Hubbry Logo
Share taxiShare taxiMain
Open search
Share taxi
Community hub
Share taxi
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Share taxi
Share taxi
from Wikipedia

A share taxi, shared taxi, taxibus, or jitney or dollar van in the US, marshrutka in former Soviet countries, or a minibus in European countries and Turkey, is a mode of transport which falls between a taxicab and a bus. Share taxis are a form of paratransit. They are vehicles for hire and are typically smaller than buses. Share taxis usually take passengers on a fixed or semi-fixed route without timetables, sometimes only departing when all seats are filled. They may stop anywhere to pick up or drop off their passengers. They are most common in developing countries and inner cities.[1]

The vehicles used as share taxis range from four-seat cars to minibuses, midibuses, covered pickup trucks, station wagons, and trucks. Certain vehicle types may be better-suited than others.[2] They are often owner-operated.

An increase in bus fares usually leads to a significant rise in usage of share taxis. Liberalization is often encouraged by libertarian urban economists, such as Richard Allen Epstein of the University of Chicago, James Dunn of Rutgers, and Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California, as a more "market-friendly" alternative to public transportation. However, concerns over fares, insurance liabilities, and passenger safety have kept legislative support for the concept decidedly tepid.

Some share taxi services are forms of demand responsive transport and include shared shuttle bus service to airports. Some can be booked online using mobile apps.

Operation

[edit]

Terminus

[edit]

A given share taxi route may start and finish in fixed central locations, and landmarks may serve as route names or route termini.

In other places there may be no formal termini, with taxis simply congregating at a central location,[3] instead.

The term "rank" denotes an area, specifically built for taxi operators by a municipality or city, where commuters may start and end their journey.

Route

[edit]

Where they exist, shared taxis provide service on set routes within and sometimes between towns.

After a shared taxi has picked up passengers at its terminus, it proceeds along a semi-fixed route where the driver may determine the actual route within an area according to traffic conditions. Drivers will stop anywhere to allow riders to disembark, and may sometimes do the same when prospective passengers want to ride.

Vehicle ownership

[edit]

Most share taxis are operated under one of two regimes. Some share taxis are operated by a company. For example, in Dakar there are company-owned fleets of hundreds of car rapides.[4] In the Soviet Union, share taxis, known as marshrutka, were operated by state-owned taxi parks.[5] There are also individual operators in many countries. In Africa, while there are company share taxis, individual owners are more common. Rarely owning more than two vehicles at a time, they will rent out a minibus to operators, who pay fuel and other running costs, and keep revenue.[4]

Syndicates

[edit]

In some places, like some African cities and also Hong Kong, share taxi minibuses are overseen by syndicates, unions, or route associations.[4] These groups often function in the absence of a regulatory environment[4] and may collect dues or fees from drivers[4] (such as per-use terminal payments,[4] sometimes illegally), set routes,[4] manage terminals, and fix fares.[4] Terminal management may include ensuring each vehicle leaves with a full load of passengers.[4]

Because the syndicates represent owners, their regulatory efforts tend to favor operators rather than passengers,[4] and the very termini syndicates upkeep can cost delays and money for passengers as well as forcing them to disembark at inconvenient locations, in a phenomenon called "terminal constraint".[4]

By location

[edit]

Africa

[edit]

Some Francophone African countries use the term taxi-brousse ('bush taxi', often spelled with a space rather than a hyphen in English[6]) for share taxis.[7]

In some African cities, routes are run between formal termini,[4] where the majority[8] of passengers board.[4] In these places, the share taxis wait for a full load of passengers prior to departing, and off-peak wait times may be in excess of an hour.[4]

In Africa, regulation is mainly something that pertains to the vehicle itself not its operator[4] or its mode of operation.[citation needed]

African minibuses are difficult to tax,[4] and may operate in a "regulatory vacuum" perhaps because their existence is not part of a government scheme, but is simply a market response to a growing demand for such services.[4] Route syndicates[4] and operator's associations[4] often exercise unrestricted control, and existing rules may see little enforcement.[4]

In many traffic-choked, sprawling, and low-density African cities, minibuses are used.[4] Some or even most African bush taxis are old Peugeot and Renault models. (specifically Peugeot 504 and Peugeot 505 models).

Algeria

[edit]

In Algeria, taxis collectifs ply fixed routes with their destination displayed.[9] Rides are shared with others who are picked up along the way,[10] and the taxi will leave only when it seats all the passengers it can.[11] While stations, set locations to board and disembark, exist,[11] prospective passengers flag down a taxi collectif when they want a ride.[9]

Operating inter-[11] and intra-city,[citation needed] taxis collectifs that travel between towns may be called interwilaya taxis.[11]

Along with all forms of public transport in Algeria, the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada recommend against using these share taxis.[10] The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs asks that you use taxis recommended by a hotel.[12]

Burkina Faso

[edit]

In Ouagadougou, capital of Burkina Faso, the share taxi or taxi brousse[13] role is not filled by the traditional African minibus.[4]

Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Those in Kinshasa, DRC, (or perhaps just the Kongo people) may call share taxis fula fula meaning "quick quick".[14]

There was no independent transport authority in the city of Kinshasa as of 2008.[4]

Cameroon

[edit]

Share taxis do exist in Cameroon, but as of 2008 minibuses cannot be used for this purpose, by law.[4] That same year, Douala, Cameroon, also was without an independent transport authority.[4]

Egypt

[edit]

Egyptian share cabs are generally known as micro-bus (mekrobass ميكروباص or mašrūʿ مشروع, "project"; plural mekrobassāt ميكروباصات or mašarīʿ مشاريع). The second name is used by Alexandrians.

Micro-buses are licensed by each of the governorates of Egypt as taxicabs, and are generally operated privately by their drivers. Although each governorate attempts to maintain a consistent paint scheme for them, in practice the color of them varies wildly, as the "consistent" schemes have changed from time to time and many drivers have not bothered to repaint their cars.

Rates vary depending on distance traveled, although these rates are generally well known to those riding the micro-bus. The fares also depend on the city. Riders can typically hail micro-buses from any point along the route, often with well-established hand signals indicating the prospective rider's destination, although certain areas tend to be well-known micro-bus stops.

Like the Eastern European marshrutka, a typical micro-bus is a large van, most often a Toyota HiAce or its Jinbei equivalent, the Haise, and the latter is produced by the Bavarian Auto Manufacturing Group in 6th of October City in Egypt. Smaller vans and larger small buses are also used.

Ethiopia

[edit]

Minibus taxis in Ethiopia are one of the most important modes of transport in big cities like Addis Ababa. They are preferred by the majority of the populace over public buses and more traditional taxicabs because they are generally cheap, operate on diverse routes, and are available in abundance. All minibus taxis in Ethiopia have a standard blue-and-white coloring scheme, much as New York taxis are yellow. Minibus taxis are usually Toyota HiAces, frequent the streets. They typically can carry 11 passengers, but will always have room for another until that is no longer the case. The minibus driver has a crew member called a weyala whose job is to collect the fare from passengers.

In 2008, publicly operated public transport was available in Addis Ababa in addition to that provided by the minibuses.[4] A fleet of 350 large buses may operate for this purpose,[citation needed] as such a number does exist.[4] Also as of 2008, the city lacks an independent transport authority,[4] but some regulation, such as that controlling market entry, does exist.[4]

Route syndicates may be present but are described as "various".[4]

Ghana

[edit]
Tro tro in Accra
Mates calling for passengers
A mate looking out a tro tro
Trotro in Accra 2009

In Ghana and neighboring countries, share taxis are called tro tro. They are privately owned[15] minibus that travel fixed routes[15] and leave when filled to capacity. While there are tro tro stations,[15][16][17] these shared taxis can also be boarded anywhere along the route.[15]

Operated by a driver and a bus conductor, who collects money, shouts out the destination, and is called a "mate",[15] many are decorated with slogans and sayings, often religious, and few operate on Sundays.[17] A 2010 report by The World Bank found that Tro tro are used by 70% of Ghanaian commuters.[15] This popularity may be because in cities such as Accra had only basic public transportation save for these small minibuses.[4] An informal means of transportation, in Ghana they are licensed by the government, but the industry is self-regulated.[15] In Accra, syndicates include GPRTU and PROTOA.[4]

Aayalolo, a bus rapid transit system opened in November 2016; however, most people continued to use trotros as of 2019.[18]

The term "tro tro" is believed to derive from the Ga word tro, "threepence", because the conductors usually asked for "three three pence", which was the standard bus fare in the 1940s, when Ghana still used the British West African pound and later the Ghanaian pound.[19] Alternatively, its origin is not "three times three pence" but rather "threepence [thruhpnce, tro] each": doubling a coin's name in the vernacular means "that coin for each person (or item)". Three pence was the price per passenger in the early 1960s, when pounds/shillings/pence were still in use, including threepence coins, before decimalization of the currency into cedi and pesewa in 1965.

A Mercedes-Benz Sprinter bus with a mate

In Ghana, tro tro are licensed by the government, but the industry is self-regulated.[15] There was no independent transport authority as of 2008 in the capital, Accra.[4] In the absence of a regulatory environment, groups called syndicates oversee share taxis. These may collect dues, set routes, manage terminals, and fix fares.[4] In Accra as of 2008, such syndicates include Ghana Private Road Transport Union and PROTOA.[4]

Despite the regulatory challenges, the service was regulated during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana. There was 98% compliance to guidelines on physical distancing, although guidelines on individual use of face masks were more difficult to enforce.[20]

Ivory Coast

[edit]

In the Ivory Coast, gbaka is a name for minibus public transports.[4] The transport regulator in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, is Agence de Gestion des Transports Urbains[4] or AGETU.[4] As of 2008, Abidjan public transport was serviced by large buses as well as minibuses.[4] Syndicates include UPETCA and SNTMVCI.[4]

Kenya

[edit]

In Kenya, regulation does extend to operators[21][22] and mode of operation (such as routes used)[citation needed] as well as the vehicle.[23]

Madagascar

[edit]
Four vans are parked in parallel in front of a series of storefronts. Some have goods on top in woven containers. Men are standing on top of two of them, loading or unloading them. Other men congregate nearby.
Four taxi brousses at a station in Ambositra
A middle-aged white man takes a selfie inside a very taxi brousse. There are at least 17 passengers behind him, ranging from infant to later age; some are making unpleasant expressions.
Interior of a crowded taxi brousse
Madagascar's taxi brousses are a type of share taxi that serve as a relatively affordable public transportation system amid Madagascar's poverty.[24]: 61, 68  The typical cost in 2005 was US$.10 per person, and most taxi brousses do not embark until all seats are full.[24]: 70  While taxi brousses use fixed stops, passengers can also exit at any point along the route.[24]: 73  Taxi brousse company fleets range in size from a single vehicle to over a hundred, and may serve one or more urban, regional, or national lines.[24]: 70  National lines travel from their origin to their destination directly, disallowing improvised stops along the route.[25] A vehicle is staffed by a driver and assistant driver, or two drivers on a very long route. Other people are employed to attract customers and fasten luggage to the vehicle's roof.[24]: 75 

Mali

[edit]

In Mali, share taxis are called sotrama and dourouni.[4] As of 2008, Bamako, Mali, has no independent transport authority,[4] but share taxi activity could fall under regulator Direction de la régulation et du contrôle du transport urbain (municipal) or DRCTU control.[4]

Morocco

[edit]
A regular grand taxi in Morocco

In Morocco, intercity share taxis are called grand taxis. They are generally old full-size Mercedes-Benz sedans, and seat six or more passengers.[26]

Nigeria

[edit]
The danfo share taxi and molue minibusses are iconic transport in Lagos, Nigeria.

In Nigeria, both minibusses (called danfo[4]) and midibuses (molue)[4] may be operated as share taxis. Such forms of public transport may also be referred to as bolekaja, and many bear slogans or sayings.[14]

The term kia kia may be used in Yorùbáland to refer to minibus public transports, and means "quick quick".[14]

Lagos, Nigeria, has a transport-dedicated regulator, Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Agency (LAMATA).[4] Outside of Lagos, most major cities in Africa have similar systems of transport. Syndicates in Lagos include the National Union of Road and Transport Workers (NURTW).[4]

Rwanda

[edit]
Minibus in Kigali, Rwanda

Minibus public transports in Rwanda may be called coaster buses,[27] share taxis, or twegerane.[4] The latter could easily be a word meaning "stuffed" or "full".[27] As of 2020, in Kigali, Rwanda, syndicates include RFTC, Kigali Bus Services, and Royal Express.

South Africa

[edit]
Cape Town minibus taxi rank
Modern Toyota share taxi in Cape Town

Over 60% of South African commuters use shared minibus taxis, which are 16 seater commuter buses, sometimes referred to as kombis, or more colloquially known as 'quantum',for only the Toyota HiAce. Many of these vehicles are unsafe and not roadworthy, and often dangerously overloaded. Since the 1980s, share taxis have been severely affected by turf wars.[28] Prior to 1987, the taxi industry in South Africa was highly regulated and controlled. Black taxi operators were declined permits in the Apartheid era and all minibus taxi operations were, by their very nature, illegal. Post-1987, the industry was rapidly deregulated, leading to an influx of new minibus taxi operators, keen to make money off the high demand for this service. Taxi operators banded together to form local and national associations. Because the industry was largely unregulated and the official regulating bodies corrupt,[citation needed] these associations soon engaged in anti-competitive price fixing and exhibited gangster tactics – including the hiring of hit-men and all-out gang warfare.[29] During the height of the conflict, it was common for taxi drivers to carry shotguns and AK-47s to shoot rival taxi drivers and their passengers on sight.[citation needed]

Along with new legislation, the government has instituted a recapitalization scheme to replace the old and un-roadworthy vehicles with new 18- and 35-seater minibusses. These new minibus taxis carry the South African flag on the side and are notably more spacious and safe.

Tanzania

[edit]
A dala dala in the city of Dar es Salaam

Minivans and minibuses are used as vehicles for hire and referred to as dala dala in Tanzania. While dala dala may run fixed routes picking up passengers at central locations, they will also stop along the route to drop someone off or allow a prospective passenger to board. Before minibuses became widely used, the typical dala dala was a pick-up truck with benches placed in the truck bed.[30]

In Dar es Salaam, as of 2008, publicly operated minibus service also exists.[4]

They are usually run by both a driver and a bus conductor called a mpigadebe, literally meaning "a person who hits a debe" (a 4-gallon tin container used for transporting gasoline or water). The name is in reference to the fact that conductors often hit the roof and side of the van to attract customers and to notify the driver when to leave the station.

Often crowded, they have their routes allocated by a Tanzania transport regulator, Surface and Marine Transport Regulatory Authority (SUMATRA),[4] but syndicates also exist and include DARCOBOA.[4]

Tunisia

[edit]
Louage in Tunisia

Share taxis in Tunisia are called louages and follow fixed or semi-fixed routes, departing from stations when full.[31][32] In French, the name means "rental." Departing only when filled with passengers not at specific times, they can be hired at stations.[33] Louage ply set routes, and fares are set by the government. At most louage stations, tickets must be purchased at a booth and given to the driver.

In contrast to other share taxis in Africa, louage are sparsely decorated. These white vans sport a single colored stripe that alerts potential passengers to the type of transport they offer. Red-striped vans travel from one state to another, Blue which travels from city to city within a state, and yellow which serves rural locales.[33] Blue-striped louage can also be seen.[33] Small placards atop the vans specify either a van's exact destination or the town in which it is registered.

Prior to the introduction of vans, French-made station wagons were used as louages.[34]

West Africa

[edit]

The term kia kia may be used in Yorùbáland to refer to minibus public transports, and means "quick quick".[14]

Asia

[edit]
A public light bus (left) and a double-decker bus (right) in Hong Kong

Hong Kong

[edit]

Public light buses (Chinese: 公共小型巴士), also known as minibus or maxicab (Chinese: 小巴), run the length and breadth of Hong Kong, through areas which the standard bus lines cannot or do not reach as frequently, quickly or directly. They are 16 or 19 seater minibuses. Public Light Bus are differentiated from usual minibuses with their red coloured roof, and with very few exceptions, lack of route numbers. With no timetable, drivers can depart when they deem the passenger count on board is financially equitable. Special features include its high speeds (up to 110 km/h on some routes; which is illegal when exceeding the 80 km/h limit) and permission for the driver to end the journey prematurely, even with passengers on board. Although within their right to charge the full fare, drivers usually lower or omit the fare if they are unable to deliver the passenger to the promised destination.

Typically offering a faster and more efficient transportation solution due to their small size, limited carrying capacity, frequency, and diverse range of routes, although they are generally slightly more expensive than standard buses, minibusses carry a maximum of 19 seated passengers. Standing passengers are not allowed.

There are two types of public light minibus: green and red. Both types have a cream-coloured body, the distinguishing feature being the colour of the external roof, and the type of service that the colour denotes: green is like regular transit bus with fixed number, route, schedule and fare (but generally not fixed stops); red is a shared taxi, operating on semi-fixed route unregulated, with the driver waiting for enough passengers to justify leaving, as his income depends on the revenue.

Cyprus

[edit]

In Cyprus, there are privately owned share taxis that travel to set destinations and board additional passengers en route called service taxis.[35]

India

[edit]

In India, several cities have minibuses apart from the presence of three-wheeler taxi-cabs called rickshaws. Minibuses are especially popular in the city of Kolkata for intra-city travel but are also present elsewhere. It is also a crucial mode of public transport in the Himalayan region and in the hilly tracts of Northeast India, as other modes of transport are infrequent or absent altogether.

Shared taxis have been operating in Mumbai, India, since the early 1970s. These are point-to-point services that operate during peak hours. During off-peak hours they ply like regular taxis; they can be hailed anywhere on the roads and passengers are charged by the meter. During peak hours they will take a full cab load of passengers to a more or less common destination. The pick-up points are usually fixed, and sometimes (but not always) marked by a sign saying "shared taxis". Cabs typically line up at this point during peak hours.

They sometimes display their general destination on their windscreens, and passengers get in and wait for the cab to fill up, which leave when full. Fares are fixed and much lower than the metered fare to the same destination, but higher than a bus or train fare.

Such informal arrangements also exist in other Indian cities. Share jeeps are a common form of transportation in the Himalayas, the North Eastern States, and elsewhere.[36]

Indonesia

[edit]

Angkutan Kota (lit.'city transport'), abbreviated as angkot, are shared taxis in Indonesia widely operating throughout the country, usually with microbuses. In some places there were also three-wheelers which are called bemo (such as autorickshaws based on the Daihatsu Midget) but these have been phased out. The older version of Angkot is called oplet. The name of this transportation differs from each different province or area in the country. In Jakarta, it is called angkot or "mikrotrans", in other parts such as in Sulawesi, the term mikrolet (shortened "mikro") is more widely used especially in Manado. In Makassar it is called "pete-pete", in Malang it is called "angkota", in Medan it is called "sudako", in Indonesian Papua it is called "taksi", in Aceh it is called "labi-labi", and in Samarinda it is called "minibus" (but even within the city itself is also called angkot).

Share taxis operated across rural/village routes are called angkutan desa (lit.'village transport'), abbreviated as angkudes. Angkot and angkudes run accordingly to their exact routes and may stop at any class of bus stations (A, B, and C-Type bus stations).[37] Additionally, passengers can stop the van anywhere along its route, and it is not required to stop at a bus stop.[38]

In 2017, Jakarta launched OKTrip, a cooperation with Kooperasi Wahana Kalpika to provide an angkot with an integrated fare with Transjakarta. The system was then continuously refined, birthing Mikrotrans, an angkot that is integrated with the wider Transjakarta system. Passengers are not required to pay a fare, but are required to tap a cash card.[39]

In 2023, Surabaya also launched Wirawiri Suroboyo, a feeder system wholly run by the Department of Transport. Passengers are still required to pay fares when boarding a Wirawiri angkot, but are handed tickets that are integrated with the wider Suroboyo Bus and select Trans Semanggi Suroboyo corridors.[40] Several cities have followed Surabaya's model, including Donggala.[41]

Iran

[edit]
Sharing ajans in Tehran

In Iran, a share taxi is usually called "taxi", while a non-share is called "ajans"/اژانس, pronounced [aʒans]. Four passengers share a taxi and sometimes there is no terminus and they wait in the street side and blare their destination to all taxis until one of them stops. These are regular taxis but if somebody wants to get a non-share taxi he can call for an ajans (taxi service) for himself or wait in the street side and say "Darbast" (which means non-share). It means he is not interested in sharing the taxi and is consequently willing to pay more for the privilege.

Minibuses, with a capacity of 18 passengers, and van taxis, with a capacity of 10 passengers are other kinds of share transport in Iran.[42]

Israel

[edit]
Sherut taxis

In Hebrew: מונית שירות monit sherut, pl. Hebrew: מוניות שירות moniyot sherut is a word meaning "service taxi". Referring to vans or minibuses[43][44] that serve as share taxis in Israel, these can be picked up from anywhere on their route. They follow fixed routes[43] (sometimes the same routes as public transport buses) and usually leave from the initial station only when full.[45] Moniyot sherut operate both inter-[43][46] and intra-city.[43] Payment is often done by passing money to the driver in a "human chain" formed by the passengers seated before. The change (and the receipt, when requested) are returned to the person who paid by the same means. In intra-city routes, where they compete with official buses, the drivers usually coordinate their travel by radio so that they can arrive at the bus station just before public transport buses and take the most passengers.

Monit sherut is one of the only forms of transit accessible to many Israelis during Shabbat, as most public transportation in the country closes down between sunset on Friday and nightfall on Saturday.

In Israel, Mercedes are used, owned generally by Arabs, and very efficient, having space for 7–8 people, and having loosely fixed routes, dropping a passenger either at a specific terminus or going a little out of the way to facilitate the passenger.[citation needed]

Philippines

[edit]
UV Express vehicle in Metro Manila
A typical jeepney in Legazpi, The Philippines

The most popular means of public transportation in the Philippines as of 2007,[47] jeepneys were originally made out of US military jeeps left over from World War II[48] and are known for their color and flamboyant decoration.[47] The jeepneys are built by local automobile repair shops from a combination of prefabricated elements (from a handful of Filipino manufacturers) and improvisation and in most cases equipped with "surplus" or used Japanese SUV or light truck engines, drive train, suspension and steering components (from recycled vehicles in Japan).

They have not changed much since their post-war creation, even in the face of increased access to pre-made vehicles, such as minibuses.[citation needed] However, due to the government's Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program, Jeepneys and other modes of transportation must comply to the newer Philippine National Standards which is more compliant with international standards.

Older jeepneys have the entrance on the back, and there is space for two people beside the driver (or more if they are small) while the modern jeepneys have two doors on the right side of the vehicle. The back cab of the Jeepney is equipped with two long bench seats along the sides and the people seated closest to the driver are responsible for passing the fare of new passengers forward to the driver and the change back to the passenger. The start and end point of the jeepney route is often a jeepney terminal, where there is a queue system so only one jeepney plying a particular route is filled at a time, and where a person helps the driver to collect fares and fill the vehicles with people, usually to more than comfortable capacity.

Preferring to leave only when full and only stop for a crowd of potential passengers,[49] riders can nonetheless disembark at any time; and while jeepneys ply fixed routes,[47] these may be subject to change over time.[50] New ones may need approval from a Philippine transport regulator.[51] Jeepney stations do exist.[52]

Another share taxi that is also common in the Philippines is the UV Express which uses Compact MPVs and vans as its form factor. These vehicles seat 10–18 people and charge an additional 2 Philippine peso per kilometer (as of 2013).

Thailand

[edit]

Literally "two rows"[citation needed] a songthaew or song thaew[53] (Thai สองแถว, Lao: ສອງແຖວ [sɔ̌ːŋtʰíw]) is a passenger vehicle in Thailand[53] and Laos[54] adapted from a pick-up[54] or a larger truck and used as a share taxi. They are also known as baht buses.

Turkey and Northern Cyprus

[edit]
An Karsan Jest dolmuş

In Turkey and Northern Cyprus, dolmuşlar (singular dolmuş, pronounced "dolmush") are share taxis that run on set routes within and between cities. These cars or minibuses display their routes on a signboard behind the windscreen. Some cities may only allow dolmuş to pick up and drop passengers at designated stops, and terminals also exist. The word derives from Turkish for "full" or "stuffed", as these share taxis depart from the terminal only when a sufficient number of passengers have boarded. Visitors to Turkey have been surprised by the speed of dolmuş travel.[55] There are also minibuses (Minibus) In the outskirts of cities like Istanbul, that take people from Point A to Point B, however they can get really crowded. They also have stops that are not usually labelled.

Traveling intra and inter-city, the privately owned minibuses are overseen by a governance institution; routes are leased and vehicles licensed. Passengers board anywhere along the route as well as at termini and official stations. Dolmuşlar in Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus display their routes but don't follow timetables.

West Bank, Palestine

[edit]

Share taxis are often called "ser-vees" (service taxi) in the West Bank. Minibuses are often used in lieu of vans. Ford Transit vans were often a popular vehicle for conversion, resulting in the generic trademark "Ford" and "Fordat"(pl) being used to describe minibusses of various makes, replacing aging Mercedes sedans.[43]

Oceania

[edit]

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand the first widespread motor vehicle services were shared taxi services termed service cars; a significant early provider was Aard, operating elongated Hudson Super Sixes.[56] By 1930, there were 597 service cars.[57] Aard was taken over by New Zealand Railways Road Services in 1928.[56]

A shuttle van service to Dunedin International Airport picks up a passenger at Dunedin Railway Station in New Zealand.
shuttle stop traffic sign
Sign for a shuttle stop

Shared taxis in New Zealand nowadays are referred to as shuttles or shuttle vans.

Shared buses or vans are available in many more developed countries connecting frequent destinations, charging a fixed fee per passenger. The most common case is a connection between an airport and central city locations. These services are often known as shuttles. Such services usually use smaller vehicles than normal buses and often operate on demand. An air traveler can contact the shuttle company by telephone or Internet, not necessarily in advance; the company will ensure that a shuttle is provided without unreasonable delay. The shuttle will typically connect one airport with several large hotels, or addresses in a specified area of the city. The shuttle offers much of the convenience of a taxi, although it takes longer, at a price that is significantly lower for one or two passengers. Scheduled services between an airport and a hotel, usually operated by the hotel, are also called shuttles. In many cases the shuttle operator takes the risk of there not being enough passengers to make the trip profitable; in others, there is a minimum charge when there are not enough passengers.

Usually, there are regulations covering vehicles and drivers; for example in New Zealand under NZTA regulations, shuttles are only allowed to have up to eleven passenger seats, and the driver must have a passenger endorsement (P) on their driver's license.

Europe

[edit]
MOIA van in Hamburg, Germany

Former Soviet Union

[edit]
Four marshrutkas in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Marshrutka in Moscow region

Moldova

[edit]

In Moldova, share taxis are called rutiere (singular rutieră). Introduced in 1981, they are private, owner-operated minibuses that operate along fixed routes. In cities, each rutieră route has a given number, as in the case of buses or trolleybuses.

Netherlands

[edit]

Besides the conventional deeltaxi, there are treintaxis in some Dutch towns. Operated on behalf of the Netherlands Railways,[citation needed] they run to and from railway stations and the ride is shared with additional passengers picked up along the way. Tickets can be purchased at railway ticket offices or from the cabdriver, but treintaxis must be ordered by phone unless boarding at a railway station.[58]

Bulgaria

[edit]
A Ford Transit marshrutka in Sofia, Bulgaria

Marshrutkas are rare in Bulgaria. As of 2021, only a single route operates in Sofia, while 10 lines operate in Plovdiv.[59] They are customized passenger vans that have been modified to include large windows in the back, rails and handles. Marshrutkas are commonly white, although their colour varied, and are partially covered in advertising. In some cases, seating has been modified — popular routes carrying more passengers typically have more standing space. Examples of van models include Peugeot Boxer, Citroën Jumper, Ford Transit, Iveco Daily and Renault Master. They have a fixed fare; the fare is paid upon boarding. Marshrutkas were not obliged to stop anywhere on the route, although they did slow down around popular spots. Marshrutka drivers were asked to stop and pick one up in a taxi-like manner; the getting-off was arranged with the driver, often by just standing up and approaching the door. Sometimes the driver would ask for consent to veer off the route to avoid a traffic jam or roadworks.

Romania

[edit]

In Romania, microbuze or maxi-taxi supplied the need of affordable public transportation in smaller towns when some local administrations abolished the expensive community-owned systems of buses. In Bucharest, this form of transportation appeared in 1977, when the ITB began using them as a peak-hour service, beginning to use Irannational-made Mercedes-Benz T2 vans, being supplemented in 1983 by Rocar-TV 35M vans. Prior to this, in 1973, the ITB experimented with what was called at the time "fixed taxi lines", which ran between the Drumul Taberei, Titan and Berceni housing estates and picked up and stopped passengers on request, before discontinuing the experiment the following year.

In 1990, the newly founded RATB sold off its operations to private operators, who began using them in competition to the RATB. They enjoyed wide popularity, especially from 2003 to 2007, and from 2011 onwards, when the RATB lost the rights to operate suburban routes. On the Black Sea shore, it is very common to travel from Constanţa or Mangalia to the resorts on minibuses (microbuze), especially in those resorts where the competing train service is far from the beach and/or lodging facilities. These minibuses have been criticised for their shady operations, lack of safety and primitive transportation conditions.

Greece

[edit]

In Athens, Greece most taxis were share taxis,[60] but since the country joined the EU in 1981, this tradition started to disappear.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2018, Arriva launched shared taxi service Arriva Click in Liverpool and Sittingbourne and Kent Science Park in the United Kingdom.[61]

Northern Ireland
[edit]

In some towns in Northern Ireland, notably certain districts in Ballymena, Belfast, Derry and Newry, share taxi services operate using Hackney carriages and are called black taxis. These services developed during The Troubles as public bus services were often interrupted due to street rioting. Taxi collectives are closely linked with political groups – those operating in Catholic areas with Sinn Féin, those in Protestant areas with loyalist paramilitaries and their political wings.

Typically, fares approximate those of Translink operated bus services on the same route. Service frequencies are typically higher than on-bus services, especially at peak times, although limited capacities mean that passengers living close to the termini may find it difficult to find a black taxi with seats available in the rush hour.

Switzerland

[edit]

Major providers of share taxis in Switzerland are Telebus Kriens LU, Taxito, myBuxi, Kollibri by Swiss Postal Bus, and Pikmi by VBZ Verkehrsbetriebe Zurich ZH.

North America

[edit]

Barbados

[edit]

Most areas of Barbados are served by ZRs, which run in addition to the government-run bus service.

Dominican Republic

[edit]

In the Dominican Republic, share taxis are privately owned vehicles[62] running fixed routes[63][62] with no designated stops.[63]

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against traveling in the Dominican Republic carros públicos because doing so makes passengers targets for robbery, and because the taxis are known to, "disregard traffic laws, often resulting in serious accidents involving injuries and sometimes death."[64] The United States Department of State also warns that using them is hazardous, due to pickpockets, and are sometimes passengers are robbed by the drivers themselves.[62]

Haiti

[edit]
A Haitian tap tap

Tap taps, gaily painted buses[65] or pick-up trucks, and publiques, usually older saloon cars,[66] serve as share taxis in Haiti. Tap taps are privately owned and ornately decorated.[65] They follow fixed routes; won't leave until filled with passengers; and many feature wild colors, portraits of famous people, and intricate, hand-cut wooden window covers.[65] Often they are painted with religious names or slogans.[14] Riders can disembark at any point in the journey. Their name refers to "fast motion".[14]

The publiques operate on fixed routes and pick up additional passengers all along the way.[66]

While saying not to use any form of public transport in Haiti, the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against tap tap travel especially.[67] The United States Department of State also warns travelers not to use tap taps, "because they are often overloaded, mechanically unsound, and driven unsafely."[68]

Saint Lucia

[edit]

In Saint Lucia, waychehs are a name for minibus public transports using Toyota HiAce.

Canada

[edit]

In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, in the 1920s, jitneys competed directly with the streetcar monopoly operating along the same routes as the streetcars, but jitneys were charging lower fares.[69]

In Quebec, share taxis or jitneys are called taxis collectifs[70] (in English "shared taxis"[71]) or transport collectif par taxi, literally "public transport by taxi".[72] (which the STM translates in English as "taxibus"[73]) and are operated by subcontractors to the local transit authorities on fixed routes.

In the case of Montréal, the fare is the same as the local bus fare, but no cash and transfers are issued or accepted; in the case of the STL, only bus passes.[71] The Réseau de transport de Longueuil accepts regular RTL tickets and all RTL and some Réseau de transport métropolitain TRAM passes.

Guatemala

[edit]

In Guatemala, ruleteros, minibus share taxis, pick up and discharge passengers along major streets.[74][75]

United States

[edit]
A dollar van in Union City, New Jersey, 2009
Cartoon by Marguerite Martyn of a jitney cab and passengers in 1915 St. Louis, Missouri

In the United States, share taxis are called jitneys or dollar vans. They are typically modified passenger vans, and often operate in urban neighborhoods that are underserved by public mass transit or taxis. Some are licensed and regulated, while others operate illegally. They operate at designated stops or can be hailed from the street.

Both common names – dollar van and jitney – originated similarly. Jitney is an archaic term for an American nickel, the common fare for early jitneys. In the late 20th century, when a typical fare was one dollar, the corresponding name came into usage, though "jitney" is still also common.[76] It is generally a small-capacity vehicle that follows a rough service route, but it can go slightly out of its way to pick up and drop off passengers. In many US cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit, the term jitney refers to an unlicensed taxi cab.

They are often owned and used by members of inner-city communities, such as African/Caribbean American, Latino, and Asian-American populations. Travelers cite cost and greater frequency as factors in choosing jitneys over larger bus service, whereas safety and comfort are cited for choosing buses.

The first jitneys in the United States operated in Los Angeles, California in 1914. By 1915, there were 62,000 nationwide. Local regulations, demanded by streetcar companies, forced jitneys out of business in most places. By the end of 1916, only 6,000 jitneys remained.[77] Operators were referred to as "jitney men." They were so successful that the city government banned them at the request of the streetcar operators.

Atlanta
[edit]

Jitneys were popular in Atlanta from 1915 to 1925 as an alternative to streetcars.[78] In Atlanta, jitneys run along Buford Highway.

New York City
[edit]

In New York City, dollar vans serve major areas that lack adequate subway service in transit deserts. The vans pick up and drop off anywhere along a route, and payment is made at the end of a trip. During periods when limited public mass transit is unavailable, dollar vans were the only feasible method of transportation for many commuters.[79][80] In such situations, city governments may pass legislation to deter price gouging.[81] Most dollar vans operate illegally, due to possible rules and fines.[82] Dollar vans and other jitneys mainly serve low-income, immigrant communities in transit deserts, which lack sufficient bus and subway service.[83]

New Jersey
[edit]

In New Jersey, 6,500 jitney buses are registered, and are required to have an "Omnibus" license plate, which denotes the vehicle's federal registration. They are also required to undergo inspection by the state MVC mobile inspection team on the vehicles' companies' property twice a year, and be subject to surprise inspection. Drivers of jitneys are required to qualify for a Class B or Class C Commercial Drivers License (CDL), depending on whether the vehicle seats up to 15 or 30 passengers. Violations against a driver's CDL must be resolved and result in payment of fines prior to resumption of driving on the driver's part, with retesting required if the driver waits longer than three years to resolve the issues.[84]

Denser urban areas of northern New Jersey, such as Hudson, Bergen and Passaic County, are also served by dollar vans,[83][85][86] which are commonly known as jitneys, and most of which are run by Spanish Transportation and Community Line, Inc. Nungessers, along the Anderson Avenue-Bergenline Avenue transit corridor is a major origination/termination point, as are 42nd Street in Manhattan, Newport Mall and Five Corners in Jersey City, and GWB Plaza in Fort Lee. These interstate vans are under the purview of the federal government.[83]

Jitney in Atlantic City, United States in 2008

In Atlantic City the Atlantic City Jitney Association operates a jitney service that travels the main strip of casinos. One of the routes also services the new cluster of casinos west of Atlantic City proper.

Hudson County commuters who prefer NJ Transit buses, for example, cite senior citizen discounts and air conditioning among their reasons, which has led some jitney operators to display bumper stickers advertising air conditioning aboard their vehicles in order to lure passengers. Some who prefer the buses will nonetheless take the jitneys if they arrive before the buses, as they pass bus stops more frequently than the buses and are cheaper.[84][87] Others choose buses because, they claim, jitney drivers are less safe, and are prone to using cell phones and playing loud music while driving. Although Union City jitney driver Samuel Martinez has complained that authorities unfairly target them and not the larger buses, North Bergen Patrol Commander Lt. James Somers has contended that jitneys are less safe, and sometimes exhibit higher levels of aggressive driving in order to pick up passengers, which has led to arguments among drivers. Somers also stated that police can only stop a vehicle that appears to have an obvious problem, and that only certified inspectors from the state MVC can stop a vehicle for less apparent, more serious problems.[84]

Dollar vans may change ownership over the course of decades, and the mostly immigrant drivers are subject to police searches. Between 1994 and 2015, the TLC issued 418 van licenses, although the vast majority of vans are unlicensed. Licensed vans cannot pick up at New York City bus stops, and all pick-ups must be predetermined and all passengers logged. Additionally, in the 1980s and 1990s, the predominantly black and mostly immigrant dollar van drivers stated that they were harassed "day and night" by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), with some van drivers having their keys confiscated and thrown away by NYPD officers.[83]

Over the course of the 2000s, surprise inspections in Hudson County, New Jersey have been imposed on jitney operators, whose lack of regulation, licensing or regular scheduling has been cited as the cause for numerous fines. A series of such inspections of the vans on Bergenline Avenue in June 2010 resulted in 285 citation violations, including problems involving brake lights, bald tires, steering wheels, suspensions, exhaust pipes, and emergency doors welded shut. An early July 2010 surprise inspection by the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office, which receives federal funding for regulating jitneys, found 23 out of 33 jitneys to be unsafe, which were taken out of service.[84][88] Claims have also been made that jitneys cause congestion and undermine licensed bus service. Drivers of these vans have also developed a reputation for ignoring traffic laws in the course of competing for fares, picking up and dropping off passengers at random locations, and driving recklessly.[87]

On July 30, 2013, an accident occurred at 56th Street and Boulevard East in West New York, New Jersey, in which Angelie Paredes, an 8-month-old North Bergen resident, was killed in her stroller when a full-sized[89] jitney bus belonging to the New York-based Sphinx company toppled a light pole. The driver, Idowu Daramola of Queens, was arrested and charged with a number of offenses, including using a cell phone while driving.[90][91][92] Officials also stated that he was speeding;[87] however, this was later disputed by an investigator to the scene who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the speed of the bus.[89] At an August 6 press conference, legislators including U.S. Representative Albio Sires, New Jersey State Senator Nicholas Sacco, State Assembly members Vincent Prieto, Charles Mainor and Angelica Jimenez, West New York Mayor Felix Roque, Weehawken Mayor Richard Turner, Guttenberg Mayor Gerald Drasheff, Freeholder Junior Maldonado and Hudson County Sheriff Frank Schillari, noted that problems with jitneys existed since the 1980s, and called for stricter regulations for drivers and bus companies. This included increased monitoring and enforcement, and heightened participation by the public in identifying poor drivers,[92] as jitneys had been exempt from regulations imposed on buses and other forms of transportation.

In February 2014, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed Angelie's Law, strengthening regulations on commuter buses.[93][94]

Several companies run vans in Northern New Jersey, often following similar routes to New Jersey Transit buses but at a slightly lower price and greater frequency. The most common routes have an eastern terminus on street level in Manhattan, either near the Port Authority Bus Terminal or the George Washington Bridge Bus Station.[95] Often, several different companies ply the same route.

Miami
[edit]

In Miami, jitneys (also known as the Miami Mini Bus) run through various neighborhoods, mostly those stretching between Downtown Miami to The Mall at 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. Miami has the country's most comprehensive jitney network, due to Caribbean influence.

San Francisco
[edit]

Jitneys ran in San Francisco from late 1914 to January 2016. In the 1910s, there were more than 1,400 jitneys operating in the city. However, by 2016, declining ridership combined with mounting penalties for traffic citations made the operations unprofitable.[96]

Houston
[edit]

The Houston Wave, Houston's first jitney service in 17 years, operated between 2009 and 2019. It expanded into a network of buses operating within Loop 610 and to all special event venues in Houston.

Latin America

[edit]

In Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, "carros públicos" (literally "public cars") are share taxis.[97] Carros Publicos set routes with several passengers sharing the ride[98] and others picked up throughout the journey.[97]

In Puerto Rico the industry is regulated by the Puerto Rico Public Service Commission.[3]

While these cars do travel inter-city, they may not be available for longer, cross-island travel.[3] Stations may exist in cities, and Puerto Rican carros públicos may congregate in specific places around town.[3]

Mexico

[edit]

There are some areas in which traditional buses and minibuses cannot operate due to the size restrictions of the streets and overhanging objects. Some of these places are served by share taxis that are regulated by the state or city. The share taxis charge the standard minibuses fare.

Central and South America

[edit]

Argentina

[edit]

Colectivos operated as share taxis from the late 1920s until the 1950s in Buenos Aires, Argentina when they were integrated into the public transportation system. Vehicles still known as colectivos operate throughout the country, but have long been indistinguishable from buses.[99]

Chile, Peru and Guatemala

[edit]
Taxis Colectivos of different lines in Talca, Chile

Often share taxi routes in Mexico are ad hoc arrangements to fill in gaps in regular public transportation, and many operate inter-city as well as local routes. In many rural areas, they are the only public transportation.

In some cases, truck/taxi combination vehicles have evolved to transport light goods as well as passengers. Heavily used share taxi routes often evolve into regulated microbus public transit routes, as has occurred in Mexico City and in Lima.

Taxis colectivos are also found in Peru, Chile, Guatemala, and Argentina, where they are most commonly referred to simply as colectivos, although in some places they have become essentially standard buses.[99]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A share taxi is a vehicle that provides transportation to multiple passengers for a shared flat fare, typically operating along specific routes without adhering to fixed schedules and departing once a sufficient number of riders board. These services utilize private cars, minivans, or small buses and allow flexible boarding and alighting points along the route, distinguishing them from both exclusive private taxis and rigid bus systems. Share taxis function as paratransit, filling gaps in formal public transportation by offering demand-responsive service in areas with sparse bus coverage or high population density. The origins of share taxis trace to early 20th-century jitneys in the United States, where drivers like L.P. Draper began charging nickel fares for shared rides in vehicles such as Ford Model Ts as early as 1914, leading to rapid proliferation with 62,000 operations by 1915 before regulatory measures curtailed them in favor of streetcars. This model evolved and persisted globally, particularly in developing regions post-World War II amid rising car ownership and inadequate infrastructure, evolving into informal networks that supplement or compete with official transit. Notable examples include marshrutkas in Eastern Europe, dolmuş in Turkey, jeepneys in the Philippines, and tro-tros in West Africa, each adapted to local vehicles and customs while prioritizing affordability and route flexibility over strict timetables. Share taxis provide economic benefits through cost-sharing, enabling access for low-income users where fixed-route buses prove inefficient, though they often evade full regulation, resulting in variable safety standards, overcrowding, and competition with subsidized public systems. In urban settings like New York City's dollar vans, they have sustained high ridership—up to 120,000 daily by 2016—demonstrating resilience as a grassroots response to transit shortcomings. Despite periodic crackdowns, their defining trait remains causal utility: vehicles move only when economically viable, optimizing for passenger density rather than empty runs, which sustains viability in unregulated markets but invites scrutiny over enforcement and vehicle maintenance.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Collective Transport

The practice of collective passenger transport, involving multiple individuals sharing a hired vehicle to distribute travel costs, predates modern automobiles and originated with horse-drawn conveyances in Europe. Stagecoaches, first developed in the late 15th century in the region of modern-day Hungary and spreading across continental Europe by the 16th century, represented an early organized system where 6 to 12 passengers could occupy a single enclosed coach drawn by four or more horses. These vehicles operated on predefined routes between post stations or inns, with fares charged per passenger segment to cover relay teams of horses and driver expenses, enabling economical long-distance mobility for merchants, officials, and the affluent who pooled resources rather than traveling privately. By the early 17th century, regular stagecoach lines had expanded, such as the inaugural public service from Edinburgh to Leith in Scotland around 1610, which formalized shared ridership as a commercial enterprise. In urban contexts, the omnibus emerged as a precursor to intra-city shared transport during the early 19th century, adapting stagecoach principles for denser populations. Pioneered by Stanislas Baudry in Bordeaux, France, in September 1828, the omnibus was a larger, sprung horse-drawn vehicle designed to carry up to 16 passengers along fixed city routes for a uniform fare, typically equivalent to a fraction of private carriage costs. This innovation addressed growing demand in industrializing cities by offering scheduled stops and capacity for collective boarding, quickly proliferating to Paris by 1829 with over 100 vehicles in operation within a year, and influencing similar deployments in London (1831) and New York (1830), where an omnibus service along Broadway accommodated 12 to 14 riders. Unlike exclusive hackney carriages, which served individuals or small groups, omnibuses emphasized volume ridership to achieve profitability, laying groundwork for economies of scale in passenger aggregation that later characterized share taxi operations. These horse-drawn systems demonstrated causal efficiencies in collective transport: by amortizing fixed costs like animal maintenance and vehicle depreciation across multiple fares, operators undercut private alternatives while serving routes underserved by foot or individual conveyances. However, limitations such as rigid schedules, weather dependency, and capacity constraints—omnibuses often overloaded in peak hours—highlighted needs for flexibility that automobiles would address a century later. Empirical records from the era, including fare logs and route manifests, confirm ridership surges; for instance, Parisian omnibuses transported over 20 million passengers annually by the 1840s, underscoring the viability of shared models in pre-industrial urban expansion. Source biases in contemporary accounts, often from private operators resisting competition, occasionally exaggerated congestion issues, but operational data affirm the foundational role of these vehicles in evolving public mobility paradigms.

20th-Century Expansion and Jitneys

The jitney system originated in the United States in 1914, when L. P. Draper in Los Angeles began charging passengers a nickel fare in his Ford Model T for shared rides along established routes, marking the transition of collective transport from horse-drawn vehicles to automobiles. The term "jitney" derived from slang for a five-cent coin, reflecting the standard fare that undercut streetcar prices and appealed to cost-conscious riders. This model quickly proliferated due to surging automobile ownership, which rose from approximately 6,000 vehicles nationwide in 1900 to 1 million by 1913, enabling individuals to repurpose personal cars for income generation without formal infrastructure. By 1915, jitneys operated in over 90 U.S. cities, with estimates of 62,000 vehicles in service by mid-decade, capturing up to 20-50% of urban passenger traffic in locales like Los Angeles and Atlanta. Operators typically followed fixed or semi-fixed routes paralleling streetcar lines but offered greater flexibility, such as door-to-door deviations and off-peak service, filling gaps left by rigid public transit schedules and serving underserved areas, including Black neighborhoods where formal systems often underinvested. In Atlantic City, New Jersey, for instance, jitney service commenced in 1915 and persists today as one of the few surviving unregulated examples, demonstrating sustained viability in tourist-heavy environments. The expansion faced backlash from streetcar companies, which lost revenue—sometimes 30-50% in affected cities—prompting lobbying for regulations that imposed licensing, insurance requirements, and route restrictions by 1916-1918. Municipalities in places like Seattle and Atlanta enacted ordinances framing jitneys as safety hazards or unfair competitors, effectively curtailing operations in most areas by the early 1920s, though pockets endured where demand outpaced enforcement. This regulatory suppression redirected entrepreneurial energy toward bus systems but established jitneys as a prototype for informal shared mobility, influencing later global adaptations of share taxis in less regulated markets.

Post-War and Post-Colonial Proliferation

Following World War II, surplus military vehicles facilitated the emergence of share taxi systems in several regions. In the Philippines, jeepneys originated from U.S. Army jeeps abandoned after 1945, which locals modified into extended passenger vehicles to address wartime destruction of transport infrastructure; by the early 1950s, they operated on fixed routes in Manila, carrying up to 20 passengers at low fares. Similarly, in Turkey, dolmuş services began in Istanbul during the 1940s using converted American cars to provide affordable, route-based transport amid postwar urban growth and limited formal options. In post-colonial contexts, share taxis proliferated across Africa and Asia as newly independent nations faced rapid urbanization and insufficient public infrastructure inherited from colonial eras, which prioritized export routes over internal passenger needs. Ghana's tro-tros, introduced in the 1960s shortly after 1957 independence, evolved from privately owned minibuses charging a standard threepence fare—deriving the name from the Ga word "tro"—to serve growing commuter demands in cities like Accra, where African operators filled gaps left by underfunded state systems. In Kenya, post-1963 independence, matatus emerged in the 1960s using pickup trucks and later minibuses for fixed inter-urban routes, named after the Kikuyu phrase for a 30-cent fare (three 10-cent coins), expanding significantly in the 1980s amid economic pressures and population booms that outpaced bus services. These systems thrived due to private entrepreneurship in unregulated markets, high unemployment, and recessions, enabling flexible service where formal transport failed. By the late 20th century, share taxis dominated informal transport in developing regions, comprising up to 70% of urban mobility in sub-Saharan African cities, as colonial legacies of sparse rail and road networks proved inadequate for post-independence demographic shifts. In Madagascar and other francophone African states, taxi-brousses similarly arose post-independence to connect rural areas underserved by state buses. This expansion reflected causal drivers like vehicle imports, local adaptation, and demand for cost-effective, door-to-door alternatives, though often amid safety and regulatory challenges.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Operational Features

Share taxis provide shared passenger transport along fixed or semi-fixed routes, utilizing vehicles such as sedans, vans, or minibuses to carry multiple unrelated passengers who board and alight at various points en route. These services typically originate from central terminals or ranks where vehicles congregate, and they operate without fixed schedules, departing primarily when occupancy reaches capacity to ensure profitability for independent operators. Passengers are recruited by drivers or conductors who shout destinations or use signage to attract riders, often allowing flexible pickups and drop-offs along the route, including minor deviations to meet demand while adhering to the primary path. Fares are collected in cash by the driver or an onboard assistant, generally structured as a fixed rate per seat for the full route or prorated by distance traveled, enabling cost-sharing among passengers. This model predominates in urban and interurban settings of developing countries, where it accounts for substantial shares of daily trips, such as over 25% in some cities like Tehran. Vehicles are frequently overloaded beyond official capacities to maximize revenue, with informal syndicates or individual owners managing operations amid limited regulation, leading to high-frequency service responsive to real-time demand rather than pre-set timetables. Safety features are minimal, relying on standard vehicle maintenance by operators, though enforcement varies by jurisdiction.

Distinctions from Taxis, Buses, and Ride-Hailing Apps

Share taxis, also known as collective taxis or jitneys in various contexts, operate by filling vehicles with multiple unrelated passengers along fixed or semi-fixed routes, departing from terminals or stands primarily when a minimum number of passengers board, rather than providing the exclusive, metered, door-to-door service characteristic of traditional taxis. Traditional taxis, by contrast, serve individual or small groups with point-to-point transport, often regulated under fare structures that prioritize personalized routing without shared occupancy beyond the hiring party. This shared occupancy model in share taxis reduces per-passenger costs but introduces wait times at loading points, distinguishing it from the immediate dispatch of solitary taxi hires. In comparison to public buses, share taxis employ smaller vehicles—typically minibuses or vans seating 10 to 20 passengers—and lack rigid timetables, allowing departures based on demand fill-up, which enables greater responsiveness to fluctuating passenger volumes but can result in variable headways. Public buses, operated by centralized authorities, adhere to scheduled services with fixed stops and larger capacities (often 40+ passengers), prioritizing high-volume corridors under subsidized or regulated frameworks that ensure predictability but reduce adaptability to low-density routes. Share taxis thus bridge gaps in bus coverage, such as rural extensions or off-peak hours, through private operator initiative, though this flexibility often comes without the safety oversight or infrastructure integration of formal bus systems. Unlike ride-hailing apps such as Uber, which coordinate primarily private or algorithm-matched pooled rides via digital platforms with dynamic pricing and GPS-tracked routing, share taxis function through informal, cash-based systems where drivers solicit passengers at ranks or roadside without pre-booking or electronic dispatch. Ride-hailing emphasizes on-demand convenience for specific origins and destinations, often with vetted drivers and insurance protocols, whereas share taxis aggregate passengers en route in a collective manner predating app technology, relying on cultural norms and driver discretion for operations in regions with limited formal infrastructure. This analog approach in share taxis fosters accessibility in cash economies but exposes users to unregulated variability absent in app-mediated services.
FeatureShare TaxiTraditional TaxiPublic BusRide-Hailing App
OccupancyMultiple unrelated passengersExclusive to hirer(s)Multiple, scheduledPrivate or matched pooling
Route StructureFixed/semi-fixed, hail along wayPoint-to-point, flexibleFixed stopsDynamic, origin-destination
SchedulingDemand-driven (fill-up)On-demand immediateFixed timetableReal-time app request
Booking/PaymentInformal, cash at terminal/rideMetered hail or dispatchTicket/pre-paidApp-based, card/dynamic pricing
Vehicle SizeSmall (10-20 seats)Sedan/van (4-7 seats)Large (40+ seats)Varies, often private vehicle

Operational Mechanics

Route and Terminus Structures

Share taxis operate along predetermined routes linking major hubs such as city centers, markets, suburbs, and interurban destinations, with routes frequently named after primary endpoints or landmarks. These paths allow flexible intermediate stops for passenger boarding and alighting, enabling vehicles to be hailed along the way rather than adhering strictly to fixed schedules or stops. In practice, drivers may adjust minor deviations based on demand, but core alignments remain consistent to maintain service reliability and fare predictability. Termini, or ranks, function as central loading and unloading points where vehicles queue and depart only after filling to capacity, typically 10 to 20 passengers depending on vehicle size. In South Africa, minibus taxi ranks serve as organized yet competitive hubs for multiple routes, facilitating high commuter throughput with daily operations handling millions via approximately 200,000 vehicles nationwide. Ghana's trotro stations range from union-managed formal sheds to informal roadside points like pavements or shaded areas, integrated into route networks for urban and regional travel. Similarly, Turkish dolmuş systems rely on urban termini for route initiation, with minibuses stopping frequently en route to accommodate demand. This structure contrasts with scheduled buses by prioritizing demand-responsive loading at termini, which enhances efficiency in high-density, unregulated markets but can lead to congestion at ranks during peak hours. Route enforcement often stems from operator associations rather than strict government oversight, allowing adaptation to local needs while preserving network integrity.

Vehicle Ownership and Syndicates

In share taxi systems, vehicle ownership is predominantly private and fragmented, consisting of individual entrepreneurs or small-scale operators who purchase and maintain minibuses, vans, or sedans for shared passenger services. This model prevails in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where owners often finance acquisitions through personal savings, bank loans, or informal credit arrangements, enabling low-barrier entry into the paratransit market despite high operational risks. In South Africa, for example, the minibus taxi sector features over 200,000 privately owned vehicles, many operated directly by their owners as independent businesses rather than under large corporate fleets. Owners frequently hire drivers on commission-based contracts, where drivers retain a portion of daily fares after paying a fixed rental fee to the vehicle proprietor, incentivizing high utilization but exposing both parties to revenue volatility from fluctuating passenger loads. Maintenance and fuel costs are borne by owners, who may pool resources informally for repairs, though formal insurance coverage remains low due to cost barriers and perceived risks. This owner-operator dynamic fosters entrepreneurial flexibility but contributes to vehicle heterogeneity, with many units operating beyond standard safety lifespans in the absence of stringent regulatory enforcement. To mitigate fragmentation and enforce operational norms, share taxi owners often form associations, unions, or syndicates that allocate routes, negotiate fares, and collect membership levies for or security services. These groups, common in African cities such as and , function as regulators in weakly governed markets, providing and protection against interlopers but prioritizing operator interests over passenger welfare or competition. In , taxi associations have historically controlled access to lucrative corridors through exclusive permits, sometimes resorting to in turf disputes, as evidenced by over 1,000 fatalities in association-related conflicts between 2000 and 2010. Such syndicates can stifle innovation, like route expansions, by imposing barriers to new entrants, though they also stabilize supply in underserved areas lacking formal alternatives.

Passenger Loading and Fare Systems

In share taxis, passengers typically board at designated terminals, ranks, or informal stops along fixed or semi-fixed routes, with vehicles departing once sufficiently full to ensure economic viability. Loading often involves a conductor or mate who shouts the route to attract riders, assists with seating, and manages overcrowding by squeezing passengers into available spaces, such as four per bench in minibuses designed for fewer. At urban ranks, marshals may organize queues and release vehicles sequentially to maintain order, while en route pickups occur via hailing, allowing flexible stops at landmarks or traffic lights without formal signage. Fare systems in share taxis are predominantly cash-based with fixed rates per route or distance segment, set informally by driver associations or unions to cover operational costs and owner targets. Passengers usually pay upon boarding or shortly after departure, with funds collected row-by-row from the rear by the conductor, , or a front-seat intermediary who passes money forward. In systems like South Africa's minibus taxis, daily targets (e.g., ZAR 600 per vehicle) incentivize efficient loading but can lead to overloading beyond official limits of 15 passengers plus . Emerging digital pilots, such as card payments in Ghana's trotros, aim to reduce cash handling but remain limited, with traditional fares varying by demand—e.g., recent adjustments in from 5 to 4 cedis for short trips. These mechanics prioritize high occupancy for profitability in unregulated markets, where fares lack receipts or metering, relying on mutual understanding between operators and riders. In Turkey's dolmuş, cash is passed to the driver via passengers, with fares (e.g., 2-4 Turkish lira intra-city) displayed internally. Similarly, Israel's sheruts operate on fill-to-depart principles at stations, with fares paid directly to drivers upon exit or entry.

Economic Role and Efficiency

Emergence in Unregulated Markets

In regions characterized by rapid urbanization and deficient formal public transportation infrastructure, share taxis emerge as entrepreneurial responses to unmet demand, particularly where government-provided bus services are infrequent, route-limited, or financially unsustainable due to high operational costs and subsidies. These vehicles, often repurposed minibuses or vans, enable operators to deploy capital-intensive assets on flexible, high-demand corridors without the regulatory hurdles of scheduled services, such as route franchising or fleet standardization. For instance, in Accra, Ghana, tro-tros constitute approximately 75% of urban transport provision, arising from post-colonial urban growth that outpaced state planning capacity. This pattern reflects a market-driven adaptation: low entry barriers—requiring only a vehicle, fuel, and basic route knowledge—allow individuals to capture fares from passengers underserved by rigid public systems, often in peri-urban or informal settlements. Economic incentives further propel proliferation in low-regulation environments, where operators can adjust fares dynamically to cover costs like fuel and maintenance while responding to real-time passenger flows, unlike subsidized buses constrained by fixed tariffs. In Nairobi, Kenya, matatus—share taxis operating as unregulated jitneys—provide rides for as little as 14 cents, serving low-income workers who rely on them amid sparse formal alternatives, thus sustaining livelihoods for thousands of drivers and owners without state support. Weak enforcement of licensing or safety standards, often due to resource-strapped regulators, permits this scalability; operators form informal syndicates to coordinate terminals and routes, minimizing competition-induced inefficiencies while maximizing vehicle utilization through shared-ride loading. Empirical analyses indicate such systems fill voids left by planning failures, carrying majorities of urban trips in cities across sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, where formal transport covers under 30% of needs in many cases. This emergence underscores causal dynamics of supply shortages: without stifling , private actors exploit opportunities from elasticity, deploying services along unpaved or unserved paths that formal operators deem unprofitable. However, source critiques note that while UN-Habitat reports highlight growth from "inadequate urban transport planning," such analyses may underemphasize operator agency versus systemic excuses for regulatory inaction, as evidenced by persistent inefficiencies in subsidized alternatives. In essence, unregulated markets foster share taxis as efficient gap-fillers, driven by passenger for immediacy over scheduled reliability, though this relies on verifiable signals absent in over-regulated contexts.

Advantages in Filling Transport Gaps

Share taxis, operating as paratransit, primarily fill mobility voids in regions with underdeveloped formal public transport infrastructure, such as low-density peri-urban areas, rural routes, and cities where government-subsidized bus systems fail to cover demand due to fiscal constraints or planning deficiencies. In sub-Saharan Africa, where formal bus services often prioritize high-volume urban cores, share taxis extend connectivity to underserved fringes, comprising 58% to 98% of passenger trips across major cities like Cape Town (58%), Nairobi (87%), and Accra (86%). This dominance arises from operators' ability to deploy small vehicles on demand-responsive paths, bypassing the rigidity of scheduled services that cannot economically justify low-patronage routes. Their operational flexibility—manifest in adjustable routes, hailing from streets rather than stops, and variable frequencies—enables rapid adaptation to fluctuating passenger volumes, seasonal migrations, or economic shifts, which fixed-route systems overlook. In Nairobi, Kenya, matatus (share minibus taxis) handle over 60% of public passenger transport, including inter-urban links where state buses operate infrequently or not at all, thus sustaining workforce mobility for informal economies. Similarly, in Yaoundé, Cameroon, paratransit claims 65% of road-based trips, bridging gaps in areas with sparse infrastructure by leveraging private ownership to scale supply without public investment. This responsiveness stems from market incentives: operators monitor real-time demand via conductors, deviating slightly to capture fares, which formal entities, bound by regulations, cannot match. Economically, share taxis democratize access for low-income users through fares 20-50% below individual taxis but above overcrowded buses, while higher occupancy (10-20 passengers per vehicle) distributes costs efficiently in variable-demand settings. In Johannesburg, where paratransit serves 72% of motorized trips, it mitigates exclusion from job markets in sprawling townships, where walking distances exceed viable limits without intermediate options. By filling these gaps, share taxis prevent broader economic stagnation, as evidenced by their role in sustaining daily commutes in Accra's informal sectors, where alternatives like private cars remain prohibitive for 80% of residents. This private-sector dynamism contrasts with state monopolies' inertia, providing causal evidence that deregulation fosters service proliferation in capacity-constrained environments.

Cost Structures and Profit Dynamics

Share taxi operations typically involve fixed costs such as vehicle acquisition and depreciation, alongside variable costs including fuel, maintenance, driver and conductor wages, and regulatory fees or informal payments. In Kenya's matatu sector, a common share taxi variant, initial capital for a new 14-seater vehicle ranges from KSh 2.5–3 million (approximately $19,000–$23,000 USD as of 2024 exchange rates), with additional expenses for branding, sacco membership fees (KSh 20,000–100,000), insurance (around KSh 55,000 annually), and permits (e.g., KSh 13,880 in Nairobi counties). Operating expenses consume significant revenue shares: fuel at 20–30%, maintenance and servicing at 5–10% (with regular costs of KSh 4,500–5,000), wages at 10–20%, and miscellaneous fees including fines or bribes at another 5–10% or more, often exacerbated by theft or leakages up to 30%. Revenue generation relies on high passenger volumes along fixed routes, with fares set competitively and collected in cash. Kenyan matatus can gross KSh 2,500–5,000 daily (about $19–$38 USD), varying by route demand, vehicle capacity (e.g., 14- vs. 33-seaters), and economic factors like or prices, though larger operators in organized saccos achieve scale through . In syndicate or owner-driver models prevalent in share taxi systems, drivers often receive fixed salaries or commissions, while owners capture profits after deducting a daily hire fee, incentivizing rapid turnover but exposing to route saturation. Profit dynamics feature thin margins due to intense and unregulated entry, with periods of 2–5 years for Kenyan investments, contingent on occupancy rates above 70–80% to offset high fixed costs and . Owners in networked operations, such as Nairobi saccos controlling hundreds of vehicles, mitigate risks through route monopolies and financing, yielding viable returns amid the sector's KSh 250 billion annual value, though individual operators face vulnerability to fines, breakdowns, or economic downturns that can slash margins by up to 75%. This structure underscores share taxis' role in low-capital mobility but highlights causal pressures from oversupply, where profitability hinges on volume over pricing power rather than formal efficiencies.

Safety, Regulation, and Controversies

Empirical Safety Data and Risks

Share taxis, particularly in unregulated markets, exhibit elevated safety risks stemming from , vehicle overloading, inadequate maintenance, and competitive driving behaviors that incentivize speeding and overtaking. Empirical data from African implementations, where share taxis dominate informal transport, indicate disproportionately high involvement in road crashes compared to other vehicle types. For instance, in Kenya, matatus (share minibuses) contribute to a significant share of the country's road fatalities, with national rates reaching 20.9 deaths per 100,000 population as of 2025, exceeding regional averages. Annual road crash deaths in Kenya approach 3,000, with matatus implicated in many due to factors like driver fatigue and route competition. In South Africa, minibus taxis account for approximately 70,000 crashes annually, reflecting a crash rate tied to poor vehicle conditions and reckless operation, though some analyses note passenger cars lead in total incidents. The national road fatality rate stands at 27 per 100,000, over twice the global average, with minibus taxis involved in severe collisions often linked to overloading beyond capacity limits. Ghana's tro tros similarly pose risks, with commercial vehicles like them associated with over 10,000 deaths from 2019 to 2023, amid annual totals nearing 2,000 fatalities and persistent issues of overcrowding exacerbating injury severity in crashes. Studies attribute these patterns to causal factors including economic pressures for rapid turnover, leading to bypassed safety protocols, and weak enforcement in informal sectors. , often exceeding official limits by 50-100%, heightens vulnerability in collisions, as evidenced by interior configurations packing 17+ passengers into vehicles designed for fewer. While data gaps exist due to underreporting in developing contexts, available police and records consistently show share taxis' crash involvement outpacing regulated buses, underscoring the trade-offs of flexibility against formalized safety standards.

Global Regulatory Approaches

Regulatory approaches to share taxis, encompassing vehicles like minibuses and shared vans that operate on fixed or semi-fixed routes with multiple passengers, diverge significantly across regions, reflecting economic development levels, infrastructure capacity, and policy priorities toward safety, competition, and formalization. In many developing economies, where share taxis—often labeled paratransit—dominate urban mobility due to inadequate bus or rail systems, governments adopt hybrid models combining legalization with inconsistent enforcement of standards for vehicle roadworthiness, driver certification, and route permits. This tolerance stems from their role in serving unprofitable routes, though it frequently results in overloads and maintenance shortcuts when oversight lapses. In African contexts, such as Kenya's system, share taxis were legalized in 1973 to acknowledge their ubiquity, with subsequent regulations under the Traffic Act mandating seatbelts, speed governors limited to 80 km/h, and affiliation with route-specific cooperatives (Saccos) for permit allocation; Nairobi's 2025 county rules further cap vehicles per route and require five-year permits to curb oversupply and fares. South Africa's taxis, formalized via the 1987 White Paper on Transport Policy and the 2009 National Land Transport Act, necessitate operating licenses, vehicle fitness certificates, and association membership, yet persistent violence and unroadworthy operations highlight enforcement gaps amid industry resistance to recapitalization. In Asia, the ' modernization program, accelerated in 2017 and enforced from April 2024, compels operators into cooperatives for route franchises and upgrades to Euro-4 compliant or electric vehicles, aiming to cut emissions and enhance safety, though strikes underscore operator concerns over costs exceeding PHP 2 million per unit. Transitioning to higher-income settings, regulations emphasize integration into public systems to align with subsidized transit. Russia's marshrutkas, private minibuses proliferating post-1991, underwent Moscow's 2016 reform merging operators under municipal contracts with fixed routes, designated stops, and uniform fares via Troika cards, reducing informality while preserving service density. Israel's sherut taxis, licensed by the Ministry of Transport since the 1940s, follow approved intercity and urban routes with metered or fixed fares, allowing flexible boarding but prohibiting deviations; extensions in 2020 preserved existing licenses amid reform debates. In the United States, early 20th-century jitneys—door-to-door shared rides—faced suppression through state laws like New York's 1907 Public Service Commissions Act, which restricted entry and routes to shield streetcar monopolies, limiting modern survivals to permitted niches like Atlantic City's boardwalk service. Cross-jurisdictional patterns reveal tensions: formalization efforts, as in public-private models, seek to impose via inspections and subsidies, yet empirical outcomes vary, with lax in resource-constrained areas yielding higher accident rates despite rules, while over-regulation in structured markets curbs supply and raises costs without proportional benefits. World Bank analyses note that abrupt crackdowns often fail without alternatives, advocating phased integration over bans to leverage market responsiveness.

Debates on Over-Regulation vs. Market Discipline

Proponents of market discipline argue that share taxi operations, as informal paratransit systems, thrive in environments with minimal regulatory interference, enabling rapid adaptation to fluctuating demand in underserved areas of developing countries. Empirical analyses indicate that these systems efficiently allocate resources in low-density urban and rural routes where scheduled formal transport proves uneconomical, with operators responding to passenger volumes through route adjustments and vehicle deployment without bureaucratic delays. Overly stringent regulations, such as vehicle standardization mandates or route licensing, can distort these dynamics by raising entry barriers, favoring incumbents, and reducing service frequency, as observed in taxi markets where deregulation increased supply and lowered fares without proportional safety declines. Critics of over-regulation highlight enforcement failures in resource-constrained settings, where rules like Kenya's 2004 Michuki reforms—requiring speed governors, seatbelts, and driver licensing in matatus—yielded no statistically significant long-term reduction in accident rates despite initial compliance gains, due to evasion, , and economic pressures incentivizing overloads to cover costs. Market mechanisms, including passenger feedback via route boycotts or tipping, and owner monitoring, have demonstrated efficacy in curbing recklessness; for instance, behavioral nudges like anti-speeding stickers in Kenyan matatus reduced violations more effectively than top-down mandates in randomized trials. In South Africa's minibus taxi sector, formalization efforts since the 1990s have entangled operators in syndicates and permit disputes, exacerbating violence over market shares rather than enhancing safety through competition. Advocates for stronger regulation counter that unchecked perpetuate hazards, with share taxis' high accident rates—often exceeding 20% of fatalities in —stemming from unmaintained vehicles, uninsured operations, and driver incentives tied to daily earnings targets that encourage speeding and . They contend that licensing and inspections impose discipline absent in pure markets, citing partial successes in fare stabilization and reduced fatalities post-regulation in select African corridors, though sustainability hinges on consistent enforcement often undermined by political capture. Empirical syntheses on transport reveal mixed safety outcomes, with benefits in efficiency but risks amplified by poor infrastructure, suggesting hybrid approaches—light-touch rules paired with liability markets—over blanket over-regulation or . This tension underscores causal realities: regulations falter without addressing underlying poverty-driven incentives, while market discipline relies on informed , which informal systems foster through visible but weaken amid information asymmetries.

Regional Implementations

Africa

Share taxis constitute the primary mode of public transportation across much of Africa, operating as privately owned minibuses, vans, or sedans that load passengers along fixed or semi-fixed routes until capacity is reached, often in the absence of reliable state-run alternatives. These vehicles emerged predominantly in the post-colonial era and under restrictive regimes, such as apartheid in South Africa, where formal transport failed to serve growing urban populations in townships and rural areas. By providing flexible, demand-responsive service, share taxis have filled critical mobility gaps, transporting tens of millions daily continent-wide. In South Africa, minibus taxis originated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, circumventing apartheid-era regulations that limited black mobility, and expanded rapidly to become the dominant public transport mode, carrying approximately 15 million passengers per day and accounting for 60-70% of commuter trips. The industry employs over 600,000 people, including drivers, conductors, and owners, contributing significantly to household incomes in low-wage economies despite operating largely informally with route allocations controlled by associations. However, chronic issues persist, including "taxi wars" over turf since the 1980s, which have resulted in thousands of deaths, and elevated road fatality rates linked to vehicle overloading, speeding, and substandard maintenance, with minibus taxis involved in disproportionate crash statistics relative to their fleet size. West African variants, such as Ghana's tro-tros—minibuses named after the word for a former low-denomination coin fare—operate on established inter- and intra-city routes with a conductor managing loading and payments, serving as an affordable staple for daily commutes since the mid-20th century using vehicles like converted trucks. In , Morocco's grands , typically aging Mercedes sedans accommodating up to six passengers, facilitate intercity travel on predefined routes, offering quicker service than buses but facing government-mandated replacement by 2023 due to emissions and safety concerns, though enforcement has been uneven. East and southern Indian Ocean implementations include Tanzania's dala dalas, converted trucks or minibuses that dominate urban and rural connectivity, evolving from informal operations into route-licensed services handling peak loads efficiently but prone to overcrowding. Madagascar's taxi-brousses, taxis traversing rudimentary roads, connect remote provinces to urban centers in minibuses often packed beyond capacity, access to markets and services at low cost—fares as little as 4-30 euros for long hauls—but at the expense of comfort and reliability on unpaved infrastructure. Across these systems, share taxis exemplify market-driven adaptation to infrastructural deficits, though persistent regulatory laxity and competitive violence underscore trade-offs in safety and order.

Asia

Share taxis in Asia encompass a range of vehicles, including minibuses, modified jeeps, and sedans, that operate on fixed or semi-fixed routes, filling gaps in formal public transport systems across urban and rural areas. These services emerged prominently in post-colonial and developing economies, leveraging inexpensive vehicles for collective rides to enhance affordability and accessibility. In Indonesia, angkot—short for angkutan kota—function as urban share taxis using small minivans capable of carrying up to 11 passengers, typically operated by a driver and an assistant who collects fares. They adhere to designated routes but allow flexible stops upon passenger request, serving as a primary informal transport mode in cities like Bandung and Palembang since the mid-20th century. The ' jeepneys originated from U.S. military jeeps repurposed after , evolving into elongated vehicles with seating for 10 to 20 passengers that ply fixed routes as share taxis, often adorned with vibrant artwork. By 2023, a modernization initiative required drivers to form cooperatives for loans to acquire compliant modern units, phasing out older models amid concerns over emissions and safety. In Iran, shared taxis known as savari prevail in Tehran and other cities, using sedans or vans on predetermined intra- and intercity routes that depart once full, with fares starting at approximately 25,000 Iranian rials for short trips as of 2023. These services undercut private taxi costs while providing frequent, point-to-point travel, though intercity rates approximate 10 euros per 100 kilometers. Hong Kong employs public light buses, or minibuses, limited to 19 seats each, as share taxis supplementing bus networks; the fleet is capped at 4,350 vehicles, split between green franchised routes and red flexible services that navigate narrow streets inaccessible to larger buses. In , dolmuş share taxis, often minibuses, run set urban and intercity routes, loading until full before departing and stopping on demand, a system tracing to post-World War II adaptations of imported cars for collective transport.

Europe

Share taxi operations in Europe are concentrated in Eastern regions and Turkey, where informal paratransit fills gaps left by scheduled public transport. In Turkey, dolmuş—shared taxis or minibuses on fixed routes—emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to post-war transport demands, with the term deriving from "dolma" (filled), indicating vehicles depart only when full. These services use sedans for short urban legs or larger minibuses for longer routes, charging passengers a portion of the total fare based on distance traveled; for instance, Istanbul's system integrates dolmuş into the city's multi-modal network, handling high volumes in traffic-congested areas. Regulations under Turkey's Highways Traffic rules govern operations, yet the sector remains competitive with thousands of vehicles, adapting to routes like those connecting European and Asian sides of the city. In , particularly including , , and , marshrutkas function as route-based minibuses, originating in the late Soviet era (1970s-1980s) to address underfunded state bus deficiencies. Typically 12- to 20-seat vehicles like or Mercedes models, marshrutkas follow designated paths but allow flexible stops upon passenger request, operating from early morning until late night with fares 20-50% above buses but below private taxis. By the 1990s, spurred rapid expansion; in cities like or , they carry millions annually, comprising up to 70% of urban passenger trips in some areas due to speed and coverage in suburbs. However, informal competition has led to safety concerns, with studies noting higher accident rates from and compared to regulated buses. Western Europe features fewer traditional share taxis, owing to dense rail and bus networks, though hybrid collective services persist in rural or low-demand zones. The Netherlands' Regiotaxi KAN, launched in 2000, exemplifies demand-responsive shared taxis integrated into public systems, serving the Arnhem-Nijmegen area with pre-booked minibuses for elderly and disabled users, expanding from 20,000 to 120,000 passengers yearly by enhancing accessibility without fixed schedules. Similar initiatives, like France's taxi collectif in overseas territories or UK's community transport vans, operate under strict licensing to ensure safety and fare equity, contrasting Eastern informality. Overall, European share taxis thrive where regulation is lighter, providing causal efficiency in unregulated markets but prompting debates on formalization to mitigate risks.

North America

In the United States, share taxis trace their origins to jitneys, which emerged around as informal ridesharing using private automobiles to compete with streetcars, charging a ( for "jitney") per ride. By mid-1915, approximately 62,000 jitneys operated across over 175 cities, providing flexible, on-demand service in urban areas frustrated with fixed-route transit delays. However, aggressive by streetcar companies and municipalities, including franchise fees and mandates, led to their rapid decline by the early , reducing operations to scattered pockets. One enduring example is the jitney system in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which began in 1915 and remains operational today as a network of small vans and buses serving fixed routes from casinos to beaches and residential areas. These vehicles, often 12- to 25-passenger minibuses, charge fares around $2.25 per ride as of 2023, filling gaps in public bus schedules with higher frequencies, especially during peak tourist seasons. Regulated under state oversight since the 1930s, Atlantic City jitneys transport over 3 million passengers annually, demonstrating sustained viability in a regulated niche despite broader suppression elsewhere. In , dollar vans—informal minivans carrying 10-20 passengers along semi-fixed routes—emerged in the 1970s amid subway strikes and fiscal crises, initially charging $1 fares to serve underserved immigrant neighborhoods in , , and . By 2025, fares have risen to $2-$3, with operations concentrated on corridors like in , where they provide faster alternatives to overcrowded MTA buses, transporting thousands daily in transit deserts lacking subway access. Many remain unlicensed, leading to ongoing enforcement actions; a 2025 city bill proposes stricter penalties for illegal operators blocking bus lanes or evading inspections, though proponents argue they enhance mobility equity. Airport shared-ride shuttles represent a formalized variant, with services like SuperShuttle operating vans that group passengers with similar destinations from major hubs such as JFK or LAX, charging 2020-40 per person for door-to-door trips since the 1980s. These fill demand for cost-effective transfers in sprawling metro areas, though ridesourcing apps like Uber have eroded market share since 2010. In , informal share taxis are rare due to stringent provincial regulations favoring licensed taxis and rideshares; instead, structured taxi-sharing programs exist in cities like , where groups split metered fares via apps, but lack the route-based, high-capacity informality of U.S. jitneys or dollar vans. Long-distance ridesharing platforms facilitate ad-hoc carpooling, yet fixed-route shared minibuses remain marginal compared to public transit.

Latin America and the Caribbean

In Mexico, colectivos—shared vans or minibuses—form a core component of informal public transport, particularly along the Yucatán Peninsula and in states like Oaxaca. These vehicles adhere to fixed routes such as those connecting Cancún, Playa del Carmen, and Tulum, departing from central stations once sufficiently full and making stops to pick up or drop off passengers en route. Fares typically range from 20 to 50 Mexican pesos (approximately 1-2.50 USD) for inter-city trips, paid upon entry or exit, rendering them far more affordable than private taxis or buses. Operators often cram passengers beyond official capacity to maximize earnings, with routes extending up to 100 kilometers or more. Cuba relies heavily on almendrones, vintage American automobiles from the mid-20th century repurposed as colectivos for fixed urban and interurban routes, especially in Havana. These shared taxis accommodate four to five passengers plus the driver, filling up at starting points like Parque de la Fraternidad before proceeding, with stops signaled by passengers. Fares are standardized at around 10-20 Cuban pesos (0.40-0.80 USD at official rates) per person for short hauls, though longer distances like Havana to Santiago de las Vegas may cost 2-5 USD per 100 kilometers per passenger. Due to chronic shortages in state-run transport, almendrones handle a significant volume of daily commutes, often operating informally without fixed schedules. In , tap-taps—privately owned, vividly painted pick-up trucks or converted buses—serve as the primary share taxi system, traversing fixed routes in cities like . Passengers board at informal stands, with vehicles departing when loaded and halting via a tapping signal on the body to request stops. They frequently exceed capacity, fitting dozens in open-air setups, and fares vary by but remain low, around 10-50 Haitian gourdes (0.10-0.50 USD) for typical urban legs. Tap-taps embody cultural expression through artwork but operate amid minimal oversight, contributing to congestion and variable reliability. Puerto Rico's carros públicos, or public cars, consist of large vans providing shared inter-town service on predetermined routes island-wide, such as from San Juan to rural areas. Drivers wait for full loads before leaving terminals, dropping passengers door-to-door or at points along the way, with fares regulated at 1-5 USD depending on distance. This system supplements sparse formal buses, though service frequency depends on demand and driver discretion. Peru employs colectivos for efficient regional connectivity, using minibuses on routes linking cities like Cusco to Sacred Valley towns. Vehicles flag down passengers curbside, follow set paths but allow flexible stops, and charge 5-20 Peruvian soles (1.30-5.30 USD) for segments up to 50 kilometers. This model supports tourism and local travel in areas with rugged terrain, where larger buses are impractical.

Oceania

In Papua New Guinea, public motor vehicles (PMVs) function as the primary share taxi system, consisting of minibuses and converted trucks that operate on fixed or semi-fixed routes, filling with passengers before departing. These vehicles are regulated by the Independent Consumer and Competition Commission (ICCC) and the Road Traffic Authority (RTA), with fares subject to periodic review to balance operator costs and passenger affordability; for instance, a 2025 ICCC issues paper examined adjustments amid rising fuel prices. PMVs are essential for connecting rural communities to urban centers, markets, schools, and healthcare, supporting local economies in provinces like Western Highlands. Operators must obtain licenses and permits for registration, with plates designating PMV status since 1968. In Fiji, shared minibuses and vans, often called "mamas" by locals, provide low-cost inter-city transport, such as between Nadi and Suva, departing when full and serving primarily residents in areas with sparse formal bus services. These vehicles operate informally along the Coral Coast and other routes, offering an economical alternative to private taxis, though tourists may prefer scheduled shuttles for reliability. Other Pacific island nations feature similar systems adapted to local needs. In Vanuatu, small buses and minivans in Port Vila and Luganville shuttle passengers along main roads, functioning as share taxis with fares around 150-200 vatu per person, though drivers may negotiate higher for foreigners. The Solomon Islands rely on minibuses from Honiara's airport and within urban areas, supplementing limited public options in remote atolls. In the Marshall Islands, minibuses serve as de facto shared taxis due to the absence of ride-hailing apps, providing flexible pickups in Majuro. In contrast, Australia and New Zealand lack widespread traditional share taxis, favoring regulated ridesharing platforms like Uber, DiDi, and Ola, alongside extensive public bus and rail networks. Carpooling apps such as Mish in New Zealand facilitate ad-hoc sharing but do not replicate fixed-route share taxi models prevalent elsewhere in Oceania.

References

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angkot_%28Indonesian_share_taxi%29_in_Palembang.jpg
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.