00319334

Component

http://onlinepubs.trb.org...s/trr/1980/746/746-003.pdf

https://scholar.google.co...wony&publication_year=1980

Historically, transit management had to rely on a technique known as peer-group comparison to identify strengths and weaknesses in the performance of their system. In this technique, performance indicators for the system under study are compared with the average performance of systems that have similar characteristics. This method, though useful, is deficient in that it does not totally reflect the differences in operating characteristics or environment among transit properties. This paper presents a diagnostic tool for comparing performance among transit systems by suggesting a method to eliminate deficiencies in the traditional approach. The paper suggests that combined uncontrolled and controlled comparisons be used to identify relative strengths and weaknesses in performance. The uncontrolled comparison is the traditional approach in which system performance is compared with average performance of the peer systems. The controlled comparison is performed by comparing that actual performance with the expected performance. The expected performance is calculated from models that can be developed from the experience of the peer systems. This paper presents a case study in which uncontrolled and controlled comparison concepts were used to identify strengths and weaknesses of 11 bus depots in the New York City Transit Authority. The paper presents 10 transportation and maintenance performance indicator models that were used to calculate the expected depot performance. The models were developed through stepwise multiple regression analysis of the New York City Transit Authority's actual operating statistics for fiscal year 1977. The paper also discusses how the uncontrolled and controlled comparisons were subsequently used to set priorities among depots for remedial action. The application of the performance comparison technique discussed in this paper to smaller systems would require comparison of the system's performance with that of other similar transit properties. (Author)

Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Transit Service Characteristics. Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

01411571

pp 13-19

1980

Transportation Research Record

0309030552

Print

Figures (8) ; References (1) ; Tables (1)

Alternatives analysis; Bus terminals; Mathematical models; Measures of effectiveness; Performance; Strategic planning; Transportation system management

Models; Performance indicators

Administration and Management; Highways; Operations and Traffic Management; Public Transportation; Terminals and Facilities; I10: Economics and Administration

TRIS, TRB

Oct 27 1981 12:00AM

• DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR A MEASURES FOR A MEDIUM-SIZED TRANSIT SYSTEM
• EVALUATING POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF HEADWAY CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
• HIERARCHICAL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING VEHICLE AND CREW REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS
• INITIAL REACTIONS TO A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BUS TRANSIT MALL IN HONOLULU
• NOTE ON BUS ROUTE EXTENSIONS (ABRIDGMENT)
• Operational Improvements in a Two-City Bus Transit Corridor
• PORTFOLIO MODEL OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR THE TRANSIT FIRM
• RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH ACCESSIBLE BUS SERVICES
• SYSTEMATIC PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF BUS GARAGE LOCATIONS
• TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN AN INTENSE TRANSIT ENVIRONMENT: SOME OBSERVATIONS
• USE OF FEDERAL SECTION 15 DATA IN TRANSIT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: MICHIGAN PROGRAM (ABRIDGMENT)
• WHAT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SHOULD KNOW ABOUT POSSIBLE USER REACTIONS, AS SHOWN BY THE EXAMPLE OF PRICE SENSITIVITY