Arlington, Texas (pop 400K) is the largest US city with no fixed bus routes, just subsidized Via app-taxis. (Classy Whale)
See Milan’s transit modes while learning Italian. (Easy Italian)
This is an open thread.
28 Replies to “Sunday Movies: Microtransit-Only City & Milan”
Comments are closed.
Microtransit can work well in low density parts of suburbs and rural areas to connect people to transit, where transit otherwise would be running and mostly not getting riders throughout the day outside of peak. Less requirement for park and rides + less cars trying to stream into larger cities.
Other than that, I am strongly against any form of microtransit and prefer BRT + express bus + trains + light rail.
Unfortunately the big companies operating microtransit is looking for money, and cities have the most riders…
Microtransit is a very broad term. It encompasses lots of last-mile services. Some of them have been around for decades.
For example, office park and apartment complex and medical center shuttles to a station or destination hubs can be considered microtransit. Even remote parking or hotel shuttles for SeaTac or special events seem to be microtransit. Heck even the golf carts between the SeaTac terminal and Link station could be called microtransit! We don’t think about it, but school buses are often microtransit. The monorail could even be considered microtransit since it’s not very long. Paratransit, while client-restricted, seems to often be a form of microtransit too.
At the other end of the spectrum are driverless microtransit vehicles, but the “driverless” technology is not exclusive to last-mile transit services.
Like any other transit service, it can be appropriate for some situations but not others. And over time, the same service can become more or less important.
I think the real issue boils down to two basic questions: What regulations are needed to encourage or discourage them? Should they be directly subsidized?
I think they’re important to encourage. In particular, I think there is value in allowing for curb space for drop-off and pick-up activity that allows for private microtransit to stop as well as allows for some sort of signage (for a fee). As I understand it, there is some sort of law banning private transit in transit centers that seems overly restrictive. Maybe they should have to demonstrate “benefit” before being encouraged and the city involved. The transit agency involved and the private microtransit provider may need a legal agreement clarifying the relationships. Generally they should be considered as a lower priority to regular public transit. And the regulatory framework around driverless microtransit is a whole other dimension.
The tougher question is whether they should be directly subsidized. San Mateo County Transportation Authority has long subsidized last mile shuttles to Caltrain, for example. (https://www.smcta.com/funding/transit/peninsula-shuttle-program). It takes some riders away from public transit in some situations but it can add riders in others. They may or may not be branded as public transit. Generally, I’m not as supportive of using public money for microtransit. When the service is offered and subsidized by a local transit agency like Metro Flex, I think higher base fares might be warranted. It really is situational though and should be closely monitored for cost and performance if it is directly subsidized.
I like what Jarrett Walker had to say about microtransit. To quote a couple sentences: Microtransit is a coverage tool, not a ridership tool. A nicer experience for fewer customers, less service for many.
These two sentences go together. Coverage service — by its very nature — is favoring certain customers over others. But even within the world of coverage service, microtransit favors certain customers over others. Here is an example of what I mean by that. The city of Sammamish has only one bus route — the 269. This is the best value in terms of ridership. But because it is the only route, there are plenty of houses that are a long walk to the nearest bus stop. I could easily see Metro running coverage routes that run east or west of the 269. Or they could run microtransit. Which is better?
It depends on your perspective. But it is quite likely that coverage routes would get more riders per dollar spent. At the same time, it likely wouldn’t cover everyone. There would be places that remain a long walk to a bus stop, even after you added several new coverage routes. Microtransit gives you full physical coverage. By that I mean that anywhere in the city of Sammamish you have service. But that doesn’t mean that it actually works for people. I know people who live within a microtransit area who’ve given up on it. The wait is too long and too inconsistent. It gets worse as more people use it (this is the opposite of regular transit). In the middle of a weekday the wait for a ride may be minimal. During peak it make take a very long time before a van is available. For some this is OK — they are willing to wait a couple hours to take a fifteen minute ride but for a lot of people this just doesn’t work. Thus it is not that different than a series of coverage routes. It works for some people but not others. It is just that microtransit gives the illusion of better coverage.
In the long run microtransit may have a role for a transit agency — what I would call “microcoverage”. After you’ve spent money on ridership-based routes and a lot of coverage-based routes you can then try to reach a handful of coverage-type riders with microtransit.
For an example of what I’m suggesting, consider the Magnolia neighborhood of Seattle. Magnolia has good coverage service. Most of the peninsula is within about a quarter mile of a bus stop (what is typically considered “walking distance“). This is the type of service that Sammamish should invest in if they want to improve coverage. But the buses don’t cover every inch of Magnolia — it doesn’t cover the far west end of the peninsula (e. g. Perkins Lane). Thus it is quite reasonable to have a van there, ready to pick up riders and transport them to say, Interbay, where they can pick up frequent buses heading downtown (or to Ballard, the UW, etc.). Per rider the service is quite expensive but that is the nature of microtransit. Yet it doesn’t cost that much (overall) because it is only serving a tiny area. It is quite possible it could be shared with other vans serving other tiny slivers that are really difficult to serve with coverage buses. I could see a van serving west Magnolia and Blue Ridge for example. This means that a rider in either area might have to wait awhile. But again, that is the nature of microtransit. It is microcoverage, after all.
Does anyone recall the original plans for the SeaTac Link station? I seem to recall it was supposed to be closer to the terminals perhaps over the main access road but 9/11 hysteria pushed it away, is that correct? Did they ever look at the station next to the A terminal where the tracks run now?
SeaTac airport didn’t want the link station construction near the arrival/departure road.
IRRC there were plans for an station at 188th street as well but were dropped
I don’t know if it had gotten to an exact location; I never saw it. But the feds were afraid of light rail passengers carrying explosives or something, and required it to be further away from the terminal. Its the same time DSTT got “security stops” at each end, where buses had to stop and wait for a barrier to lift.
I don’t doubt this, but MSP has a light rail line connecting its terminals that goes under two terminals and runways. And I think it was built after Link. Plus Portland’s station is basically in the terminal. I always thought it was the Port that insisted on the location being bad
Portland opened 2001. I believe Minneapolis opened 2004 (which also means designed before 9/11). Absolutely wild the paranoia that transit riders would be the risk but not any random car or truck pulling right up to the airport on the arrival/departure roads. This wasn’t even that long after the first WTC attack. and OKC Fed building.
A real shame its not better located although agree it will improve with the future transportation center building and it’s ability to provide a route outside the garage structure with moving walkways. I think its fair to say this station is way more popular than anyone anticipated, its a shame its needlessly out of the way requiring walking more than needed with luggage.
It appears to me that the major airport authorities in the US would do a lot of things to make sure high capacity transit don’t direct go into its terminals. If there is a need for high capacity transit to terminals, they would build their own landside people mover system, which is unfortunate.
TSA and FAA got really paranoid about it in the wake of 9-11. Of course it seems silly to many of us, as it’s lots easier to put an exploding car bomb into a garage or park in front of a terminal than it is to carry one on public rail transit — and there are many airports where someone can park closer or drop-off closer than they can ride through on a train.
I’ve used rail transit to and from airports in many places. I think my favorite is Atlanta, where the Marta entrance was traditionally positioned before the pick-up zone (although airport land-side cubs are always seemingly under construction and changing). Reagan National is decent too as has the station on the way to the parking and rental cars (but not pickup zones). Even the SFO Airtrain passes by the BART station before rental cars and several parking garages (but not the premium parking garage). Unfortunately, most places design it in such a way that a flyer doesn’t get challenged to use it first and must instead hunt for it.
True, let’s not forget that them terrorist attacks are the key reason to why ICE even exists, and housing costs are becoming eye-popping high, for example LA is getting expensive and those ICE raids are charging the city, but I’m really not concerned, I was told that a guy on 128th was being detained, but it was not the case.
9/11 and ICE have nothing to do with high housing costs. High housing costs are because cities failed to build enough housing to match the growing population. Especially in cities/regions where the most people need to be for jobs or business contacts, or they want to be for cultural/climate/good-government reasons.
There’s a split between states like California with high housing demand but low housing availability (very expensive), and states like Texas with high housing demand and high availability (inexpensive). Although in ten or so years we’ll probably see housing prices become an issue in Texas too, as they already have in Austin and in most of the country. (The prices may be low for us, but they’re becoming increasingly unaffordable to local residents.)
Three other factors. One, the cost of electricity, air conditioning, and car dependence in areas like Texas isn’t included in the price of a home, so people move there thinking it will be affordable but with total expenses it turns out to be less so. Two, California has high long-term cultural/climate/good-governance demand (I know some conservatives will disagree with this), so if it weren’t for the high housing prices, even more people would be moving to California. Three, flood insurance is an emerging cost issue that will likely hit areas a lot harder than it is now.
But in general, if cities follow the Texas and Chicago pattern of allowing housing supply to keep up with demand, that would slow down the rate of price increases. And please make it compact and walkable rather than sprawling low density, so that it can be more convenient and sustainable as well as less expensive.
To the extent that ICE is deporting people and the federal government is throttling down immigration, that would theoretically relieve some of the upward pressure on housing prices. But the deportations are far to few to make a difference, and the throttling of immigration hasn’t had much impact on housing prices and it remains to be seen if it does.
Mike, they do
9/11 happened, and president George W. Bush created the ICE system, my guess is that this never happened again and the county can be safe, and because of the ICE raids in LA, it’s costing the city millions, and housing costs have to be raised in order to cover these costs, it’s not really because of 9/11, it’s just that Trump’s main issues seem to be on Homeland security. But I’m not that worried as I was born in the Seattle Metropolian Area, so I’m a natural born citizen, but I do think that Trump should cut funding for transportation.
Housing prices are based on supply and demand, not on the government’s resources. If you mean the city raised property taxes a lot due to war-on-terror expenses, I’d wonder what those expenses are and which property taxes they were translated into. And housing prices aren’t directly related to property tax rates because of the supply and demand issue.
The ICE raids this year are far too recent to have gotten into housing prices. The amount LA spent (or lost in grant revocations) is probably not larger than it spent responding to the wildfires or a lot of other expense categories the city has.
“But the deportations are far to few to make a difference, and the throttling of immigration hasn’t had much impact on housing prices and it remains to be seen if it does.”
Deporting a significant portion of the workers in the housing construction business certainly isn’t going to lower prices.
Eg: “Trump’s Immigration Raids Worsen Construction’s $10.8 Billion Labor Shortage”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkochkodin/2025/06/16/trumps-immigration-raids-worsen-constructions-108-billion-labor-shortage/
Absolutely. But because buildings take a couple years to build, I would expect the impact of ICE on housing prices to be delayed until around 2027 or so, with the full effect not happening until around the time the next president takes office.
In theory, the other effect – housing freed up by deporting immigrants – would happen immediately, but it’s too small a population to meaningfully impact housing prices, and if it weren’t, then it would cause a recession due to all of their spending suddenly being removed from the economy.
But because buildings take a couple years to build, I would expect the impact of ICE on housing prices to be delayed until around 2027 or so
Huh? It impacts prices right now. Imagine a building has started construction. They poured the concrete and done most of the framing. But now the roofer said he can’t do the work for another couple weeks. He (and his workers) are swamped. They finally get that done and they start work on the interior. You can’t get anyone to do the drywall. Finally the place is “complete” but you still want to have some landscaping and a little cosmetic masonry before people can move in and you can’t find anyone to do that. A six month project takes a year. A year long project takes two. This impacts housing prices immediately. Never mind the fact that new projects are being delayed, existing projects (that are already in the pipeline) are taking longer to complete.
Of course this has a bigger impact depending on where you are. I would imagine it is worse in Texas and California than it is here. But it wouldn’t surprise me if it is really bad here as well.
There are two ways ICE chasing immigrant (documented or not) out out of the construction industry impact prices:
1) Immediate – Immigrant labor generally charges less, and the non-immigrant workers now have their choice of jobs and can charge higher prices for labor.
2) Soon – The already constrained supply of housing gets even tighter, because units take longer and cost more to build, or don’t get built at all.
But because buildings take a couple years to build, I would expect the impact of ICE on housing prices to be delayed until around 2027 or so
Huh? It impacts prices right now.”
“existing projects (that are already in the pipeline) are taking longer to complete.”
No, @asdf2 is correct, the price impact will take a while to be felt. Housing prices are set by supply and demand of *units on the market.* The project in the pipeline that would have been done Jul 2026 that instead finishes in Oct 2026 only affects prices during those four months when it could have been available but isn’t. (This doesn’t mean there is a fixed four month impact everywhere. Another project that would have finished in Aug is delayed to Nov, and another moves from Sep to Jan, etc.). The price impact may be felt immediately by the developer if their bids start coming in higher because labor is tight, but that can’t reflect in rent/sale prices until the development is rented/sold.
Even projects that would have finished tomorrow that get delayed a few months don’t immediately affect prices. The housing market is very inelastic, demand is somewhat stable and doesn’t swing wildly with price. People only need one home and can’t usually afford a second even if prices drop a lot because housing is their biggest expense to begin with. There is also a high “barrier to entry” in the time and cost to move. An apartment building opening with rent at $1950 doesn’t mean that every apartment at $2000 is emptied out as people grab lower rent; people who submit a losing bid on a 3 bedroom house don’t immediately find a 2 bedroom and offer the same amount. It takes time for those price shifts to happen.
The bigger issue than delayed completion is the one @Cam Solomon notes: projects not started. If construction costs go up and completion dates extend (which then increases carrying costs for mortgage, tax and insurance payments) then developers will stop building projects with borderline financials. Almost every project being built will be completed even if delayed, but a project not started (or canceled before construction begins) doesn’t reduce supply for the few months, it reduces supply nominally forever (or until someone finally comes along and builds the project). But like assf2 said this doesn’t happen “soon” it happens in a year or two as all the underway projects finish but there is nothing after them. Figures for housing starts in the last quarter of 2025 and first quarter of 2026 should provide an idea of what will happen to housing prices in late 26 and early 27.
Apartment leases are usually in year-long increments. So it takes several months for a cost increase to get fully through the market.
I feel relatively agnostic towards its placement relative to the airport and surrounding area. Like yes, its not directly at the terminal but it feels like its in a good spot regardless. It serves both the airport and International Blvd with bus connections to the A, 156, 161, and 560, my only gripe is I wish they’d invest in building an escalator from the plaza to the bridge for the International Blvd entrance of SeaTac Airport Link Station.
Also it’s likely the walkshed issue will get addressed as time goes on as the Port is looking to build a new Ground Transportation Center that’ll have an enclosed walkway with travelators from the bridge to Link to the first sky bridge at the North end of the garage, we might end up seeing the rest of the garage get travelators as well in some capacity eventually as the Port in recent years has been heavily focused in vastly improving the passanger experience for an airport that was designed with 1970s sensibilities in mind.
“Borseggiatori” (pickpockets) is my new favorite Italian word. I propose English use it more widely: “Link had another mechanical issue this morning in central Seattle and shuttle buses are being ordered. Borseggiatori!”
(Regular service has since resumed.)
big +1 on using borseggiatori in daily life whenever possible
Yesterday I made the trek back from the Ballard locks on the 44 and had a 30 minute wait after (I think) a dropped trip and a 15 minute late inbound bus. I can’t recall the last time I had a similar experience on any route. Is this a regular experience on the 44? I see why so many people use the B-G trail to get to UW over the bud if that’s the case
I think things were really screwed up yesterday in Seattle because of the marathon. It probably sent shock waves through the system that reverberated well after people stopped running.
The 44 doesn’t have great reliability on typical days (it’s especially unpredictable in Ballard) but it’s rare for it to be that bad. I’m hoping the bus lanes on Market wind up being a big improvement for it.
Wow, the “ongoing police investigation” is still active at 11pm, and Othello station will remain closed through the AM commute Wednesday, and ST has postponed tonight’s maintenance in North Seattle because of the other disruption. The Seattle Times says it started when police shot somebody around 1:30pm who was allegedly waving a gun.
Portland and Tacoma could swap three streetcars under proposed deal