creek Crossing shopping center not only is the pilot area’s namesake, but serves
as a major retail destination within Southern Ypsilanti Township. This location could serve as a signi icant
generator of demand responsive trips. The center is home to over 20 business, ranging from restaurants to
tanning salons. Kroger, the anchor tenant, has the longest hours of operation of the center, from 6am-1am.
According to Google Popular Times, Kroger experiences a weekday peak from 6pm to 9pm. aturday shopping has
a more gradual peak from 7pm to10pm. 83% of surveyed residents reported visiting the Paint Creek Shopping
Center within the last month.
Route 46’s most popular bus stop is located at the shopping center (per October 2016 ridership data). This stop
serves as a direct connection to downtown Ypsilanti and the Ypsilanti Transit Center. Route 46 makes its irst stop
and last stops on Weekday mornings at 6:29am and 10:29pm respectively. Saturday service begins at Paint Creek
at 8:29am and ends at 10:29pm.
The large number of business destinations, coupled with Route 46’s high boardings and alightings, suggest that
Paint Creek Crossing shopping center is a community destination with great trip generation potential.

The Ypsilanti District Library-
Whittaker Branch is a cultural destination
within Southern Ypsilanti Township, with over 60%
of surveyed residents reporting that they have visited
the library within the last month. The 60,000-square
foot facility hosts recurring community events, art
exhibits, and serves as meeting place for several civic
groups. The Route 46 Library Bus Stop is the second
most popular stop for both boardings and alightings,
with a small peak in the midday from 9am to 3pm
according to TheRide’s October 2016 ridership
data. Google Popular Times reports moderate usage
throughout the library business hours, from 9am to
9pm; however, Saturday usage peaks slightly from
2pm to 5pm. As a cultural amenity frequented by
current transit users, the library may be a potential
destination for demand responsive trips within the
Paint Creek Pilot Area.
Institutional Land Use
Public and institutional uses, including government,
education, and religious uses, occupy a small portion of the
pilot area. Educational and governmental uses are located
just outside the pilot area’s border: the Washtenaw County
14B District Court and Ypsilanti Charter Township Civic
Center are located within one mile of Textile Road. The
large Lincoln Consolidated Schools education complex lies
just south of the pilot area. The district’s business of ice,
Lincoln Model Elementary School, Lincoln Middle School,
and Lincoln High School are each located about half a
mile south of Bemis Rd between Hitchingham Road and
Whittaker Road (Figure 2-1).
Future Land Use
Ypsilanti Township’s proposed land use map indicates few
future changes in area zoning designations. The township
master plan recognizes the continuing development
occurring in the pilot area, with speci ic plans to
accommodate growth while preserving the low-density
character of the community.7
Six large undeveloped parcels
within the pilot area designated for denser planned
developments. The master plan suggests these plots may
be developed at higher densities to encourage affordable

housing and to conserve land for recreation. Under a full
build-out scenario, 32,500 residents could live in the pilot
area. Projected development and population densities at
full build-out would still remain low compared to other
areas served by TheRide, though they would approach
densitiesthat warrant ixed-route service (Table 2-2).8
Lincoln High School’s high density of
youth and large number of extracurricular activities
could serve as a potential generator of demand
responsive trips. Over 1,000 students attend Lincoln
High School with a large majority of the students
living within the Paint Creek Pilot Area. Students have
the ability to join over 20 different extracurriculars
activities which generally take place outside of
school hours and end as late as 9pm. Lincoln High
School provides school bus service to students both
before school starts at 7:40am and when school ends
at 2:36pm. However, demand responsive transit
could serve potential student riders by providing
connections to appointments and rides home from
after school activities.
Zoning
Designa on
Square
Miles
Maximum
Dwellings
Poten al
Popula on*
Single Family
Residen al- 2
dwellings per acre
1.52 1,700 5,000
Single Family
Residen al- 3
dwellings per acre
4.97 8,100 24,300
Single Family
Residen al- 8
dwellings per acre
0.25 1,100 3,200
Industrial 1.22 - -
Total 7.96 10,800 32,500
Popula on
Density
4,100 people/ square mile
Transit Warrant 6 people /acre
Table 2-2 Poten al Land Use Intensity at Full Build-Out (Future Land Use
Designa ons)
* assuming a three-person household
Source: Ypsilanti Township Master Plan 2014

Low-density areas not suitable for traditional ixed transit
are well-suited for DRT service deployment. Population
density for DRT service in a small urban area should be
below 2,000 people per square mile. The Paint Creek pilot
area, at 1,705 people per square mile, falls below this
threshold.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Income
Median household income of the pilot area’s three Census
block groups is $81,105. This is signi icantly higher than
the Washtenaw County median income of $66,318.
However, the pilot area has a broad range of incomes: the
average in the southwest corner of the pilot area is near-
ly double that of the eastern portion (Table 2-3). Median
household income in the eastern portion of the pilot area
is 22% lower than that of the county.
Household Size
The pilot area has larger household sizes and a larger
percentage of family or married households compared
to the rest of Washtenaw County. While the average
household size is three people per household, average
household size varies within the pilot area: the southwest
portion of the pilot area has a higher average household
size at 3.2 people per household, and the eastern half
of the pilot area has an average household size of 2.7
people per household. These houshold sizes are above
the Ypsilanti area and Washtenaw County averages (Table
2-3).
Northwest Southwest East Ypsilan Area Washtenaw County
Median Household
Income ($)
91,820 97,550 53,945 43,218 66,318
Average Household Size 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.5
Table 2-3 Median Household Income and Average Household Size in the Pilot Area, Ypsilan Area, and Washtenaw County
Source: ACS 2014 (5-Year)

in inancial operations. Many of the residents work in
downtown Ypsilanti, downtown Ann Arbor, and Briarwood
Mall (Figure 2-5).9
Car Ownership
While roughly 10% of the population in the Ypsilanti area
and Washtenaw County do not own a car, only one percent
of households in the pilot area are carless. Nearly half of all
households in the pilot area own two cars (Figure 2-3).
The pilot area produces 6,273 trips to work every day,
98.6% of them by car. With such high car-ownership rates,
it is not surprising that nearly all work trips are taken in a
private vehicle (Figure 2-4).
Even though the pilot area is nearly exclusively reliant
on personal vehicles for work trips, limitations exist.
Available data does not account for non-work related trips
or trips not taken when a vehicle was unavailable. Coupled
with the current absence of public transportation options
in the service area, there may be a market for DRT service
when members of a household are vehicle-constrained.
Age
The proportion of residents between ages 25 and 44 is
larger than the county average and congregated in the
western portion. While the pilot area does not have an
especially large number of persons over 65, more live in
the eastern half of the pilot area.
Employment
Employment is one of the key reasons residents travel
from their homes. The labor force participation rate in the
pilot area is 72.9%, higher than in the Ypsilanti area and
Washtenaw County (Figure 2-2). The majority of jobs held
by pilot area residents are of ice professional occupations,
administrative support and management, business, and
Figure 2-2 Labor Force Par cipa on Rate in the Pilot Area, Ypsilan Area,
and Washtenaw County

9%
37% 37%
12%
6%
10%
42%
33%
9%
5%
1%
25%
47%
16%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
No Car One Car Two Cars Three Cars 4 Cars and more
Percentage
Washtenaw County
Ypsilanti Area
Service Area
91%
7%
2%
88%
10%
2%
90%
8%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Drove alone: Carpooled:In 2-person carpool: Carpooled:In 3-or-more-person carpool:
percentage
Washtenaw County
Ypsilanti Area
Service Area
Figure 2-3 Car Ownership Comparison Between Washtenaw County, Ypsilan Area and Service Area
Figure 2-4 Share of Commute to Work Comparison Between Washtenaw County, Ypsilan Area and the Service Area

Figure 2-5
Employment Loca on Density of Pilot Area Workers

When car ownership in the pilot area is viewed from
this perspective, there are a noticeable percentage of
households where there may be “stranded riders.” Roughly
43% of all households have more household members
than cars, and almost 60% of three person households
have fewer cars than people (Figure 2-6).
Household survey results found in Chapter 4 further
explore unmet demand. 37% of survey respondents stated
they have someplace to go without an easy way of getting
there at least once per month. When asked how they travel
when a car is unavailable, nearly one third of respondents
stated that they simply do not take the trip. The survey
results are dif icult to extrapolate to the entire pilot area,
but suggests there may be more truth to a stranded rider
hypothesis in the service area than the vehicle-centric
household data suggests.
1%
16%
59%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 2 3 4
Percentage
Household Size
Figure 2-6 Percentage of Households with Fewer Cars than People

CURRENT TRANSIT
SERVICE
TheRide provides ixed-route services mostly in Ann
Arbor and Ypsilanti, and special amenities for seniors,
commuters, people with disabilities (ADA/Disability
Services), and students. Most of these passenger trips are
provided in the City of Ann Arbor and the City of Ypsilanti.
Suburban areas in TheRide’s service area similar to the
pilot area receive limited, if any, transit service. The
nearest ixed-route service to the pilot area is the Route 46
bus, which runs along the pilot area’s northern boundary
(Figure 2-7). Route 46 has two stops just north of the pilot
area at the Paint Creek shopping center and the Ypsilanti
Library.
Route 46 connects several residential areas to the
amenities along Whittaker Road and downtown Ypsilanti.
This route is easily accessible to residents living in the
northernmost portion of the Paint Creek Pilot area.10
Route
46 experiences roughly 6.5 boardings per service hour -
productivity which suggests DRT could be effective in the
pilot area.11
Various non- ixed-route transit amenities serve the
pilot area’s residents. TheRide provides A-Ride, the
complementary ADA paratransit bus service within the
pilot area. The United States Code of Federal Regulations
on transportation services requires transit agencies
provide handicapped-accessible transportation services
within three-fourths of a mile of all ixed routes.12
A-Ride
service is available to individuals who have pre-registered
with TheRide.
A Park&Ride lot is located at the Ypsilanti Transit Center
north of the pilot area. The Park&Ride enables pilot area
residents to drive to the nearest ixed-route stop and take
transit the rest of their journey into Ypsilanti or Ann Arbor.
TheRide also provides a suite of commuter services, -
namely Vanpool and Carpool, – to residents of the pilot
area. These services are directed towards those who wish
to reduce their transportation and parking costs. All of
these services require users register with TheRide, and
then organize their travel with other potential users and
drivers.13

Figure 2-7
Paint Creek Pilot Area in Rela on to Route 46

Figure 2-8
A-Ride Service Area

SUMMARY FINDINGS
Compared to the greater Ypsilanti area and Washtenaw
County, the pilot area is more af luent, has a signi icant
proportion of large families with young children, and
a somewhat lower proportion of elderly residents.
Important variations within the pilot area exist as well.
This inventory indicates that TheRide offers limited
subscription commuter services to most of the Paint
Creek pilot area, with ixed-route service conveniently
accessible only along the northern boundary. Existing
demand responsive services have a high barrier to entry
due to required registration and coordination with other
residents or TheRide. The implementation of a general
public DRT service would offer a more convenient transit
option.
Figure 2-9 Poten al Des na ons by Age
Source: Adapted from TCRP Report 140: Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services

The eastern half of the area has seen relatively little
development and is still comprised of larger, rural-
style parcels. This sub-region also has a larger share of
elderly and lower-income residents. These disaggregated
characteristics match those established by the
transportation planning literature as conducive to lexible
transportation. A DRT service may appeal to residents
that currently cannot afford a car in this car-dependent
environment, or passengers that would prefer to use
public transit options instead of driving.
The western portion of the pilot area have a signi icantly
higher household income, and most households have
their own vehicle. However, the western portion of the
pilot area may provide DRT riders from households with
members unable to travel when all household vehicles
are in use. Various lexible transportation studies found
that such services work well when users are not relying
on the service for time-sensitive trips, and instead use
DRT service for trips that are more adaptable to time
constraints (Figure 2-9).14
Demographic characteristics of the Paint Creek Pilot area
suggest a service gap that demand responsive transit
could ill. The proposed pilot area density does not justify
ixed-route service. Current land use density, existing
transit pro ile, demographics, and travel behavior in the
pilot area meets many of the benchmarks to justify DRT
service.
• The pilot area has a population density less than
2,000 people per square mile.
• Existing transit service to the pilot area is limited
to the northern edge by the Route 46.
• Pilot area demographics indicate viability for
DRT among choice riders that may prefer public
transit to driving for some trips, and members of
large families that are vehicle-constrained when
all household vehicles are in use.
While transportation needs, especially employment
trips, in the pilot area are largely served by individu-
al vehicles, the demographic analysis reveals that the
Paint Creek pilot area would be appropriate for demand
responsive transit.

Endnotes
1. Transportation Research Board (2010). TCRP 140: A Guide for
Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services. Re-
trieved from https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=923898.
2. Ewing, R. H., & Bartholomew, K. (2013). Pedestrian- & Transit-ori-
ented Design. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute and American
Planning Association
3. Ypsilanti Planning and Zoning Department. (2014). 2014 Master
Plan Update. Retrieved from https://ytown.org/images/Planning-And-
Zoning/2014-Master-Plan-Update.pdf
4. Ypsilanti Planning and Zoning Department. (2014). 2014 Master
Plan Update. Retrieved from https://ytown.org/images/Planning-And-
Zoning/2014-Master-Plan-Update.pdf
5. U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Median Household Income, American
Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from http://www.
socialexplorer.com/tables/ACS2014.
6. Ford Motors (2016). Plant Details – Rawsonville Plant. Retrieved
from https://corporate.ford.com/company/plant-detail-pages/raw-
sonville-plant.html
7. Ypsilanti Planning and Zoning (2014). Ypsilanti Township Master
Plan. Ypsilanti Township. Retrieved from https://ytown.org/images/
Planning-And-Zoning/2014-Master-Plan-Update.pdf.
8. Son, Jihoon (2009). Residential Build-Out Analysis Based on Zon-
ing. ESRI. Retrieved from http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0109/
buildout.html
9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics. Retrieved from http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/lodes/
LODES7/mi/od/.
10. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. ARide. Retrieved from
http://www.theride.org/services/a-ride-ada-disability-services
11. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (2016). Ridership Data
in November, 2016.
12. Service criteria for complementary paratransit, 49 C.F.R. §
37.131 (1991). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
text/49/37.131.
13. Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. ARide. Retrieved from
http://www.theride.org/services/a-ride-ada-disability-services.
14. Denver Regional Council of Governments (2011). Transportation
Planning in the Denver Region. Retrieved from https://drcog.org/
sites/drcog/ iles/resources/Trans%20Plng.pdf

30 Chapter 3 | Demand Responsive Transit
Essex Drive & Warwick Drive

Chapter 3 | Demand Responsive Transit 31
DEMAND RESPONSIVE
TRANSIT
DRT Across the Country
Peer Agency Benchmarks
Technology and Innovation

Demand responsive transit, or DRT, is current
nomenclature for a broad range of non- ixed-route public
transportation options that provide lexible shared-
ride services responsive in some degree to requests
from the general public. DRT services typically require
reservations for service, but are increasingly available as
non-reservation services from a transit stop connection
or other trip generators. Some municipalities offer DRT
restricted to use by residents and their guests within a
de ined area. Rural transit agencies may offer only DRT
service.
This chapter provides:
• an introduction to DRT
• de initions for DRT models used in this report
• analysis of benchmark community DRT operations
and performance
• an overview of innovative DRT technologies.
Public transit agencies began offering non- ixed-route,
lexible DRT services as a deliberate experiment in
conjunction with universities and vehicle companies in the
1960’s. By the 1970’s a handful of lexible transit services
were in operation around the country. Flexible DRT transit
became more widely adopted across the US in the 1980’s
as a way for smaller communities to provide transit where
ixed-route service was impractical.1
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) de ines demand
response transit for purposes of National Transit Database
(NTD) reporting:
“Demand Response (DR)
A transit mode comprised of passenger cars, vans
or small buses operating in response to calls from
passengers or their agents to the transit operator, who
then dispatches a vehicle to pick up the passengers
and transport them to their destinations. A demand
response (DR) operation is characterized by the
following:
• The vehicles do not operate over a ixed route
or on a ixed schedule except, perhaps, on
a temporary basis to satisfy a special need,
and
• Typically, the vehicle may be dispatched to
pick up several passengers at different pick-up
points before taking them to their respective
destinations and may even be interrupted en
route to these destinations to pick up other
passengers.2

DRT is also known by other terms: dial-a-ride,
demand-activated transportation, demand-responsive
transportation, dial-a-bus, shared-ride paratransit,
lexible-route service, and lexible-transport services.
There is some confusion in terms used to describe lexible
transit services. The TCRP characterizes the complexity
of de initions in report 124, Guidebook for Measuring,
Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-
Response Transportation:
“From a terminology standpoint, what may be
confusing is that, since enactment of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, much of the
focus ...[on] DRT has turned to ADA complementary
paratransit service. ADA paratransit is a type of DRT
that ixed-route transit systems must provide to
individuals with disabilities who cannot use ixed-
route service because of their disability. Paratransit,
however, is the broadest term. DRT is a subset of
paratransit, and ADA complementary paratransit is a
subset of DRT.”3
Regulatory Requirements
Transit agencies must abide by ADA regulations when
implementing a DRT service. A transit agency that
provides either ixed or demand responsive service
must also provide a comparable paratransit service to
individuals with disabilities including wheelchair users.
Federal regulations require the service to be comparable
to the ixed-route service in its fares, geographic service
area, hours of operation, reservation capabilities, and
other factors.4
Supplemental DRT services, like the proposed service
in the Paint Creek pilot area, are not required to meet
paratransit-level ADA accommodations. However, the
service must be equally accessible to disabled and non-
disabled riders. This “equivalency” is measured in the
following ways:
1. “When viewed in the service’s entirety”: The
proposed service’s accessibility to persons with
disabilities is judged from a holistic view. This
means that the service will be deemed equivalent
if the service, as a whole, is able to accommodate
a passenger with disabilities.5
For example, a leet

3. “Speci ic service elements”: Riders with disabilities
must have similar or better service compared
to non-disabled riders by the following metrics
– response time, fares, geographic area of
service, hours and days of service, availability of
information, reservations capability, constraints on
capacity, and restriction based on trip purpose.8
While DRT services are not required to meet
complementary paratransit requirements, and have a
high degree of lexibility in types of service provided, the
service still must be able to accommodate riders of all
abilities with an equivalent level of service.
of demand responsive transit vehicles need not
be comprised entirely of accessible vehicles, but
it must have suf icient vehicles to accommodate
riders with disabilities in a comparable way to non-
disabled riders. If the vehicle can accommodate
more than 16 passengers, it must have wheelchair
accessibility.
2. “Capacity to accommodate handicapped riders
in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the individual”:A service that transported
individuals with disabilities entirely separately
from other customers would violate those
passengers’ right against discrimination.6
Riders
with disabilities must be integrated into the rest of
the service.7

• Route Deviation
Route deviation vehicles operate along a regular route,
with or without marked bus stops, and deviate off that
route to serve demand response trips within a zone
around the route.
• Flexible Route Segments
Flexible route segment service is predominately ixed-
route service but converts to DRT for a limited and de ined
portion of the route.
• Request Stop
Request stop service is predominately traditional ixed-
route/ ixed-schedule service but also provides service to
a limited number of de ined stops close by the route at the
request of a passenger. 9
Demand responsive transit takes various forms, referred
to by several general names. The following DRT de initions
are derived from the Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual (TCQSM) 3rd edition (2014) based on a
typology derived from TCRP Synthesis 53: Operational
Experiences with Flexible Transit Services.
• DRT Connector/Feeder
DRT connector, also referred to as “feeder” service,
provides demand-responsive service within a de ined zone
that has one or more scheduled transfer points to ixed-
route transit.
• Zone Routes
Zone routes combine DRT service within de ined zones
along a corridor with scheduled departure and arrival
times at one or more end points.
• Point Deviation
Point deviation service, operates within a de ined area
or zone, providing demand responsive service as well as
scheduled service to a limited number of designated stops,
without any regular route between the stops.

• Point deviation serves customers within a speci ic
zone but has a set of required, timed stops. Travel
between these speci ied stops is lexible. One
variation is demand responsive connector service,
in which timed stops are synchronized with a
ixed-route network stop to accommodate a high
percentage of riders that request to connect at the
location.
• Full lex provides DRT service with the greatest
lexibility. Vehicles serve demand responsive
requests without a pre-established path or regular
timed stops. One complete trip consists of the
vehicle taking customers from a speci ic pick up
location to a speci ied destination.
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Diagram for Full Flex
Every 1 Hour
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Diagram for Point Devia on
The DRT types most commonly in use are route deviation, request stop, and connector-feeder service. The case studies and
benchmarking research in this report contain examples of a variety of DRT service types. Three composite models of DRT
service – full lex, point deviation, and route deviation, are used in this report. Each model is de ined below.

Development density and transit demand can be used
to determine which type of DRT service is appropriate
for a given area. TCRP Report 140: Guide for Planning
and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services
outlines advantages derived from DRT service
variations, and informs the bulleted recommendations
below.
• Full lex is optimal in areas with lower density
and demand, due to the sporadic and disparate
geography of trip requests, or when a transit
agency’s goals are to deliver a premium shared
ride, quick response transit service.
• Point deviation is preferable when service needs
to be more responsive to changing or variable
demands. Point deviation is usually optimal when
there are either clearly clustered pickup locations
or regularly requested destinations.
• Route deviation is preferred where passenger
boardings would occur along the route without
advance notice to the system, and passengers can
pre-book off route. Route deviation is best deployed
when there are de ined origins and destinations
along a corridor that have high viability for transit
service.
• Route deviation operates on a regular schedule
along a well-de ined path, with or without marked
bus stops, with vehicles that deviate to serve demand
responsive requests within a zone around the path.
The width or extent of the zone may be precisely
established or lexible.10
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Diagram for Route Devia on

38 Chapter 3 | Benchmarking Research
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) offers two demand
response services, DART On-Call and FLEX service.
DART On-call is a full lex service offered in eight service
areas. On-Call offers on-demand rides with one-hour
minimum advance reservation required. Service operates
Monday through Friday, though hours vary by zone. On-
Call service uses a separate centralized booking service
over the phone.
FLEX is point deviation service, operating on ixed
schedules with limited time stops in areas of lower
density. The six FLEX routes charge DART’s local fare.
FLEX requests are limited to the designated FLEX zones.
Reservations must be made at least 24 hours prior to the
desired trip and up to seven days in advance. Walk-up
requests are not accepted. DART matches vehicle type and
service model to actual route productivity.
Figure 3-4 Dallas Area Rapid Transit On-Call
DRT ACROSS THE COUNTRY
Source: DART

Chapter 3 | Benchmarking Research 39
The Rapid PASS
The Rapid is Grand Rapids, Michigan’s transit agency,
operated by the Interurban Transit Partnership. The Rapid
was formed in 2000, and currently provides services
across six cities in the greater Grand Rapids metropolitan
area. The Rapid operates 28 ixed bus routes, a bus
rapid transit called the Silver Line, ADA paratransit, and
Passenger Adaptive Suburban Service, or PASS.
PASS is a suburban feeder shuttle that transports
passengers from their curb to The Rapid ixed-route
system. If riders live more than one-third of a mile off a bus
line, PASS will shuttle the rider to the nearest bus stop for
only $3.50. This fare includes a transfer to the ixed-route
bus.
In order to use a PASS shuttle, riders must irst be
registered for eligibility. PASS service requires the trip to
be scheduled by 4:30pm the day before the trip is needed.
All PASS vehicles are wheelchair accessible but drivers do
not assist riders beyond the vehicle.
Figure 3-5 The Rapid P.A.S.S.
Source: The Rapid

40 Chapter 3 | Benchmarking Research
RIPTA
The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA)
provides public transportation, including ixed-route bus,
ADA paratransit, and DRT in the state of Rhode Island.
RIPTA initiated Flex Service, its version of DRT, in the early
2000s. The service strives to meet the mobility needs
of communities across the state’s suburban and rural
communities.
Flex Service operates in eleven geographically limited
areas called Flex Zones. Each zone represents an area
with little to no local ixed-route service. The Flex vehicle,
typically a 16-passenger vehicle with space for two
wheelchairs, picks up passengers within the zone, drops
them off at local destinations and/or connects them to a
ixed-route bus service.
RIPTA utilizes both a curb-to-curb full lex and a curb-
to-curb point deviation demand responsive model,
depending on the zone. Flex Service provides residents
an expanded menu of mobility options that provide them
with convenient, affordable transportation within their
communities and the opportunity to make connections to
other locations throughout the state.
Figure 3-6 RIPTA Flex Service
Source: RIPTA
DRT ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Chapter 3 | Benchmarking Research 41
Regional Transportation District
Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates
demand responsive transit service across the greater
Denver metropolitan area.
Denver Call-n-Ride service was designed for areas
with low passenger density, where traditional ixed-
route service is inef icient. Call-n-Ride features small,
wheelchair-accessible buses that provide curb-to-curb
service in 23 distinct areas. Select Call-n-Ride service
areas offer commuters a reservation-free ride during
rush-hours at scheduled stops and times along the route.
Call-n-Ride service areas are between four and ten square
miles. Several of the routes were implemented to replace
underperforming RTD ixed routes.
RTD service models deliver three distinct types of service:
1) Full lex demand response curb-to-curb trips anywhere
within the service area; 2) Point deviation services, with
checkpoints and full service stop to curb anywhere within
the established service area; and 3) Route deviation, or
what RTD characterizes as their lex route service, where
riders can wait at designated stops during peak service
hours for on-demand service without reservations.
Figure 3-7 RTD Call-n-Ride
Source: RTD

service. Additional research into general-public demand
responsive transit services uncovered others agencies to
add to these six peers. This was conducted using publicly
available information and interviewing agencies by phone
about their DRT service provision.
The following 15 agencies comprise this report’s
benchmark agencies providing general-public DRT
service. Detailed results from the review of similar service
providers can be found in the appendices; summary
indings are presented below (TheRide peer agencies are
noted in bold):
• Ashland Public Transit (Ashland, Ohio)
• Capital Area Transportation Authority (Lansing,
MI)
• Dallas Area Regional Transit (Dallas, TX)
• Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority (Erie,
PA)
• Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation
(Fort Wayne, IN)
• Greater Peoria Mass Transit District (Peoria,
IL)
PEER AGENCY
BENCHMARKS
Benchmark research serves two purposes in this report: 1)
outline the application of DRT principles, and 2) describe
the different models of DRT service. This section reviews
operating procedures of DRT and lexible transit offered
by peer agencies to TheRide. This survey of representative
DRT service models can help guide the development of a
DRT program.
This study includes a synthesis of the operating
procedures and performance measures used by peer
transit agencies. Understanding operating characteristics
of similar agencies such as the model of lexible transit
service deployed, hours of operation, reservation system
utilized, fare charged, and vehicle used, can help inform
operation decisions for the Paint Creek pilot area.
Scope and Methods
TheRide’s 20 established peer agencies were surveyed
for demand responsive transit service (Appendix A-1).11
Six of the 20 peer agencies operate general-public DRT

operate more than one type of DRT model across their
service area.
• Full lex– All eleven services have a de ined service
area. Kalamazoo Metro Transit’s County Connect
service completes demand responsive trips
throughout the whole county. The Capital Area
Transportation Authority’s Redi-Ride completes
trips throughout the township. Greenville Public
Transit operates the smallest service area at six
square miles.
• Point deviation– All four services classi ied as point
deviation make demand responsive trips within a
speci ic zone. Variation exists between the services
on checkpoint locations. Some point deviation
operators allow for local trips, while others operate
feeder connection service to a ixed-route stop.
• Route Deviation– Most agencies have formal
policies regarding a maximum distance of deviation
allowed from the route. Typical route deviation is
a half mile from ixed routes. Citilink (Fort Wayne,
IN) utilizes alternative points rather than true route
deviation. Customer can schedule a pick up or drop
off at one of 40 predetermined alternative stops up
to a mile off the route.
• Greenville Transit System (Greenville, Ohio)
• Interurban Transit Partnership (Grand Rapids,
MI)
• Kalamazoo Metro Transit (Kalamazoo, MI)
• King County Metro Transit (King County, WA)
• Quad Cities MetroLINK (Moline, IL)
• Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO)
• Rhode Island Public Transit Authority
(Statewide)
• Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional
Transportation (Detroit, MI)
• Votran (Volusia County, FL)
This group of peer agencies offers general-public,
demand responsive transit. Agencies providing only ADA
complementary paratransit or DRT for the elderly were
not included.
Models of Flexible Transit Service
All the agencies surveyed use at least one of three
general models of lexible transit services; full lex, point
deviation or route deviation (Appendix A-2). Seven
benchmark communities operate full lex, one uses point
deviation, and four run route deviation. Three agencies

Figure 3-8 Surveyed Transit Agencies Across the Country

Checkpoints and Fixed Stops
Point deviation and route deviation models follow daily
schedules that list checkpoints or ixed stops with arrival
and departure times. Appendix A-3 lists the headways for
each point deviation and route deviation service.
• Point deviation– Time stops are often referred to
as checkpoints. Agencies with only one checkpoint
(Regional Transportation District and Dallas Area
Regional Transit) have the most frequent service.
These high production checkpoints typically serve
a light rail station, where frequent service may be
warranted. Other point deviation services have less
frequent checkpoints, but offer more checkpoints at
a variety of destinations.
º Dallas Area Rapid Transit operates on 30 minute
headways during peak hours and reverts to full
lex during off peak.
º The Rhode Island Public Transportation
Authority, arrives at checkpoints once during
the AM and PM peak hour.
• Route deviation– The headway for most route
deviation services is one hour. The distance
traveled may not take an hour, but extra time allows
for route deviations.
º Citilink’s Flexlink faces consistent challenges
meeting stops on routes with one-hour
headways. To streamline deviation routing the
FlexLink system directs riders to board at over
40 “alternative stops.”
Spontaneous Boardings and Alightings
Boardings and alightings without advance notice are
permitted in all surveyed agencies that have a checkpoint
in their DRT service.
• Several point deviation and route deviation services
schedule extra time to anticipate time costs of a
spontaneous boarding or alighting.
• In one lex zone, the Rhode Island Public Transit
Authority allows customers to board at any time at
the local Walmart if time allows.
• After 11 years of service, The Regional
Transportation District (Denver, CO) reported 65%
spontaneous boardings on DRT routes in 2011.12

Daily Operations
All 15 of the benchmark agencies operate Monday through
Friday. Table 3-1 shows days of operation.
• Several agencies operate lexible transit on the
same days as their ixed-route service.
• Hours are typically shortened for weekend
service.
• Kalamazoo Metro Connect recently added Sundays
and late nights to their schedule (August 2016)
after nearly 12 years of operation with reduced
hours of operation.
The number of daily service hours varies by agency and
route. For weekday service, the average number of service
hours is 13.4 hours. Saturday’s average number of service
hours is 11.5, while Sunday’s average is 9.6 hours. See
Appendix A-4 for a summary of all operating hours.
• The Interurban Transit Partnership (Grand Rapids,
MI) has the longest weekday service (18.5 hours)
from 5:15am to 11:45pm. The Greater Peoria Mass
Transit District operates the shortest weekday
service, only nine hours, from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
Both Grand Rapids and Peoria’s service are full lex
models.
• All agencies serve weekday morning and evening
hours. Six agencies, operate late night service (after
8pm) during the weekday and six agencies begin
weekday service before 6:30am.
• Capital Area Transit is the only agency to offer
Saturday service that begins after noon.
• Dallas Area Rapid Transit, King County Metro, and
The Regional Transportation District each have
hours that vary by the model of lexible transit and
the route being served.
Monday-
Friday
Monday-
Saturday
Monday-
Sunday
Number of
Benchmark Agencies
5 6 6
Table 3-1 Days in Opera on by Number of Benchmark Agencies

• Several agencies operate DRT service as a
irst-come, irst-served system, and book trips
sequentially.
Five of the 15 agencies set limits on how well-advanced
before day of service the agency accepts DRT reservations.
Representative time limits include: 30 days (King County
Metro Transit), 14 days (Greater Peoria Mass Transit
District and Interurban Transit Partnership), and 7 days
(Kalamazoo Metro Transit and Dallas Area Rapid Transit).
Wait Time and No-Show Policy
Agencies implement wait time and no-show policies to
improve on-time performance. Nine of the 15 agencies
have formal policies that specify the length of time a
driver will wait for a customer. Table 3-3 shows wait time
Advance Notice Requirements
Customers request demand responsive service in advance
through an agency dispatcher or contractor.
All agencies allow phone reservations (Appendix A-5).
• SMART (Suburban Mobility Agencies for Regional
Transportation) allows direct emails and has an
online reservation system.
• The King County Metro Transit accepts reservations
through their contractor’s website, HopeLink.
Amount of advance notice required appears unrelated to
the service type (Table 3-2). Agencies that operate full lex,
point deviation, and route deviation have the capacity to
accept short notice requests. Other agencies that operate
similar services require at least 24-hour notice. Seven of
the 15 agencies allow same day reservations.
• Citilink accepts reservations for route deviations no
less than 30 minutes in advance.
• The Capital Area Transportation Authority and
Capital Area Transit requires four hours’ advance
notice.
Less than
1 hour
1 hour 2 hour 4 hour
Previous
Day
Informal
Full Flex - 1 - 2 5 3
Point Devia on - - 1 1 - -
Route Devia on 1 - 1 - - 1
Table 3-2 Advance No ce Requirements for Demand Responsive Board-
ings and Drop-oﬀs

• Capital Area Transit launched “Find My CAT Bus”
a GPS-based mobile website in February 2016 that
enables transit riders to locate all CAT routes, stops,
bus locations and estimated arrival times. This
website also captures DRT vehicle location in real
time.
• The Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO)
utilizes Demand Trans software. Several agencies
noted this software is one of the most cutting
edge available. Demand Trans software allows for
route optimization on the ly without an outside
dispatcher and scheduler.
• Kalamazoo Metro Transit, uses CTS Software, Inc.
with real-time vehicle tracking. Kalamazoo does not
have the capacity to develop a public-facing mobile
application.
duration. The same nine agencies developed No-Show
Policies that specify consequences for repeated no-shows
or cancellations with too short of notice. Pick-up time
windows are often speci ied within a 15 or 30-minute
window.
Reservation and Technology Systems
Most transit agencies operate DRT with the same software
used for their ADA paratransit and ixed-route service.
(Table 3-4). Several software packages offer a public facing
application for GPS tracking or expected arrival updates.
• Citilink uses its paratransit software, Easy Rides
by Mobilitat, for the dispatching and scheduling
of route deviation service. The mobile application
gives customers an expected time of arrival from
their current location. Customers can also track
the vehicle via the agency’s website that shows the
real-time location of the vehicle.
Wait Time
Policy
Leave at
scheduled me
2 Minutes 3 Minutes 5 minutes
Number of
Agencies
2 1 1 5
Table 3-3 Speciﬁc Wait Time Policies
So ware
Trapeze
CTS So ware, Inc.
Easy Rides by Mobilitat
Reveal
DemandTrans
Table 3-4 So ware Pla orms Used for Flexible Transit Service

• SMART uses a 435 Cut Away Bus with 13 seats
and space for three wheelchairs. Despite lower
boardings per hour than vehicle capacity, SMART
operates larger-than-needed capacity vehicles to
accommodate mobility-limited riders.
Coordination with Other Services
DRT service is frequently operated in conjunction with
other transit services. Many of the full lex and point
deviation routes connect to ixed-route transfer points
(Appendix A-8). Benchmark agency DRT services either
complements or encompasses existing ADA paratransit.
DRT services are commonly operated as coordinating
services.
Performance Measures
Transit agencies use a variety of measures to track service
productivity and performance. Reported boardings per
hour ranged from 1.8 to 6.1 per hour.
Phone interviews and review of Kalamazoo Metro
Transit, Denver’s Regional Transportation District and
Fares
Fares for six DRT services are higher than the fares for
those agencies’ existing traditional transit. These six
agencies operate full lex throughout the rural/exurban
community or on-demand feeders to ixed routes. These
agencies often have large service areas, and trip lengths
over ten miles.
Vehicles
Types of vehicles used vary by the type of service and
agency. Variables include existing leet availability,
the vehicle’s ability to accommodate wheelchairs, and
expected usage. Many agencies use smaller buses that can
accommodate multiple wheelchairs and/or use the same
vehicles as their paratransit service. Appendix A-7 shows
the vehicles utilized by each agency.
• Kalamazoo Metro Transit uses a range of vehicles
drawn from the agency’s existing complementary
ADA paratransit and ixed-route leets. Vehicle
capacity is matched to daily service manifests.

the Ohio Department of Transportation provided details
of performance characteristics of general-public demand
responsive transit service. Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 show
some of the methods agencies use to measure their
performance. These measures are meant to be illustrative,
and not used as direct comparison to the proposed Paint
Creek pilot service. Each agency operates within unique
geographic and demographic contexts.
Limitations
The National Transit Database (NTD) compiles DRT
service statistics bundled with the performance of all
DRT services offered by an agency, including paratransit
and senior ride services. NTD data alone provides limited
detail into the performance of speci ic general-public DRT
services. Combined DRT data from the NTD were used for
agencies that did not provide speci ic general-public DRT
service data (Appendix A-9). Due to limitations, direct
comparison of vehicle boardings per hour cannot be made
between comparison agencies and the pilot area.
Performance Measure
No Shows 4%
On-Time Performance 98%
Total Revenue Hours 81,985
Passengers per Hour 1.89
Average Miles per Passenger 10.41
Total Contract Cost $ 3,045,742
Cost per Trip $ 19.73
Cost per Passenger $ 19.69
Cost per Mile $ 2.47
Cost per Hour $ 37.15
Total Revenue $ 562,731
Table 3-5 Kalamazoo Metro Transit (Kalamazoo, MI) County
Connect 2015 Performance
Performance Measure/Year 2005 2008 2011
Median Boardings per Hour - - 3.7
Same day reserva on 27% 9% 12%
Previous day reserva on 23% 6% 11%
Have a regularly scheduled trip 47% 55% 47%
Table 3-6 Regional Transporta on District (Denver, CO) 2005-2011
Call-N-Ride Performance
Source: Kalamazoo Metro Transit, 2015 Year End Report
Source: Becker, Teal, and Mossige (2013): 136-145 13

Table 3-7 Ashland Public Transit (Ashland, OH) and Greenville Tran-
sit System (Greenville, OH) 2012 Performance
Source: Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study, 2012
Many agencies offer their DRT services priced the same,
or more, than the regular ixed-route fare. The price of the
service offered appeared to be calculated by convenience
or distance traveled.
Several agencies established wait time and no-show
policies to improve on-time performance. Implementing
a DRT wait time and no-show policy may help early
performance monitoring.
Many agencies do not keep comprehensive general-public
DRT performance data. Provision of DRT service is not
always tied to objective standards. Over 80 percent of
responding transit agencies in TCRP Report 140: A Guide
for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation
Services had no standards for DRT service.
Findings
The benchmarking research can inform the decision-
making process for DRT recommendations within the
Paint Creek pilot area. The benchmarking agencies
showed a broad spectrum of DRT models but favored
full lex and route deviation. Agencies that used point
deviation typically prioritized transit connections.
Some agencies accept reservations online or through a
voice automated system and several have extensive mobile
websites for tracking DRT vehicles. Incorporating this
technology into the DRT system in the Paint Creek pilot
area could increase the consumer satisfaction and ease of
use.
Performance Measure/Ohio
Agency
Ashland Public Transit
Greenville Transporta on
System
Percent of Trip Denials 0% 0.01%
Percent of Trips Made by the
General Public
87% 79%
Opera ng Cost per Vehicle $40.86 $37.32
Opera ng Cost per
Passenger
$20.99 $9.03
Riders per Vehicle Hour 1.9 4.1

DRT can be scaled up or back in intensity or service
levels, routes can become more structured, full lex,
or be replaced with ixed-route service if demand
shows suf icient ridership to support a ixed route. The
benchmarking research contained in this report is meant
to better guide DRT implementation for the Paint Creek
pilot area or other service expansions.
Many reporting transit agencies used passengers per hour
as their standard, and most of these agencies reported
DRT ridership between three and ive passengers per
hour.14
This benchmarking research suggests that there is
no “one size it all” solution for demand responsive transit,
even by similar sized agencies operating across similar
geographies. One of the bene its of providing DRT is its
lexibility.
Figure 3-9 Performance Measures

TECHNOLOGY AND
INNOVATION
Transit agencies looking to deliver transportation
into lower density areas or optimize existing routes
are increasingly turning to DRT services. Agencies are
contracting with providers to deliver innovative new
technology-driven public transit with limited capital outlay
by transit agencies. For-pro it rideshare and taxi services
are entering markets with an aim to disrupt public transit
as it is known today. A race to reinvent transportation is
underway.
Smartphone apps allow consumers to interact with transit
services seamlessly and easily book trips on DRT services.
Technology allows for single payment using smartcards,
subscription services, or apps. Advanced autonomous
vehicles have begun to carry paying passengers on
transit routes open to the general public. The array of
new provisions into the transit ield are characterized as
Advanced Public Transportation Services, or APTS.
APTS apply transportation management and information
technologies to increase operations ef iciency and improve
public safety. Examples of APTS applications include
real-time passenger information systems, automatic
vehicle location systems, bus arrival noti ication systems,
vehicle signal prioritization systems, autonomous vehicle
functions, and real-time on-demand transit delivery.
Transit agencies are under threat by new entries into
transportation, but opportunity exists to integrate APTS
innovations and private technology innovators into public
transit routes and service areas. Washtenaw County’s
proximity to the nexus of the US auto industry and the
University of Michigan positions TheRide near a hub
of transportation innovation that may present future
opportunities for technology integration.
New technology uptake in transit service can be grouped
into several distinct but overlapping and complimentary
categories: Vehicle, User Interface, Business Model, and
Routing.

commercial freight. Michigan laws welcome new driverless
technologies to the state’s roadways. Vehicle functionality
is incrementally improving with collision avoidance, stay-
in-lane technologies, ABS braking and others.
Autonomous transit vehicles are being tested on public
roads in commercial markets overseas, and on a more
limited scale in the United States. Michigan enacted
permissive new autonomous vehicle laws in late 2016
that allow remote drivers and the rapid uptake of new
driverless and autonomous vehicle technologies.15
Technology irms are pushing the envelope for allowable
tech use in the US, and the transportation sector is poised
to integrate new autonomous features into transit that
provide a competitive advantage. NHTSA released 2016
Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles that
differentiate between Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs),
and Self Driving Vehicles(SDVs).16
Low speed HAV and
SDV are being tested and deployed today in Michigan and
around the world.
Vehicle Innovation
Vehicle innovations include the convenient new, nimble
small vehicle platforms like the MV-1 or the Ford
Transit vans used in Kansas City’s Bridj service. Uber
is experimenting with autonomous taxis in Pittsburgh.
Fully autonomous, low speed public buses are carrying
passengers on public roads in cities in Europe and Asia,
and on closed circuit public transit routes in the US by
2017.
Fully autonomous semi-tractor trailer combinations are
successfully navigating highways in US states, delivering
Figure 3-10 Olli Bus
Photo Source: courtesy Local Motors

User Interface Technology
User Interface refers to the new ways riders access
transit. Bus tracking using AVL technology is currently
used by TheRide to provide riders with real time transit
scheduling. Real-time DRT trip booking through an app
can sync with smartphone locator apps to match riders to
the nearest, most convenient stop for the next available
trip, and is already accomplished by the smartphone
wielding public in Dallas, Denver, and other cities. Trip-
chaining apps that mix and match the best option for a
rider among ixed-route bus, bike-share, taxi or jitney
and offer a single payment option or a suite of options
according to willingness to pay are commercially available.
Business Models
Business Models refers to the new ways transit vehicles
or services are provided. Bridj leases Ford Vans through
partnerships in Kansas City, Boston and Washington
D.C. Uber is looking to lease vehicles to drivers, but may
consider removing drivers all together once driverless
vehicles become technologically feasible and legal
nationwide. UberWAV and other rideshare operators are
expanding into ADA paratransit provision. Transit agencies
and private company partnerships increasingly provide a
diverse array of transit services, from leet to operations to
technology platforms.
Routing Technology
Routing Technology describes how vehicles meet demand
with real time rider connections, demand balancing,
and route optimization software: maximizing service
hour productivity delivers marginal gains. DRT can be
considered an early innovation in public transit beyond
traditional ixed-route service models. Cities like Merrill,
Wisconsin sought ways to better accommodate residents’
needs, and turned to on-demand transit four decades ago.17
In Ann Arbor, TheRide’s earliest service model back in the
1970s was providing on-demand, rather than ixed-route,
service.

MaaS Global is a one-stop technology service combining
private and public transport options in Helsinki and
two other Finnish cities. MaaS Global’s smartphone app,
Whim, shows the best way to get between destinations
by combining public transport and a variety of private
transportation options. Once users determine a route,
Whim makes all bookings across services, ensures all
vehicles are available and all services are running on
time. Every option has costs clearly available, allowing the
user to judge the trade-offs between speed, comfort, and
price before booking their choice of service. Customers
can buy one-off journeys, or bundle contracts for a set
amount of travel each month and billed online. The Whim
app includes pay-as-you-go “multi-modal” packages for
a single monthly fee with a planned seamless interface
between modes using a consumer’s phone.
King County, Washington Metro’s Transit GO Ticket is
a mobile app that lets customers quickly buy bus, rail
and water taxi tickets on smartphones and wave or show
their phone ‘ticket’ for access across multiple leets and
services.19
Emerging DRT
Selected examples of DRT technology and innovation
are provided in the following section. These and similar
services are rapidly developing user friendly connections
between transit providers, customers, and the places they
need to go. The new age of app-interfaced DRT transit
seeks to remove the guesswork by combining various
options in the most ef icient, cost-effective ways to provide
seamless travel.
RITMO is a University of Michigan pilot project, currently
in development through the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). RITMO
is exploring the plausibility of deploying about 50 on-
demand, shared vehicles into a rapid transit bus and rail
network that serves the university community. Riders will
be able to request rides in this “Hub and Shuttle” service
via smartphone, with trips optimized between vehicles in
real time, and real time tracking to show customers actual
travel time to their destinations. This service is currently
in a data collection phase.18

Bridj (Figure 3-11) and other vehicle-oriented services
are combining a wealth of data collected from users’
smartphones to model travel in cities, and use the data to
run effective systems of on-demand minibuses, including
Boston, Kansas City and Washington, DC. Book A Ride and
the corresponding app show pick-up and drop-off points
close to traveler origin and destinations, the inal walking
distance required, and the fare. To use Bridj, people walk
a short distance to predetermined pick-up locations that
maximize routing and existing vehicles in motion, and
users share a vehicle with other people headed in the same
direction, at the same price as a regular bus trip.20
Figure 3-11 Bridj Vehicle
Source : Ford Motor Company
The Detroit area Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional
Transportation (SMART) deploys a personalized SMART
Trip Planner, powered by Google™, that allows customers
to use smartphone access to schedule point to point
routing to any destination within the SMART service area.
SMART also interfaces with Google Translate™ that allows
customers to interpret the SMART website into more than
20 different languages. MyConnector is an automated
phone and internet system that allows users to create an
account to access personal SMART Connector information,
and use the pro ile to book, con irm and cancel rides.21
The Olli bus (Figure 3-12), a partially 3-D-printed, 12
passenger, low speed, highly autonomous transit vehicle,
is currently being tested in Washington D.C. Manufacturer
Local Motors is on schedule to begin testing the Olli on
university campuses in several US cities in 2017. The Olli
is a low speed vehicle that customers can book with their
smartphone. Olli interfaces with riders using IBM Watson
voice technology on board. Local Motors is expanding
its production and cities served using micro factories to
produce vehicle components.22
In January 2016, the city of Perth, Australia allowed testing
of a fully autonomous shuttle.

trial starting with two hybrid electric buses. Singapore
transportation of icials envision out itting existing
buses with sensors to develop a self-driving system that
can effectively navigate Singapore’s traf ic and climate
conditions.
Singapore of icials are also seeking information from
industry and research institutes for the potential of self-
driving vehicles for garbage collection and street cleaning.
Developer nuTonomy started trials of the world’s irst
robo-taxis in August in a western Singapore district.24
MagicBus, a Silicon Valley-based company, has launched
in Metro Detroit in the fall of 2016, offering crowd-sourced
service between 5:30am to 10pm weekdays. Trips start at
ive dollars, while long-distance fares costs eight dollars.
Riders can book or cancel routes through a cellphone
app or computer the night before. MagicBus also offers
subscription service. If at least 15 riders sign up to be
picked up from a speci ic location, the app directs riders to
meet at a designated location for pickup. Quicken Loans is
a participating employer in the initial launch of the Magic
Bus. The MagicBus appears more conceptual than a proven
business model; viability remains to be proven in the
Detroit market.25
RAC Intellibus(Figure 3-12) will carry passengers and
interact with traf ic, parked cars, cyclists and pedestrians
as it negotiates a portion of the South Perth Esplanade.
The vehicle can transport up to 11 passengers at a time
and will operate at an average speed of 25km per hour.23
Singapore will begin testing self-driving buses as the city-
state pushes ahead with autonomous technology to deal
with challenges posed by limited land and labor costs.
Singapore of icials also see a social component, hoping
driverless vehicles will prompt residents to use shared
vehicles and public transport for ease and convenience
and in turn lessen overall traf ic congestion. The Land
Transport Authority in Singapore has collaborated with
Nanyang Technological University on an autonomous bus
Figure 3-12 “RAC Intellibus“
Source: Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia. “RAC Intellibus”

Seattle metropolitan area), Dallas Regional Transit, and
Denver Area Regional Transit offer a variety of DRT service
models tailored to the unique demands of each service
area. This benchmarking chapter presents a wealth of
DRT case studies and comparison data that can guide the
design of a DRT service model.
With over 40 years of over-the-road experience with
demand responsive transit, America’s transit providers
know DRT works. DRT allows transit operators to provide
customer service where ixed routes are otherwise
impractical. Transit agencies are experimenting with
innovative models of DRT that combine elements of ride-
share services. DRT will be a tool in greater use by transit
providers into the future, utilized as a response to the
changing transportation demands of the American public.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
DRT is increasingly being deployed by transit agencies to
deliver transit services to low-density areas within a larger
metropolitan ixed service area. DRT services are also
being used to replace ixed bus routes with low ridership.
Providing lexible DRT routes can help reduce the cost of
providing ADA services by offering shared leet savings.
Similarly, transit agencies are beginning to partner with
private contractors or tech irms looking to gain entry into
an increasingly competitive marketplace.
The types of service provided by DRT can be lexible
within the route itself. Some transit agencies provide DRT
service to an area that operates as route deviation during
peak hours, with on-demand pick-ups at designated stops,
and reverting to no scheduled ixed stop pickups during off
peak. Other agencies offer limited route deviation in off-
peak hours.
While more expensive than ixed-route service, demand
responsive transit is a viable tool to increase service area
and ridership across a diverse metropolitan landscape.
Larger transit agencies like King County Metro (greater

11. Becker, J., Teal, R., & Mossige, R. (2013). Metropolitan
Transit Agency’s Experience Operating General-Public Demand-
Responsive Transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, (2352), 136-145.
12. Potts, J. F., Marshall, M.A., Crockett,E.C., & Washington, J. (2010).
A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation
Services. Report 140. Transportation Cooperative Research Program.
Washington D.C.
13. Becker, Jeff, Roger Teal, and Rebecca Mossige. “Metropolitan
Transit Agency’s Experience Operating General-Public Demand-
Responsive Transit.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2352 (2013): 136-145.
14. http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_140.pdf
15. Wayland, Mike. The Detroit News. (Nov. 21, 2016). Snyder to sign
autonomous car bills into law. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/
business/autos/2016/11/21/autonomous-car-bills/94237146/
16. US Department of Transportation. (2016) Federal Automated
Vehicles Policy - September 2016. https://www.transportation.gov/
AV/federal-automated-vehicles-policy-september-2016
17. Flusberg, Martin. (1976). An Innovative Public Transportation
System For A Small City: The Merrill, Wisconsin, Case Study. Bus
Transportation Studies. Record 606. Transportation Research Board.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1976/606/606.pdf
Endnotes
1. National Transit Database Glossary. Accessed at https://www.
transit.dot.gov/ntd/national-transit-database-ntd-glossary
2. KFH Group. (2008). Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and
Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation. Report
124. Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Washington
D.C. Accessed at http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_
RPT_124.pdf
3. Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (2013). Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual. 3rd ed.
4. Equivelant Service Standards, 49 CFR 37.105, (2006).
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Potts, J. F., Marshall, M.A., Crockett,E.C., & Washington, J. (2010).
A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation
Services. Report 140. Transportation Cooperative Research
Program. Washington D.C. Retrieved at http://www.tcrponline.org/
PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_140.pdf
10. (2013). TheRide peer comparison report. Accessed December 8,
2016, from http://www.theride.org/aboutus/moving-you-forward

18. Cherry, Gabe. (Oct 31, 2016) University may begin testing new kind
of on-demand transit system. The University Record. http://record.
umich.edu/articles/university-may-begin-testing-new-kind-demand-
transit-system
19. The Economist. (Oct. 1, 2016). It starts with a Single App. http://
www.economist.com/news/international/21707952-combining-old-
and-new-ways-getting-around-will-transform-transportand-cities-too-
it
20. Bridj Media. Ford Motor Company. https://media.ford.com/
content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2016/02/11/bridj-kansas-city-
ford-urban-mobility.html
21. Provost, Lee. (2014). Demand Responsive Travel Operation
Based on Dynamic Passenger Information. California Department
of Transportation. Division of Research, Innovation and System
Information. http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/
preliminary_investigations/docs/demand_responsive_transit_
operation_4.pdf
22. Photo courtesy of Local Motors . www.localmotors.com/olli/
23. Photo courtesy of Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia.
Accessed at http://intellibus.rac.com.au/
24. Aravindan, Aradhana. (Oct 19th, 2016). All aboard! Singapore
now to try out self-driving buses. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/
article/us-singapore-driverless-bus-idUSKCN12J0AL
25. Magic Bus. https://www.magicbus.io/

62 Chapter 4 | Ridership Forecasts Civic Center Drive & Whittaker Road

Chapter 4 | Ridership Forecasts 63
RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
Ridership Forecast Models
Forecasting Daily Ridership
Distribution
Community Outreach

64 Chapter 4 | Ridership Forecasts
This chapter details three quantitative methods used to
forecast usage, summarizes the analysis used to forecast
ridership peaks throughout the day, and describes the
community outreach process used to collect household
information from residents of the pilot area. Comparing
and contrasting the three models allowed the team to
generate a nuanced usage forecast.
The team also distributed a survey to pilot area residents
in order to collect direct feedback about their transit
ridership habits, household characteristics, and likelihood
of using a DRT service. The team assessed this feedback to
gain insight into travel behavior characteristics that were
not otherwise available.
Usage was forecast for the pilot area using the following
methods:
• TCRP Model: A regression-based usage estimation
model from TCRP Report 3 – Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger
Transportation.
• Analogy Model: A usage estimation derived by
comparing performance data of DRT services
deployed in areas similar to the Paint Creek pilot
area.
• DRT Regression Model: An adaptation of a
regression model created by the Denver Regional
Transportation District.

RIDERSHIP FORECAST
MODELS
TCRP Model
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP),
a federally funded research organization, undertakes
research and related activities to meet the needs of transit
service providers. The TCRP was authorized as part of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef iciency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) and reauthorized in 1998 by the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to study public
transit nationwide. TCRP Report 3 - Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation
provides methods for forecasting general-public transit
ridership in rural areas.1
A regression method from TCRP
Report 3 was used to estimate usage for transit service in
the pilot area.
This DRT forecast model estimates usage based on ive
variables:
• Number of elderly residents
• Number of mobility limited persons
• Number of people in poverty
• Size of the service area
• Total annual vehicle-miles travelled in the service
area.
The irst three variables used in this model were derived
from the US Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. Three census block groups
neatly overlay the pilot area and provide a dataset of
demographic characteristics that corresponds closely to
pilot area households. Annual vehicle miles were derived
from estimated travel speeds and a range of assumed
service hours between eight and sixteen hours per day.

Next, the model separately determines the estimated
ridership for the elderly market, mobility-limited market,
and the low-income market. Each of these results are then
aggregated to provide a forecast of number of annual DRT
trips. Depending on the assumed number of service hours
each day, the forecasted usage ranges between 24,100 and
69,100 annual DRT trips (Table 4-1).
For the general ridership forecasts apart from the three
populations referred to above, the team used the analogy
and regression results presented later in this chapter.
The forecasted TCRP results include the ridership
accommodated by the Route 46 bus stops along the
northern edge of the pilot area and existing A-Ride service.
Therefore, the team subtracted the existing transit service
from the results. The Route 46 boardings per service
hour are an estimated 6.5 and A-Ride’s stand at 1.2.2
Final
results forecast that an eight hour service day results in
2.8 boardings per service hour and a 16 hour day results
in 9.5 boardings per service hour.
The estimation model is as follows:
where:
D=annual demand for Non-Program Related passenger
transportation.(One-Way Trips per Year)
E=number of population over 64
M=number of mobility limited population age 18 to 64
P=number of population,under 65,below the poverty level

The usage forecasting model in TCRP – Report 3 has two
main limitations.
1. Population density in the pilot area is greater
than the recommended population density
range in TCRP – Report 3, resulting in a likely
overestimation of usage in the pilot area.
2. Numbers of elderly (E) and mobility limited
residents (M) were adjusted slightly to re lect
minor difference in age groupings between TCRP
and ACS data. Categories were not an exact match.
(Seniors 59 years and up versus 64 years and up;
mobility-limited aged 16-64 versus 18-64.)
Despite these limitations, the TCRP model is a valuable
reference to forecast usage for the Paint Creek pilot area.
The TCRP is an authoritative transportation research
organization in the United States. Usage forecast analyses
would be incomplete without utilizing TCRP tools.
Table 4-1 TCRP Model Annual Ridership
Service hours per day 8 10 12 14 16
Annual Demand for
the Elderly
8,900 13,300 19,800 29,300 43,300
Annual Demand for
Mobility Limited
People
4,300 5,800 8,000 10,900 14,900
Annual Demand for
General Public
10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900
Total Annual Demand 24,100 30,000 38,700 51,100 69,100
Demand per Service
Hour in the Pilot Area
12 12 12 14 18
Demand per Service
Hour from New
Service
3 3 4 5 10

In 2007, Denver’s Regional Transportation Department
(RTD) developed a technology platform on which
customers request DRT service and drivers respond in
real time. This type of service operates in Denver and
in various surrounding regions that have a variety of
population densities. Denver RTD collects large amounts
of data on their DRT routes, which allows for detailed
service assessment. The team compared the Paint Creek
Analogy Model
Analogy, or comparison modeling can also estimate the
usage and performance for a DRT system by using data
from similar DRT systems operating in a comparable area.3
Comparison models are particularly effective for quickly
providing rough estimates of prospective transit service
usage.
Route Name Urban Context
Service
Area (sq.
mile)
Popula on
Density
(per acre)
Median
Income
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Number of
Checkpoints
Boardings
per Vehicle
Service Hour
Denver
Parker Exurban town 9.5 3.02 $86,038 1.5 2 2.8
Louisville
Older suburban,
residen al
8.7 3.02 $78,478 2.7 1 4.1
Superior
New suburban,
residen al
6.2 2.54 $91,268 2.9 1 3.2
Paint Creek Pilot Area
Suburban,
residen al
8.2 2.67 $81,377 1.3 1 - 2 2.8 - 4.1
Table 4-2 Analogy Model Applied to Pilot Area
Source: Pilot Area Sta s cs from ACS 2014 (5-year)

and youth proportion to account for this correlation.
RTD’s “boardings per 1,000 population” were adjusted
to “boardings per 1,000 population per weekday” to be
comparable with the other usage forecasting methods
(Table 4-3).
Pilot area with Denver DRT service areas that had similar
characteristics. These attributes were identi ied based
on urban character, population, medium income, and
employment density.
After reviewing all RTD service areas, three routes with
similar characteristics to the pilot area were selected as
comparable geographies (Table 4-2). This helped validate
and con irm the applicability of the adapted Denver
regression equation discussed in the next section.
Regression Model from Denver DRT
The team used detailed DRT route data from Denver
to create a tailored usage regression model. This
regression model estimates the relationship between
sociodemographic characteristics and ridership igures.
Available data from Denver DRT routes were used to
estimate the relationships, and then the team applied the
regression to the pilot area to determine forecasted DRT
ridership.
Senior density and youth density were both too closely
correlated with general population density. Senior density
and youth density were replaced with senior proportion
Table 4-3 Inputs and Outputs of Each Regression Model
Output
Boardings Per
Vehicle-Service Hour
Boardings per 1,000
Popula on per
Weekday
Input
Popula on Density Popula on Density
Employment Density Employment Density
Senior Propor on Senior Propor on
Youth Propor on Youth Propor on
Median Income Median Income
Service Hour

The regression models resulted in the following formulas:
Each of these equations de ines a relationship between
Denver’s sociodemographic inputs and ridership on each
DRT route analyzed.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the pilot area were
entered in the DRT model to forecast number of boardings
per service hour and boardings per 1,000 population.
The irst regression equation delivered a forecast of 3.91
boardings per service hour with 14.5 hours of DRT service.
Service
Hours
Boarding per 1000
popula on
Total Boarding per
weekday
6 1.4 18.7
8 1.9 25.7
10 2.4 32.6
12 2.9 39.5
14 3.4 46.4
14.5 3.5 48.2
16 3.6 53.4
Table 4-4 Es mated Usage Results
• Boardings per service hour = 0.586 - (0.384 × Population Density) + (0.41 × Employment Density) + (6.23 × Senior
Proportion) + (18.740 × Youth Proportion) - (0.000022 × Median Income)
Adjusted R2
= 0.726
• Boardings per 1,000 Population = 8.56 - (0.888 × Population Density) + (0.370 × Employment Density) + (25.727 ×
Senior Proportion) + (9.10 × Youth Proportion) - (0.000026 × Median Income) + (0.250 × Service Hour)
Adjusted R2
= 0.435

Estimated boardings per 1,000 population range between
1.35 per 1,000 population for six hours of service and 3.6
boardings per 1,000 population for 16 hours of service
(Table 4-4).
Block-level census data from 2010 were fed into the
regression model to determine the presence of any spatial
clusters of boardings within the pilot area. The regression
model was run on the census tracts and the entire pilot
area. (Median household income was unavailable for
some of the tracts due to Bureau of the Census privacy
measures.) The results indicate that boardings would
primarily occur within the new suburban subdivisions,
but without signi icant spatial clustering in the pilot
area. A handful of blocks saw relatively high forecasted
boardings but ridership forecasts project between three
and four boardings per hour. This range of productivity per
hour indicates favorability for demand responsive transit
service versus ixed-route service.
Three main limitations for this estimation method exist:
1. This regression is based on 21 DRT service areas
around metropolitan Denver, and the data from
these service areas produced a statistically viable
model. However, the regression would have been
even more reliable with a larger sample size.
2. Some of the Denver DRT service areas are different
from the suburban, low density, and residential
pilot area. Several of the Denver DRT routes
connect to rail transit service, which likely deliver
higher number of transfers than connection to a
ixed bus route.
3. Data from the Denver RDT portray a service that
has built ridership for eleven years. This model
likely overestimates the ridership of a new DRT
service.

! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!Arbor
Preparatory
High School
Paint Creek
Shopping
Center
!!!!!!!
TEXTILE
Ypsilan
District
Library
!!!!!!
!!
TUTTLEHILL
46 Bus Route
Figure 4-1 Map of Route 46 and the Pilot Area

Masters Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Masters Project

Similar to Masters Project (20)

Masters Project