An Evaluation Framework for Bus Transit Service Structures Using Dual-Perspective Indicators

Abstract

Public transit agencies encounter difficulties in determining whether fixed-route transit (FRT) or demand-responsive transit (DRT) is better suited for different communities. Literature uses simulation models or different key performance indicators (KPIs) to compare transit service structures, which lacks consensus and clear thresholds. This gap limits transit planners to evaluate trade-offs between cost, accessibility, operational and environmental impact on performance when selecting the best service structure. An in-depth literature review explores the fragmented growth of benchmarking frameworks developed by transit industries and academic studies, depicting the lack of standardization that complicates cross-service evaluation. Key gaps in the literature include inconsistent KPI definitions, limited integration of user and provider perspectives as well the scarcity of real-world comparison evaluations. This thesis proposes an evaluation framework consisting of KPIs to assess FRT and DRT, examining performance through real-world operational data. The framework spans operational, environmental, social, and economic domains, and further integrate both the service provider’s and user’s perspectives to deliver a holistic evaluation. Standardizing definitions, units, and calculation methods enables the framework to address the lack of holistic comparability across transit service structures. The KPI evaluation framework is applied to a real-world case study, where the same area was served by FRT and DRT. The results highlight mixed messages on service performance. The chapter concludes with the thesis’s main contributions, limitations, and directions for future research. This thesis will advance the ability to evaluate, compare and design transit service structures.