For all STAR posts on SmartRide, see the category ‘SacRT SmaRT Ride‘.

The recent series of posts on SacRT SmartRide, the on-demand micro-transit service, was provoked by a December 19, 2023 article on Bloomberg City Lab, On-Demand Microtransit Can’t Escape This Big Problem, by David Zipper. The most recent (2019) post on micro-transit (which he calls flexible transit) on the internationally respected Human Transit blog by Jarrett Walker, is What is “Microtransit” For?, and he has several earlier posts as well, as part of his “microtransit week” series, all worth reading.

If you want to read glowing reviews of the success of micro-transit, just search for that term on the Internet. But most of what you will find is boosterism rather analysis.

Again, let us emphasize that the SmartRide program is popular with people who use it. They get door-to-door or corner-to-corner service for the same price as a regular fixed route bus or light rail ride. But popularity is only one measure of the usefulness of a service.

Overlap with high frequency fixed routes

From information in SacRT SmartRide and high frequency routes post, there is significant overlap between the SmartRide zones and high frequency light rail and bus service, almost completely in the Downtown zone, and significantly in the Citrus Heights-Antelope-Orangevale and the Franklin-South Sacramento zone. Since the original program objective of taking riders to and from transit has apparently been dropped, replaced by a point-to-point model, it does not make sense to be offering on-demand micro-transit in areas where people can easily get to transit routes on their own. Over time, we hope that they will be more high frequency routes, which should shrink the area of applicability of micro-transit.

Funding

From information in SacRT SmartRide costs post, there is a significant amount of operations budget dedicated to SmartRide. Though it is a small percentage of the overall operations budget (4.8%), it is very significant for the relatively small number of riders served (1.4% of total ridership). The cost of about $44 per ride (for a fare of $2.50) is real. Transit operations, in an underfunded agency like SacRT, is a zero sum game. If they spent on one thing, they don’t spend that on another. The fact that a small amount of the SmartRide budget comes from Sacramento Transit Authority (SacTA) does not justify the rest of the funds allocated, as that is Neighborhood Shuttle funds that used to be spent on that service. Is SmartRide a better investment than Neighborhood Shuttle? Probably, but is is still a trade off. The capitol budget for SmartRide is not great now (and it is not currently allocated to SmartRide in any case), but if the program continues, there will be significant vehicle replacement costs, and well as other capitol expenses. And of course the major expense of running any transit vehicle is the expense of the driver (well justified). A 30+ passenger bus has one driver, an up to 6 passenger cut-way or van has one driver.

So the question is, how are transit funds best spent? This goes back to the ridership vs. coverage question that Jarrett Walker has so effectively laid out. More ridership via higher frequency, or less ridership via wider coverage? The funds being spent on SmartRide could also be used to increase the frequency of fixed route service, possibly converting some high ridership but moderate frequency routes such as 81 Florin, 23 El Camino, or the full length of the 67/68 or 30/38 combined routes. Note that SacRT has not published ridership numbers for bus routes in the last five years.

Disadvantaged Communities

From information in SacRT SmartRide and disadvantaged communities post, it is pretty clear that serving disadvantaged communities was never a primary planning or service element of the program or of the zones. This is something that can be corrected, or course, by revising the zones and dropping ones that don’t serve disadvantaged communities. Of course this is only one criteria for designing the program, and should be considered with other criteria, but it is not one to be discounted.

STAR’s recommendation

STAR recommends that SacRT do an in-depth analysis of the SmartRide program. Not after the current three year extended pilot ends in 2026, but now. There are enough questions about the design of the program and the designation of zones that just continuing the program mostly as it was for the first years, for three more years, no only does not meet the definition of a pilot, but defers decisions about how to allocate limited operations and capitol funds.

We suspect that an analysis would result in a more limited on-demand micro-transit program, with service zone tailored to disadvantaged communities and moderate density neighborhoods either without fixed route service, or too little service. The hours of the program would better fit the needs of those who are or potentially would be riders. And the app would be redesigned to emphasize rides to and from transit, with information about how to used fixed route light rail and bus to access areas outside the home zone.

• SacRT SmaRT Ride