Evaluating the comparative efficiency of urban mass transit systems: a longitudinal analysis of the Ohio case

Abstract

A mass transit system not only improves passenger mobility, but also affects the level of economic activities (e.g. working and shopping). Thus, changes wrought by mass transit service planning can heavily influence regional economic growth. This planning requires a careful consideration of conflicting goals (e.g. better utilisation of fleets vs. transit services, improved passenger services vs. increased operating expenses, revenue increases vs. tax or fare hikes) which poses a number of problems for policy decision makers. In particular, given the public's growing concerns over government budget deficits, the continuous underutilisation of mass transit systems can increase public scrutiny concerning the increased investment in mass transit services. To find ways to better utilise mass transit systems across the state of Ohio and thus make the best use of state/federal/municipal government funds and taxpayers' monies, this paper aims to evaluate the operational efficiency of the current mass transit system relative to benchmark standards and then identify the leading causes of mass transit inefficiencies. To achieve these goals, this paper analyzes the past three years of time-series data regarding 24 urban mass transit agencies in Ohio using window data envelopment analysis.

Dynamic Benchmarking of Mass Transit Systems in the United States Using Data Envelopment Analysis and the Malmquist Productivity Index

“…However, congruent with earlier findings reported by Min and Lambert () and Min et al. (), the population density of the service area turned out to be an influencing factor for transit efficiency. This result makes sense in that if large populations are concentrated in a relatively compact area or in the same neighborhood, a distance that a transit vehicle travels is relatively short while serving more riders and thus can increase the mass transit efficiency.…”

“…Rather than limiting research focus to the paratransit performance, Min et al. () evaluated the comparative efficiency of 24 urban mass transit systems in Ohio during three‐year span (2009–11) using the DEA. They discovered that urban mass transit systems in the high‐density, large metropolitan areas tended to perform better, whereas urban mass transit systems in the suburbs of those areas tended to perform poorly.…”

“…As expected, they discovered that the transit system in densely populated areas tended to be more efficient, while the presence of multiple transit systems within the same metropolitan area negatively affected the transit efficiency. Rather than limiting research focus to the paratransit performance, Min et al (2015) evaluated the comparative efficiency of 24 urban mass transit systems in Ohio during three-year span (2009-11) using the DEA. They discovered that urban mass transit systems in the high-density, large metropolitan areas tended to perform better, whereas urban mass transit systems in the suburbs of those areas tended to perform poorly.…”

“…Generally, a greater number of populations concentrated in the transit service area (e.g., dense populations) increases the propensity to use mass transit and thus reflects a frequency of boarding by the passenger, which can be used to measure how well transit vehicles are utilized (Min et al. ). Also, this measure reflects the potential revenue contribution of passenger traffic and indicates how much volume of traffic transit vehicles are producing.…”

“…Generally, important benefits of mass transit services may include (1) enhanced travel choices with public transportation alternatives; (2) improved mobility (especially for the handicapped and low‐income citizens); (3) enhanced living environments with less traffic congestion and reduced CO 2 emission; (4) a greater opportunity for advancing transportation technologies such as the use of biofuel for transit vehicles; (5) increased traffic safety with less accidental risks as compared to private transportation; and (6) stimulus for local economic development (Min et al. ). In particular, capital investment in public infrastructure such as mass transit systems is often linked with regional economic development.…”