Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining the best performing benchmarks for transit routes with a multi-objective model: the implementation and a critique of the two-model approach

  • Case Study and Application
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In addition to their operational efficiency, the service level based performance dimensions of transit systems has begun to attract the attention of several researchers in recent years. The consideration of both operational efficiency and service level performance enables a more comprehensive performance evaluation for bus transit operators. This study aims to investigate the operational efficiency and service level performance of public transportation companies with data envelopment analysis (DEA). However, DEA might assign some highly efficiently operating routes as benchmarks to inefficient ones despite some unsatisfactory service level performance, and vice versa. This benchmarking might help to improve one performance dimension but can result in worsening the other. To overcome this problem, the two-model approach introduced by Shimshak and Lenard (INFOR 45(3):143–151, 2007) is utilized to determine the best performing routes. This approach removes the high operational efficient routes with low service level performance and high service level performers but operationally inefficient routes from the analysis and helps to define best performing benchmarks being able to enhance both operational efficiency and service level performance. At the end of the study, a critique of the two-model approach is presented. This paper makes three contributions to the practice of transit performance evaluation. First, it puts forward the necessity of multi-objectivity for the subunits of transit systems. Second, it demonstrates the applicability of the two-model approach in the transportation industry. And third, it points out that despite the usefulness of the two-model approach to determine the best benchmarks in a multi-objective model, the model suffers to assign input/output goals for inefficient decision making units where input/output variables of distinct objectives are the same or related to each other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed AM, Zairi M, Alwabel SA (2006) Global benchmarking for internet and e-commerce applications. Benchmarking 13(1/2):68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Definition of terms and abbreviations. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/missdef.pdf

  • Avkiran NK (1999) An application reference for data envelopment analysis in branch banking: helping the novice researcher. Int J Bank Marketing 17(5):206–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnum DT, McNeil S, Hart J (2007) Comparing the efficiency of public transportation subunits using data envelopment analysis. J Public Transp 10(2):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnum DT, Tandon S, McNeil S (2008) Comparing the performance of bus routes after adjusting for the environment using data envelopment analysis. J Transp Eng 137:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boile MP (2001) Estimating technical and scale inefficiencies of public transit systems. J Transp Eng 127:187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang KP, Kao PH (1992) The relative efficiency of public versus private municipal bus firms: an application of data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 3:67–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu X, Fielding GJ, Lamar BW (1992) Measuring transit performance using data envelopment analysis. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 26(3):223–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Hababou M, Tuenter HJH (2000) Multicomponent efficiency measurement and shared inputs in data envelopment analysis: an application to sales and service performance in bank branches. J Prod Anal 14:209–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Data envelopment analysis: history, models and interpretations. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Springer, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dattakumar R, Jagadeesh R (2003) A review of literature on benchmarking. Benchmarking 10(3):176–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996) Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: a comparative analysis of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26:145–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Borger B, Kerstens K, Costa A (2002) Public transit performance: what does one learn from frontier studies? Transp Rev 22(1):1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donthu N, Hershbergerb EK, Osmonbekov T (2005) Benchmarking marketing productivity using data envelopment analysis. J Bus Res 58:1474–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fibuch E, Van Way CW (2013) Benchmarking’s role in driving performance. Physician Executive J 39(1):28–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding GJ (1987) Managing transit strategically. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding GJ, Glauthier RE, Lave CA (1978) Performance indicators for transit management. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding GJ, Babitsky TT, Brenner ME (1985) Performance evaluation for bus transit. Transp Res Part A 19A(1):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn JS, Kim HR, Kho SY (2010) DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency of exclusive bus routes. J Eastern Asia Soc Transp Studies 8:1217–1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawas YE, Khan MB, Basu N (2012) Evaluating and enhancing the operational performance of public bus systems using GIS-based data envelopment analysis. J Public Transp 15(2):19–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (1987) Productive efficiency and ownership of urban bus services. Transportation 14:209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen F, Pedersen PA, Solvoll G (1995) The costs of bus operations in Norway. J Transp Econ Policy 29(3):253–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG (2003) Investigating transit production and performance: a programming approach. Transp Res Part A 37:225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG (2004) DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. Eur J Oper Res 152:354–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG, Tsamboulas D (2012) Efficiency measurement in public transport: are findings specification sensitive? Transp Res Part A 46:392–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerstens K (1999) Decomposing technical efficiency and effectiveness of French urban transport. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 54:129–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimberg R, Puddecombe M (1999) A multiple objective approach to data envelopment analysis. Adv Math Program Financ Plan 5:201–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimberg RK, Lawrence KD, Lawrence SM (2010) Data envelopment analysis is not multiobjective analysis, data envelopment analysis, and finance. Applications of management science, vol 14. In: Lawrence KD, Kleinman G (eds) Applications in multicriteria decision making, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 79–93

  • Lao Y, Liu L (2009) Performance evaluation of bus lines with data envelopment analysis and geographic information systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 33:247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A, Parhankangas A, Coupet J, Welch E, Barnum DT (2016) Strategic decision making for the triple bottom line. Bus Strategy Environ 23(3):193–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan JF (1996) Determinants of productive efficiency in urban transit. Logist Transp Rev 32(3):319–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Panayides PM, Maxoulis CN, Wang TF, Ng KYA (2009) A critical analysis of DEA applications to seaport economic efficiency measurement. Transp Rev 29(2):183–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero J (2011) Frontiers in major league baseball: nonparametric analysis of performance using data envelopment analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez IMG (2009) Technical and scale efficiency in Spanish urban transport: estimating with data envelopment analysis. Adv Oper Res 2009:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis J (2000) An analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the United States. J Oper Manag 18:335–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman HD, Ladino G (1995) Managing bank productivity using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Interfaces 25(2):60–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman HD, Zhu J (2006) Benchmarking with quality-adjusted DEA (Q-DEA) to seek lower-cost high-quality service: evidence from a U.S. bank application. Ann Oper Res 145:301–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth C, Triantis K, Teodorovic D (2007) Performance evaluation of bus routes: a provider and passenger perspective. Transp Res Part E 43:453–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimshak DG, Lenard ML (2007) A two-model approach to measuring operating and quality efficiency with DEA. INFOR 45(3):143–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigala M (2004) Using data envelopment analysis for measuring and benchmarking productivity in the hotel sector. J Travel Tourism Marketing 16(2–3):39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soteriou AC, Zenios SA (1999) Operations, quality, and profitability in the provision of banking services. Manag Sci 45(9):1221–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talley WK, Anderson PP (1981) Effectiveness and efficiency in transit performance: a theoretical perspective. Transp Res 15A(6):431–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viton PA (1997) Technical efficiency in multi-mode bus transit: a production frontier analysis. Transp Res Part B Methodol 31(1):23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viton PA (1998) Changes in multi-mode bus transit efficiency, 1988–1992. Transportation 25:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida Y, Fujimoto H (2004) Japanese—airport benchmarking with the DEA and endogenous-weight TFP methods: testing the criticism of overinvestment in Japanese regional airports. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 40(6):533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao F, Ubaka I (2004) Transit network optimization—minimizing transfers and optimizing route directness. J Public Transp 7(1):63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Esentepe Kampüsü, İşletme Fakültesi, A Blok, Oda: D04, Serdivan/Sakarya, Turkey

    Samet Güner

  2. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Esentepe Kampüsü, İşletme Fakültesi, A Blok, Oda: P222, Serdivan/Sakarya, Turkey

    Erman Coşkun

Authors
  1. Samet Güner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erman Coşkun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samet Güner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güner, S., Coşkun, E. Determining the best performing benchmarks for transit routes with a multi-objective model: the implementation and a critique of the two-model approach. Public Transp 8, 205–224 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-016-0125-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-016-0125-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation