The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 8-25

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 8... ... 8 This chapter summarizes findings from a literature review related to transit service evalu ation standards. To aid the literature review, a TRID search of the following keyword phrases was conducted: "performance standards," "performance evaluation," "performance indicators," and "service evaluation" with the filter "public transportation." The organization of the litera ture review is as follows: • Early history, • TCRP reports, • Summary by metrics used and mode, and • Additional research. Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... Literature Review 9 to efficiency, four to effectiveness, and two overall measures) and applied these to 46 California transit agencies (Fielding et al. Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 10 Transit Service Evaluation Standards et al. Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... Literature Review 11 The Attanucci report concluded that many transit agencies of various sizes have made com mitments to move toward a systematic evaluation effort but that very few had achieved this goal fully. The conclusions also noted that data collection was a major issue, that criteria tended to be used as a screening tool to identify where more rigorous analysis was needed, and that each agency tailored its evaluation program to its own operating environment. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... 12 Transit Service Evaluation Standards Indicatora Typical Criteria Route Design Bus stop spacing Differ by service, density, land use Local urban: 400 feet to ¼ mile Route coverage Differ by service and density Route spacing: ¼ mile to 1–2 miles Accessibility local urban: 85%–95% within ¼ mile Route deviation Time/distance/number of limits (5–8 minutes, 1 mile/route, 2/route) Maximum 120%–140% of direct distance/200% auto travel time Route length Maximum round-trip travel time varies related to headways: 3–4 hours (large) Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... Literature Review 13 These groundbreaking studies in the early days of transit performance evaluation set the stage for further developments in service evaluation. The next section summarizes TCRP studies that addressed transit performance evaluation. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... 14 Transit Service Evaluation Standards Indicator Typical Criteria Route Design Bus stop spacing 6 to 8 stops per mile Population density Not specified Route coverage 0.5–1.0 mile, depending on density Employment density Not specified Route directness Maximum deviation 5–8 minutes or 1 mile per route Route distance no more than 20%–40% greater than auto Route travel time no more than twice auto Route structure Limits on number of branches Schedule Design Maximum number of standees 20 standees or 150% of capacity as examples; limit on duration of standee time Maximum intervals 15 peak/30 base; 30/60 or 60 minutes as examples Peak versus off-peak periods Different standards Timed transfers Used more in smaller systems (possibly with less frequency) Clockface schedules Used more in smaller systems Span of service Split on whether same hours are operated for all routes versus longer span for busiest routes Economic/Productivity Standards Passengers per revenue hour Passengers per revenue mile Passengers per trip Not specified Fixed minimum standard or percentage of system average or bottom 10%–20% of routes Passengers per trip may be simplest to explain Cost or subsidy per passenger 2–3 times system average typical for subsidy per passenger Route-level minimum variable cost recovery ratio Below 25% most common 25%–40% next most common Above 40% rare Service Delivery Standards On-time performance 90%–94% peak/94%–97% off-peak most common Headway adherence Evenness of interval between buses; generally for internal use Passenger Comfort and Safety Standards Passenger complaints Per mile or per passenger boarding Missed trips/unscheduled extras Not specified Accidents Not specified Passenger environment Cleanliness; vehicle condition; destination signs Special information in areas with safety concerns Rare; request a stop at night; different stops in inclement weather Source: Benn 1995, pp. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... Literature Review 15 performance measurement and benchmarking as tools to identify the strengths and weak nesses of their organization, set goals or performance targets, and identify best practices to improve per formance. The research developed and tested a methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison for (a) Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 16 Transit Service Evaluation Standards Passengers per revenue hour -- Varies by type of service and time of day; could be absolute (33 urban, 20 rural) or percentage standard (50% of system average) Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... Literature Review 17 Operating expense per revenue hour Yes -- -- -- -- Operating expense per revenue mile -- Yes -- -- -- 0 agencies Revenue or vehicle hours per employee Yes -- -- Yes -- 0 agencies Revenue hours per vehicle Yes -- -- -- -- 0 agencies Operating expense per total passengers Yes -- -- Yes Operating expense per revenue passenger Yes -- -- -- -- 0 Subsidy per passenger -- Yes -- -- Farebox recovery ratio -- 10%–50% Minimum 15%–30% Yes Revenue per mile -- Yes -- -- -- 0 agencies Average fare per passenger -- Yes -- -- -- 0 agencies Vehicle miles per vehicle -- -- -- Yes -- 0 agencies aOthers cited by at least one agency: fare increases; municipal operating contribution per capita; ratio of actual to budget net costs; percentage of capital funds invested. bMetropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County and UMTA 1984. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 Transit Service Evaluation Standards Yes -- -- -- Route spacing -- -- Service span -- -- -- aOthers cited by at least one agency: service levels; express service; transit market area; revenue hours per capita; bus fleet reliability; escalator availability; elevator availability; rail structure availability. bMetropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County and UMTA 1984. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... Literature Review 19 Loading standard Varies by time of day Standard Metrica Fielding et al. 1978 Attanucci et al. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... Standard Metrica Fielding et al. 1978 Attanucci et al. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... Literature Review 21 -- Yes -- Yes 0 agencies -- Yes -- -- -- -- -- -- Yes -- 0 agencies -- -- -- Yes -- 0 agencies -- -- -- -- 0 agencies -- -- -- -- -- aOthers cited by at least one agency: street network/sidewalks; mechanical failure; security equipment on buses; preventable maintenance inspections; nonpreventable bus accidents; employee preventable/nonpreventable injuries; safety meetings; mean distance between rail delays; rail passenger offloads; percentage of track with performance restrictions; red signal overturns; fire incidents on rail; crimes; crime rate; rail collisions; rail derailments; bus passenger strikes. bMetropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County and UMTA 1984. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Transit Service Evaluation Standards Passengers per revenue hour Complaints Revenue miles per road call Preventable accidents On-time performance -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- aOthers cited by at least one agency: farebox recovery ratio; nonpreventable accidents; commendations; hold times for where's my ride/reservations. bMetropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County and UMTA 1984. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... Literature Review 23 In the early 21st century, performance evaluation began to encompass measures beyond the productivity and efficiency indicators that had become standard throughout the industry. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Transit Service Evaluation Standards DEA has also been used to assess the efficiency of bus depots and bus lines in Athens, Greece (Vlahogianni et al. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... Literature Review 25 Endnote to the Literature Review There will undoubtedly be continuing developments in transit performance evaluation. Many of the studies cited in this section make cogent arguments for a specific approach or analytical process to achieve the best possible results. Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... 8 This chapter summarizes findings from a literature review related to transit service evalu ation standards. To aid the literature review, a TRID search of the following keyword phrases was conducted: "performance standards," "performance evaluation," "performance indicators," and "service evaluation" with the filter "public transportation." The organization of the litera ture review is as follows: • Early history, • TCRP reports, • Summary by metrics used and mode, and • Additional research.