Microtransit relies on technology and software to operate and collect performance data, and technological advances have made data dashboards more transparent and accessible than ever. However, these metrics are only useful if people understand which data points align with a transit system's goals. 

Every municipality has unique challenges, long-term plans, and population demographics that will combine to shape their goals for a microtransit service. Metrics help municipalities and transit agencies interpret and measure the success and impact of their investment in microtransit in achieving these specific goals.

Goals typically fall into two categories: efficiency and accessibility. Each goal brings its own set of trade-offs and performance measures, which is why we'll break them out into two blogs. Here, we'll dig into efficiency metrics. 

By understanding which metrics are important when, we can make this process much simpler and more approachable. 

In This Blog, We'll:

1. Dive into one of the main goals of microtransit: efficiency.
2. Identify which metrics are good measures of a service's efficiency.
   1. Check out our partner blog that focuses on metrics measuring accessibility!
3. Walk through whether the identified metrics should be high/low with a real-world example. 

What Are Microtransit Goals?

To understand microtransit key metrics and benchmarks, you must establish your service’s desired goals and outcomes. A service's priorities determine which metrics define its success. In general, microtransit goals fall into categories:

1. Efficiency:
   Service is cost-efficient, uses smart-routing to cut wait times, reduces traffic and parking congestion, and makes the best use of its resources to deliver the most riders to their destinations as quickly as possible.
2. Accessibility:
   Service is affordable, provides mobility in transit deserts, and improves rider experience for specific, often under-served populations.  

These goals are deeply connected, but sometimes boosting efficiency can reduce aspects of accessibility, or the other way around. That's not to say a service has to be one or the other.

For example, a service operating in a community with older residents may be both efficient and accessible by having a high frequency of rider turnover on shorter trips to the grocery store and medical appointments. It's efficient because of the high rider use and turnover, and accessible because of the community it serves. 

However, sometimes municipalities prioritize boosting metrics that are an indicator of one goal or the other to meet the specific needs of their community. 

A city struggling with traffic congestion may want a service that's focused on efficiency. A service that's fast and moves lots of people will reduce congestion but might not reach everyone who needs it.

A city lacking paratransit will likely focus on accessibility. By providing a service that's inclusive, they'll ensure they have transit options for their entire community even if it runs slightly slower.

Both goals provide something important, so measuring success starts with knowing which goal a service is prioritizing. A few metrics that have inverse relationships (when one increases, the other decreases) are as follows:

•  
• Residents & visitors:
• Microtransit prioritizing residents often have service areas encompassing residential areas, business districts, groceries, banks, and medical appointments. Services primarily serving visitors provide transit between local airports/mass transit and downtown. 
• Pooling & rider experience:
• A service concerned with maximizing pooling will sacrifice route efficiency to pick-up the most passengers possible, increasing average wait time. Microtransit prioritizing rider experience will use the most efficient routes that cut down average wait times, but pick-up fewer riders at a time as a result.
• Wait times & ride quantity: 
• Microtransit with the lowest average wait times use more vehicles to ensure riders are always being served. Services using fewer vehicles can have longer wait times, but operate in a more cost- and traffic-efficient manner.
• ETA length & missed requests:
• Services with longer ETAs pick up more passengers on a given route. Microtransit that accepts having some missed requests keeps the riders they serve waiting for less time.

Each tradeoff has benefits and drawbacks, but choosing how to operate is more about what your service’s goals are than what’s objectively “best”. For example, in the suburbs or in communities with low population densities or transit deserts, improving accessibility may be more beneficial. In contrast, larger cities or dense areas with existing transit options may want to focus on improving efficiency instead.

How Can Microtransit Improve Efficiency?

Efficient transportation is key to a city's ability to operate smoothly. When people can move quickly businesses run better, services are easier to access, and daily life feels less stressful. For cities, efficiency also means reducing congestion, lowering costs, and making the best use of resources like vehicles, drivers, and infrastructure. So, what should you look at when aiming to boost efficiency? We’ll want to pay attention to:

• - Service area size relative to number of vehicles
• - Ride pooling rates
• - Total demand (requests) 
• - Passenger volume per vehicle hour 
• - Total passenger volume 
• - Average wait time 
• - Average passenger rating 
• - Cost per rider

Services that focus on efficiency aim to best use their resources. They optimize routes with larger fleets relative to service area size, serve a high number of ride requests, and move lots of passengers per hour with high ride pooling rates. Success also shows up in strong rider ratings, shorter wait times, lower costs per trip.

✔️ A larger fleet per square mile of service area suggests that routes and vehicle production are well-optimized.

✔️ High total demand, passenger volume, and average passenger rating show that microtransit is providing lots of riders with good service.

✔️ High ride pooling rates reduce single occupancy trips as well as traffic and parking congestion.

✔️ Low average wait times demonstrate that a service is operating in a timely manner, and there are enough vehicles to match an area's demand.

✔️ Low cost per rider showcases that a service is inexpensive for a community to implement.

Let’s take a closer look…

Cost per Rider

Cost per rider is not the same as rider fares. Rider fares are the money a person pays to ride microtransit. Cost per rider tells you, the one implementing microtransit, how much you'll be spending on each person you serve. It's the total cost of the transit system, minus the money it makes, divided by the number of riders it serves.

Generally, public transit isn’t profitable and actually loses cities money, but it’s such a valuable addition to urban life that cities implement it anyway. Most public transit has a very high cost per rider, so it's easiest to understand this metric by comparing cost per riders of different services rather than looking at any one given number. As seen above, Circuit provides invaluable mobility service while maintaining a low cost per rider.

Hollywood, FL was struggling with a costly and underused fixed-route transportation system until they partnered with Circuit and added 10 on-demand all electric vehicles to the mix. This partnership decreased the cost per rider of Hollywood’s transit by 80%, lowered wait times by 25%, and cut city costs by 15%. The EV fleet provided more than 94k total rides in 2024 and has a monthly economic impact of over $350k. Circuit’s services in Hollywood exemplify efficient microtransit.

Stay Tuned!

Microtransit is a great addition to communities seeking to improve their efficiency or accessibility. When done well – it makes strides in both. 

To receive more microtransit industry updates and information, subscribe to our newsletter and follow our socials: