European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

Performance indicators for an objective measure of

public transport service quality
Laura Eboli1, Gabriella Mazzulla1
1

Department of Land Use Planning, University of Calabria

Abstract
The measurement of transit performance represents a very useful tool for ensuring continuous increase
of the quality of the delivered transit services, and for allocating resources among competing transit
agencies. Transit service quality can be evaluated by subjective measures based on passengers
perceptions, and objective measures represented by disaggregate performance measures expressed as
numerical values, which must be compared with fixed standards or past performances. The proposed
research work deals with service quality evaluation based on objective measures; specifically, an
extensive overview and an interpretative review of the objective indicators until investigated by
researchers are proposed. The final aim of the work is to give a review as comprehensive as possible of
the objective indicators, and to provide some suggestions for the selection of the most appropriate
indicators for evaluating a transit service aspect.
Keywords:Service Quality, Public Transport, Objective Indicators.

1. Introduction
Transportation system is a source of considerable environmental damage affecting a
wide range of receptors, including human health, flora and fauna, and the built
environment. The main environmental effects concern air pollution, climate change,
noise, impacts on nature and landscape, soil and water deterioration; other effects
include, as an example, visual intrusion in cities (Bickel et al., 2006).
Mobility demand of people living in urban and metropolitan areas is continuously
growing because of the desire to participate in increasingly varied activities motivated
by physiological, psychological and economic needs. Interdependencies among
activities entail complex travel choices involving the generation of trip-chains and travel
patterns. In order to satisfy this ever-changing mobility demand, people tend to use
individual motorized transport modes (Cirillo et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the continuing
trend of modal shift in favour of the private car produces the increase of environmental

Corresponding author: Laura Eboli ([email protected])

Corresponding author: Gabriella Mazzulla ([email protected])

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

externalities, while these impacts have to be reduced in order to make the transport
sector more environmentally sustainable (Rienstra and Vleugel, 1995). Making progress
towards more sustainable transportation systems and mobility patterns, and at the same
time increasing the economic prosperity and quality of life, are policy aims shared by
countries (Gudmundsson, 2001).
Recently, transit has been called on to contribute to improve air quality in many major
urban centres and to have a transportation system that is balanced, efficient, and
intermodal. An effective transit system can make contributions toward improving the
environment, thus elevating itself in the hierarchy of funding decisions (Transportation
Research Board, 1994). Modal substitution represents hence an important strategy of
demand management for the achievement of a sustainable transportation; this can be
accomplished by providing better modal options (Deakin, 2001), such as transit systems
characterized by high quality levels.
In order to ensuring continuous improvement of the delivered transit services,
performance measures are an essential tool for focusing transit agencies on their
strategic goals. Performance measures can be useful also for the allocation of funds but,
for this aim, a more thorough understanding of the applicability and appropriateness of
performance measures to different types of transit systems is necessary (Transportation
Research Board, 1994).
There is a variety of performance measures developed for describing different aspects
of the transit services. Transit performance measures can refer to the passenger, agency,
and/or communitys point-of-view. Passengers viewpoint reflects the passengers
perception of the service. The agency point-of-view reflects transit performance from
the perspective of the transit agency as a business. The communitys point-of-view
measures transits role in meeting broad community objectives. Measures in this area
include measures of the impact of a transit service on different aspects of a community,
such as employment, property values, or economic growth. This viewpoint also includes
measures of how transit contributes to community mobility and measures of transits
effect on the environment. Perceived performance of a transit service from the
passengers point of view can be defined as quality of service (Transportation Research
Board, 2003b).
The aim of this research work is to provide an interpretative review of the different
performance indicators adopted for measuring transit service quality in an objective
way.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section aims to give an extensive
overview of the various transit performance measures. Then, we provide a summary of
the different sources of data which can be used for calculating objective service quality
measures, and the main methods that agencies use to develop standards or target values.
After that, we attempt to provide a compendium of the traditional and not traditional
objective service quality indicators which allow the transit service aspects to be
analysed and the service performances to be monitored, by particularly referring to bus
services. We also provide a literature review of the studies focused on this kind of
service quality measures, and indicate standard values for some indicators analysed in
the research work. Finally, we conclude with a general discussion of the research
findings.

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

2. Transit performance measures

Performance measurement can be defined as the assessment of an organizations
output as a product of the management of its internal resources (money, people,
vehicles, facilities) and the environment in which it operates (Transportation Research
Board, 1994, 2004b). Performance measurement is very useful for different aims:
assisting in evaluating the transit systems overall performance, assessing management
performance expectations of the transit system in relation to community objectives,
assessing management performance and diagnosing problems such as disproportionate
cost in relation to service, allocating resources among competing transit properties,
providing a management control system for monitoring and improving transit services,
facilitating the accountability sought by government funding agencies and demanded by
legislators, regional and transit authority boards, and the general public.
Performance in general terms refers to any evaluation or comparison measure. A
performance measure can be considered as a quantitative or qualitative characterization
of performance. Each of these measures has certain indicators that are used to signify
transit performance for each particular measure. A performance indicator is more
specifically a performance measure used to document progress toward a performance
goal, and to monitor performance. A review of the literature on transit performance
reveals that not all agencies use the same terms for performance measures (e.g. Fielding,
1987). In addition, views of performance-based allocation and how indicators are
calculated vary tremendously. Therefore, in the literature, there are various
classifications of the transit performance measures, some are more schematic, and
others more articulate.
As an example, the TCRP Report 88 (Transportation Research Board, 2003a)
proposes a classification which considers indicators of cost-efficiency, defined as the
measure of service output compared to unit of input (cost), cost-effectiveness, defined
as the measure of outcome compared to unit of input in terms of cost, and serviceeffectiveness, which is the measure of outcome compared to unit of input in terms of
service.
According to Litman (2009) there are three general types of performance indicators:
measures of service quality, which reflect the quality of service experienced by users;
indicators of outcomes, which reflect outcomes or outputs; indicators of cost efficiency,
which reflect the ratio of inputs (costs) to outputs (desired benefits).
A classification more oriented to the agencys point of view is proposed by Dalton et
al. (2000) who consider input, output, or outcome measures. Input measures look at the
resources dedicated to a program (e.g. spent money, kilometres of pavement placed);
output measures look at the products produced (e.g. materials consumed, kilometres of
lanes); outcome measures look at the impact of the products on the goals of the agency
(staff time consumed, hours of bus service added, reduced travel time). Outcome
measures are preferred because they directly relate the agencys strategic goals to the
results of the activities undertaken to achieve them; however, these measures might not
be evident until months after product delivery and can be difficult to define.
Meyer (2000) classifies the performance indicators into three more comprehensive
categories. A first category is represented by general performance indicators such as
service area population, passenger trips, vehicle kilometres and hours, and so on. The
second category is represented by the effectiveness measures including the following
subcategories: service supply (passenger trips per capita, passenger trips per hour);
quality of service (average speed, average headway, number of incidents); availability

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

(weekday span of service, route kilometres per square kilometre). The third category
includes efficiency measures divided into: cost efficiency (operating expenses per
passenger trip, operating expenses per revenue hour); operating ratios (local revenue per
operating expenses); vehicle utilization (vehicle kilometres per peak vehicle, vehicle
hours per peak vehicle); labour productivity (passenger trips per employee); energy use
(vehicle kilometres per kW-h); fare.
Also Vuchic (2007) proposes an enough comprehensive classification of performance
indicators: transportation quantity or volume (number of vehicles or fleet size, fleet
capacity, number of lines and network length, annual number of passengers); system
and network performance (intensity of network service, average speed on a transit
system); transportation work and productivity (annual vehicle-kilometres, annual spacekilometres, annual passenger-kilometres); transit system efficiency indicators (vehiclekilometres/vehicle/year, passengers/vehicle-kilometres, daily passengers/employee,
vehicle-kilometres/kilowatt-hour); consumption rates and utilization indicators
(operating cost/passenger, operating cost/vehicle-kilometre, scheduled vehicles/fleet
size).
A similar classification was proposed by Carter and Lomax (1992) structured in six
categories of indicators: cost efficiency (cost per kilometre, cost per hour); cost
effectiveness (cost per passenger trip, ridership per expense); service
utilization/effectiveness (passenger trips per kilometres, passenger trips per hour);
vehicle utilization/efficiency (kilometres per vehicle); service quality (average speed,
vehicle kilometres between accidents); labour productivity (passenger trips per
employee, vehicle kilometres per employee).
What is important and vital in the performance and delivery of a transit service
depends significantly upon perspective (Transportation Research Board, 2003a). As an
example, the traditional cost efficiency and effectiveness indicators can be considered as
performance measures from the transit agency perspective, while they are not linked to
customer-oriented and community issues, which are fundamental perspectives in the
evaluation of a service (Transportation Research Board, 2003a). Many researchers
consider the customers point of view the most relevant for evaluating transit
performance; as an example, Berry et al. (1990) pointed out that customers are the sole
judge of service quality. Passengers evaluate services in many ways that may not be
systematically associated with the amount of use of the service, because the measures of
efficiency and effectiveness, as aggregate indicators of total output, implicitly assume
homogeneity of service quality (Hensher, 2007). So, from the passengers point of view,
transit performance must be evaluated by considering indicators of service quality
(Transportation Research Board, 2003b).
Transit service quality can be measured by a range of simple disaggregate
performance measures which can be used for measuring the ability of a transit agency to
offer services that meet customer expectations (Transportation Research Board, 1999b).
These performance measures are quantitative measures expressed as a numerical value,
which provides no information by itself about how good or bad a specific result is,
and for this reason it must be compared with a fixed standard or past performance.
These measures can be considered as objective measures.
Service quality can be also evaluated on the basis of transit user judgements. These
judgements, which can be considered a subjective measure of service quality, generally
derive from the well-known Customer Satisfaction Surveys (CSS), which help transit
operators to identify which service quality factors are considered the most important by

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

their customers. Customer judgements can be expressed in terms of expectations, which

represent what customers expect of the service, and perceptions, which represent what
customers receive from the service (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Service quality
measurement based on customer opinions allows the perceived performances of a given
transit service to be analysed. The main disadvantages of this type of measure are the
strong subjectivity of transit users judgements and the failure to take non-users
perceptions into account. In addition, considerable statistical errors could occur when
respondents are not correct sampled, or users judgements are too heterogeneous. In
order to minimize these problems, several researchers have proposed methodologies
based on the use of SP or mixed RP-SP survey, as a consequence of their belief that
passengers behavioural intentions significantly depends on the perceived value of
service quality linked to their level of satisfaction. Interesting readers can take some
examples in Hensher and Prioni(2002), and in Eboli and Mazzulla (2008, 2010).
In order to provide a more useful and reliable measurement tool of transit
performance, current research about the topic is ever more oriented to consider both
objective and subjective service quality measures (e.g. Tyrinopoulos and Aifadopoulou
2008; Nathanail, 2008). In addition, the authors experience suggests that very promising
results could be obtained through the combination of the two types of measures. As an
example, in Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) a methodology for measuring transit service
quality is proposed which aims to develop an indicator with an intermediate value
between subjective and objective measures, calculated by considering the bias of the
two different measures. The final indicator was obtained by solving a problem of
optimization which minimizes the distance of the desired indicator from the subjective
and objective ones.
In addition to the above mentioned approaches, Zak (2011) emphasizes that there are
several stakeholders interested in the efficient, comfortable, and effective operations of
the transit systems; as a consequence, a conflict of interests is observed. As an example,
while passengers insist on high level of transportation services, operators are focused on
cost-effective operations of the transit system, as well as the authorities play a double
role of a stakeholder and decision maker at the same time. In order to search for
compromise solutions, Zak (2011) proposed the application of the methodology of
multiple criteria decision making/aiding for public transportation analysis. This
methodology enables the decision maker to take into account several contradictory
points of view, and assures that the most satisfactory and compromise solution is finally
selected.
Definitively, both subjective and objective transit performance measures support
transit agencies for monitoring, evaluating, and implementing improvements in service.
For this purpose transit agencies might be interested in collecting a wide array of
information. As a result, data collection and analysis activities should be concentrated
on those aspects of transit service that are crucial and that more accurately reflect the
needs of customers and potential customers. The objective is to match the most
important perceptions to specific aspects of transit service and to identify one or more
corresponding service performance indicators (Transportation Research Board, 1999b).

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

3. Sources of data and performance standards

In the past, measuring transit performance was very difficult and collecting the data
necessary to evaluate transit systems was very costly. A number of performance
measures has been traditionally calculated from information an agency would normally
have on hand for other purposes, like schedule data, system maps, service design
standards, accident and incident records, financial data, fleet data, complaint records,
and so on. In addition, alternative data has been provided by national transit database
and other transit agencies.
Recently, as a result of the widespread implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) and Advanced Public Transit System technologies (APTS), data
collection is no longer a limiting factor (El-Geneidy et al., 2007). Nowadays, a large
amount of data is provided by Automated Vehicle Locators (AVL), which detect in realtime a vehicles time at locations and supply schedule deviation information, and
Automatic Passenger Counters (APC), which allow passenger boarding and alighting to
be detected by means of infrared sensors and optical imaging. Also the commons
electronic fare-boxes (as substitution of the operator trip cards) are an excellent source
of ridership data because of their ability to register passenger boarding by fare category
(Transportation Research Board, 2000). A specific report of the Transportation
Research Board (1997) emphasizes the importance of adopting advanced technologies
for improving safety, efficiency and quality of the services offered by the public
transport agencies. Particularly, the report focuses on the AVL systems by examining
the main aspects linked to implementation, management and maintenance of these
systems on the bus lines.
Automation of data collection usually enables data to be collected quickly and
efficiently, but the real value of automation is realized when speed is coupled with
increased accuracy, precision, and repeatability of the data. However, automated
collection methods are not always the best way to collect data (Dalton et al., 2000). In
fact, some objective measures of transit performances are more appropriately derived
from other different sources of data, such as manual data provided by operators,
dedicated trained checkers or field supervisors. A particular form of manual data
collection can be represented by the Passenger Environment Survey (PES), which
generally assesses qualitative elements which are difficult to measure by any other way.
In fact, PES use a secret shopper technique, according to which mystery riders travel
through the transit system and rate a variety of trip attributes in order to provide a
quantitative evaluation of factors that passengers would think of qualitatively
(Transportation Research Board, 2003a).
In order to evaluate and monitor service quality, performance standards should be
established for each objective measure. Alternatively, the performance indicators can be
expressed in a format that provides built-in interpretation. An example of such formats
is represented by Levels-of-Service (LoS) analogous to those developed by the
Highway Capacity Manual for the evaluation of the road traffic flow quality levels
(Transportation Research Board, 1965). Another format is represented by ratios, which
are developed by dividing one individual measure by another; they facilitate
comparisons between routes, areas, or agencies. Finally, index measures are adopted
when service quality aspects involve a number of different factors; these indexes
combine results from several other performance measures in an equation to produce a
single output measure (Transportation Research Board, 2003a).

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

In the TCRP Report 88 six main methods that agencies use to develop standards for
measures regularly tracked were defined; a combination of all the methods is suggested
(Transportation Research Board, 2003a). A first method is the comparison to the annual
average. The average value for each measure is determined annually, and the bus lines
that fall into the lowest (and sometimes highest) groups for each measure (e.g., lowest
10th percentile, lowest 25th percentile) are identified for further action. The second
method is a variation of the method described above and entails the comparison to a
baseline. In this case, the value of each measure is compared to the average value of the
measure in the first year when the performance-measurement system was implemented.
Measures that fall below a certain percentage of the baseline value are targeted for
further action. Another option is a trend analysis, or setting the standard based on the
previous years performance measure value. In this case, the standard would be
expressed as improvement from the previous year (generally in percent). Measures that
show worsening performance, compared to the previous year, would be targeted for
further action. A method which allows customer and community issues to be considered
is the self-identification of the standard values. Under this method, transit agency
management sets targets based on a combination of current agency performance,
professional judgment, and agency goals. The last two methods are based on the
comparison to typical industry standards or to peer systems. In the first case, the agency
surveys other representative agencies or finds examples of standards in the transit
literature and applies an average or typical standard to its own operations. In the second
case, an agency identifies other agencies with similar conditions (e.g., city sizes, fare
levels, cost of living index values, or other similar criteria), and determines how well
those agencies are performing in the measurement categories. Standards are based on
the average values of the peer agencies for given measures, or alternatively, on some
percentile value.
The concept of LoS as a measure of transit service quality was introduced in the
TCRP Report 100, in which some threshold values for a selection of performance
indicators were proposed (Transportation Research Board, 2003b). LoS are measured on
a scale varying from the A level (which means high service quality) to the F level
(low service quality). Based on the LoS methodology, Nocera (2010) proposes a tool for
evaluating the performance of both private car and transit services; in the work
threshold values of some parameters for six levels of service were identified.

4. Transit service aspects: a interpretative review of the objective indicators

4.1 Overview.
In the last few years, researchers showed great interest in customer satisfaction and
service quality measurement, besides in the definition and implementation of service
quality indicators which can be used by a transit operator in order to evaluate their
performances. Primarily in the USA, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) was
promoter of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), from which some
guidebooks and manuals were developed for measuring customer satisfaction in public
transport (Transportation Research Board, 1999b), calculating transit performance
measures (Transportation Research Board, 2003a), and evaluating transit capacity and

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

quality of service (Transportation Research Board, 2003b). Several reports and

syntheses focused on specific transit bus service aspects, like bus route (Transportation
Research Board, 1995a), customer information (Transportation Research Board, 1996;
1999a), transit bus service line and cleaning functions (Transportation Research Board,
1995b).
Also in the European Union (EU) countries some programmes were encouraged, and
the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) introduced a manual for measuring
public transit quality, in which the categories of parameters which constitute the criteria
of the benchmarking of the service were established (European Committee for
Standardization, 2002). Among the various EU research and development efforts, we
would like to mention QUATTRO (EU Transport RTD programme, 1998), EQUIP (EU
Transport RTD programme, 2000), and PORTAL (EU Transport RTD programme,
2003). Specifically in Greece, the Hellenic Institute of Transport promoted quality
control programmes for public transport operators in which a variety of performance
and quality indicators were introduced and applied (Hellenic Institute of Transport,
2003; 2005).
The aspects generally describing transit services can be distinguished into
characteristics that more properly describe the service (e.g. frequency of runs), and
characteristics depending more on customer tastes and less easily measurable (e.g.
comfort).
Starting from the various studies regarding quality determinants in public
transportation the aspects mainly characterizing bus services are: service availability,
service reliability, comfort, cleanliness, safety and security, fare, information, customer
care and environmental impacts. Each of these aspects can be measured in many ways
by considering different indicators. In the next subsections some of these indicators will
be fully described, and some target values will be suggested.
4.2 Service availability.
The attributes belonging to this category of service aspects are represented by
characteristics of the route of the bus line in terms of path and coverage, number of bus
stops, distance between bus stops, location of the bus stops, and characteristics of the
service, like service frequency, span of service, travel time, need for transfers.
TCRP Synthesis 10 (Transportation Research Board, 1995a) proposes to evaluate the
characteristics of the line path through indicators of the route directness expressed in
terms of the additional travel time for a one-way bus trip, or the additional travel time
required over an automobile making the same trip, or a time limit increase in average
travel times per passenger, or an absolute limit to the total number of path deviations.
For each of these indicators TCRP Report 88 (Transportation Research Board, 2003a)
suggests some standard limitations. In Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) the indicator
regarding line path was evaluated on the basis of the travel speed of the runs observed
during a survey period. Also in Friman and Fellesson (2009) travel speed is introduced
as indicator of the line path; the authors highlight that in public transport travel speed
corresponds to the perceived travel time. Nathanail (2008) introduces an indicator of the
itinerary accuracy calculated as the average delay estimated for the considered network,
weighted out by the number of offered seats, passenger occupancy, and itinerary length.
The same author introduces a speed indicator assessed through trip duration; the
indicator obtains 0 when it exceeds double the five-year average, 10 when it is less than

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

half the five-year average, and intermediate values for intermediate cases. For buses on
urban arterials, target values for travel speed were suggested in term of Level-of-service
in TCRP Report 88 (Transportation Research Board, 2003a).
In TCRP Synthesis 10 (Transportation Research Board, 1995a) route coverage was
considered as the spacing distance between adjoining routings. Target values for
spacing between bus routes were suggested as a function of such factors as the
population density of an area, the proximity of an area to the central business district
(CBD), and the type of bus services or routes in operation within an area (e.g., grid
versus feeder, local service versus express service, and so on). Coverage can be also
considered as a measure of the proportion of a metropolitan area, corridor, or population
served by transit. TCRP Report 95 suggests the presence or lack of transit service within
400 metres as a rule-of-thumb indicator of coverage (Transportation Research Board,
2004a). In TCRP Report 88 (Transportation Research Board, 2003a) route coverage is
expressed in terms of route miles per square mile, and some target values were
suggested for these indicators.
Another indicator regarding route characteristics refers to the stop spacing, or the
distance between adjoining service stops of a path. Transit operators have developed
standards regarding bus stop spacing as a part of their effort to balance the trade-off
between rider convenience (stops with easy walking distances) and speed. Examples of
target values of stop spacing were suggested in TCRP Synthesis 10 (Transportation
Research Board, 1995a); also in TCRP Report 88 (Transportation Research Board,
2003a) target values were suggested for local bus, automated guideway transit, light
rail, heavy rail and commuter rail.
Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) suggest as indicator of the bus stop location the walking
distance (or time) from home to the access bus stop. In fact, the time spent in walking
for reaching the bus stop defines the level of accessibility to the transit services.
Therefore, a transit stop must be located within walking distance, and the pedestrian
environment in the area should not discourage walking (Transportation Research Board,
2003a). As reported in TCRP Report 100, about 80% of the passengers walk 400 metres
or less to bus stops; at an average walking speed of 5 km/h, this is equivalent to a
maximum walking time of 5 minutes. These times and distances could be doubled for
rail transit and bus express services that emulates rail transit in terms of frequent
service, long stop spacing, passenger amenities at stops.
Among service characteristics, service frequency is the most distinctive aspect.
Service frequency measures how often transit service is provided. It is an important
factor in ones decision to use transit; in fact, the more frequent the service, the shorter
the waiting time when a bus or train is missed, and the greater the flexibility that
customers have in selecting travel times (Transportation Research Board, 2003a).
Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou (2008) found that service frequency is the most important
attribute across transit operators. Also, in Eboli and Mazzulla (2008) service frequency
resulted to be the attribute with the highest weight on the overall transit service quality.
The indicator regarding service frequency can be calculated as average value of the
number of runs scheduled for each hour of the day. Levels-of-service were suggested as
a function of the average headway among vehicles expressed in minutes (Transportation
Research Board, 2003b). Friman and Fellesson (2009) propose an aggregate measure of
the vehicle km per inhabitant as indicator of the service frequency and coverage. In
Nathanail (2008) service frequency is assessed through the number of train-kilometres;
the indicator is graded based on the comparison of actually observed values to the

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

average value of the five-year period preceding the analysis year, and obtains 0 when no
train-kilometre have been realized, 10 when they exceed double the five-year average,
and intermediate values for intermediate cases.
Span of service is the number of hours during a day that transit service is provided.
Hours of service can vary by day of the week, by route, and even by stop. Then, an
indicator can be calculated as average value of the number of hours per day in different
periods of the year (winter, summer, etc.) and/or for different routes/stops. The length of
the service in a day can impact the convenience of using transit system and constrain the
types of trips that the passengers are able to make by transit. The level-of-service
thresholds reported in TCRP Report 100 (Transportation Research Board, 2003b) can be
adopted as target values for the service span.
4.3 Service reliability.
Service reliability is one of the most investigated transit service aspects and it is
considered as a very important aspect for the transit users. Turnquist and Blume (1980)
define transit service reliability as the ability of the transit system to adhere to schedule
or maintain regular headways and a consistent travel time. Strathman et al. (1999) and
Kimpel (2001) agree that reliability is mostly related to schedule adherence, as well as
Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007), who state that the lack of control due to the
uncertainty of the vehicle arrival makes the service unreliable. Unreliable service results
in additional travel and waiting time for passengers (Wilson et al., 1992; Strathman et
al., 2003). As a consequence, service unreliability can lead to loss of passengers, while
improvements in reliability can lead to attraction of more passengers (El-Geneidy et al.,
2007). A study proposed by Eboli and Mazzulla (2010) confirmed that service
reliability is one of the most important service aspect for the users. Research studies
conducted in the seventies have already shown that arriving on time at destination is
often seen by travellers as more important than minimizing elapsed travel time (Nash
and Hille, 1968; Hartgen and Tanner, 1970). The study of Wachs (1976) found that
reliability or variance in travel time is an important component of attitude toward
transportation modes, and also revealed that time spent in waiting, walking, transferring
modes, or parking a vehicle is consistently viewed by travellers as more onerous than
time spent on board.
Public transit agencies have developed multiple indicators to measure service
reliability, but the three most common measures are on-time performance, headway
regularity and running time adherence (Transportation Research Board, 2003a; Lin et
al., 2008).
On-time performance can be evaluated by considering the percentage of transit
vehicles departing from or arriving to a location on time. The indicator is generally
calculated as the ratio of the number of runs that come on time to the number of total
runs. Nakanishi (1997) introduces an indicator of on-time performance as the
percentage of trips departing from all scheduled time points, not including terminals,
between 0 and 5 min after their scheduled departing time, as well as suggested in TCRP
Report 100 (Transportation Research Board, 2003b). However, TCRP Synthesis 10
suggests to consider on-time the runs up to 1 minute early and up to 5 minutes late
(Transportation Research Board, 1995a), as well as the Italian legislation (DPCM
30.12.1998).

10

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

Headway regularity can be defined as the evenness of intervals between transit

vehicles. An indicator (expressed in %) is calculated as the ration of the average
difference between the actual and the scheduled headway to the scheduled headway
(Transportation Research Board, 2003a). The same indicator is named by Tyrinopoulos
and Aifadopoulou (2008) as excessive waiting time of the passengers at the stop points;
the authors calculate the indicator for each line by taking into account the outcome of
the operators scheduling process and actual measurements on site. As reported in
Nakanishi (1997) a transit vehicle was considered regular if it is within 50% of the
scheduled interval (for intervals of 10 minutes or less) or within 5 minutes of the
scheduled interval (for intervals greater than 10 minutes). In addition, TCRP Report 100
(Transportation Research Board, 2003b) defines Level-of-service ranges for headway
adherence. Reliability of runs that come on schedule can be also easily evaluated on the
basis of the runs removed from the daily schedule. An indicator can be calculated as the
ratio of the number of runs executed in a period of data gathering to the number of runs
scheduled for the same period.
Running time adherence can be defined, analogously to the headway regularity, as the
average difference between the actual and the scheduled running times compared to the
scheduled running time. Also this indicator is measured in percent. Lin et al. (2008)
state that the concurrent use of more indicators of service reliability can make difficult
the determination of the routes having the overall worst performance; in fact, routes
doing well on some measures may be poor on others. Thus, they propose one
comprehensive service reliability indicator by aggregating the various service reliability
measures by means of data envelopment analysis (DEA). El-Geneidy et al. (2007)
introduced a regression model for estimating the amount of time it takes a bus to travel
along its route as a function of several determinants of bus running time, like segment
length, number of signalized intersections, number of bus stops, number of passenger
boarding or alighting, departure delay, stop delay time, and so on.
4.4 Comfort.
Comfort during the journey is important for transit users, both the physical comfort
regarding vehicles and comfort regarding ambient conditions on board or at stops.
Comfort on board means having soft and clean seats, comfortable temperature, not
many people on board, smoothness of the bus ride, low levels of noise and vibrations,
not nasty odours. These many factors are differently evaluated across different groups
of users. Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007) found that habitual public transport users
consider the new vehicles with air-conditioning and lower floor as very good and very
comfortable, but the overcrowding on board at peak hours is considered a problem. On
the other hand, car users and occasional public transport users usually see buses as
uncomfortable, overcrowded, smelly and airless. Wachs (1976) underlined that vehicle
comfort is less important to the travellers decision process than other service aspects.
Comfort at bus stops can be considered as a function of the passenger amenities
provided at the stops. Amenities include shelters, benches, vending machines, trash
receptacles, lighting, phone booths, and so on. The effects of particular amenities on
transit passengers are not well known. Some researchers have argued that the term
amenities implies something extra and not necessarily required (Transportation
Research Board, 2003a). Iseki and Taylor (2008) found that stop and station-area

11

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

amenities were ranked as the least important by the users; however, these elements
provided at bus stops or stations enhance also convenience and security.
The indicator most frequently used for evaluating comfort during the journey is linked
to the degree of crowding on bus. Tyrinopoulos and Aifadopoulou (2008) estimate the
load of the vehicles as the number of passengers on board divided by the capacity of the
vehicles. The maximum vehicles load, the mean vehicles load and the lines percentage
where the load exceeds were calculated. The calculation of the maximum load is based
on the sum of the passengers on board the vehicles of all the journeys examined per line
segment separately. In Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) the indicator was calculated on the
basis of the number of passengers per run and the number of offered seats per run, by
introducing a formula in which a quadratic relationship between the indicator and the
ratio of the number of passengers to the number of offered seats is hypothesized; the
indicator has values close to 10 when the number of passengers is small, and to 0 when
the number of passengers is equal to or higher than the number of available seats. An
indicator of the load factor is proposed by the TCRP Report 100 (Transportation
Research Board, 2003b), which provides separate Level-of Service thresholds for bus
and rail. Passenger load LoS is based on two measures: passengers per seat when all
passengers can sit, and standing passenger area, when some passengers must stand or
when a vehicle is designed to accommodate more standees than seated passengers.
The common indicator linked to air conditioning on bus can be calculated on the basis
of the percentage of vehicles with functioning climate control systems; the indicator can
be calculated as the ratio of the number of buses with the functioning air conditioning
system to the total number of buses used for the line; a trained checker could verify the
functioning of the air conditioning in different days of the same time period. Similarly,
Nathanail (2008) evaluates the train temperature on the basis of the existence of airconditioning. Specifically, the grade attributed to the trains is calculated as the
proportion of the wagons equipped with air-conditioning over the total number of
wagons, multiplied by 10. Therefore, a value of 10 or 0 is given to a train when all or
not of its wagons, respectively, are equipped with air-condition. Intermediate grades are
given to the intermediate conditions.
Nathanail (2008) also introduces an indicator regarding seat comfort measured by
trained checker in terms of seat-back slope, seat width, and available leg distance, as
compared to the desired values. Grade 10 is given when desired values have been
measured, 0 when they fall below the lowest threshold values selected by the operator,
and intermediate values are given to intermediate cases.
Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) propose a methodology for evaluating the availability of
furniture at bus stop based on a score assigned to each line stop on the basis of the
various available amenities (e.g. shelter or benches, or both, et cetera). The indicator
varies from a minimum value of 0 to a maximum value of 10; the minimum value was
assigned to the stops without any kind of furniture; the maximum value to the stops with
all the furniture identified in a previous step.
4.5 Cleanliness.
The indicators regarding cleanliness refer to the physical condition of vehicles and
facilities, and specifically the cleanliness of the bus interior and exterior, having buses
and shelters clean of graffiti, cleanliness of seating and windows, and so on. Clean

12

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

buses tend to promote a good public image and help to attract and maintain ridership
(Transportation Research Board, 1995b).
In TCRP synthesis 12 (Transportation Research Board, 1995b) specific
recommendations regarding transit practice which could be performed by transit
agencies on cleaning functions are reported. These functions include exterior washing,
interior cleaning, detailed cleaning, and graffiti removal and protection. In reference to
the bus exterior washing a daily frequency is recommended; also periodic detailed
cleaning is recommended, although a specific frequency is not suggested. Detailed
cleaning functions are typically scheduled during off-peak hours such as midday or late
evenings.
Every transit agency performs the cleaning of bus interiors on a daily basis, even if
only to remove coarse refuse such as bottles and newspapers. As a consequence, transit
agencies could perform periodic detailed cleaning of the entire bus, which includes the
interior. Depending on the agency, detailed cleaning is performed monthly, quarterly, or
annually; the level of detailed cleaning depends on how much is daily done as part of
the service line function.
Lastly, transit agencies could adopt specific precautions to prevent graffiti and
vandalism from occurring; graffiti cleaning and removal procedures could be defined.
As an example of the indicators regarding cleanliness the frequency of interior
cleaning and exterior washing can be calculated. Standard values of interior cleaning
and exterior washing services per week can be assumed by referring to the TCRP
synthesis 12 (Transportation Research Board, 1995b).
4.6 Safety and security.
The aspect linked to safety indicates the degree of safety from crime or accidents and
the feeling of security resulting from psychological factors; therefore, this aspect refers
not only to safety from crimes while riding or at bus stops and from accidents, but also
to safety related to the behaviour of other persons and to the bus operation. Generally,
the term safety is used to indicate the possibility of being involved in a road accident,
while the term security refers to the possibility of becoming the victim of a crime.
Safety during a journey may be considered as a not very relevant aspect in the modal
choice decision; in fact, the probability of being involved in an accident or becoming
the victim of a crime is not explicitly considered as a part of the choice mechanism.
However, when explicitly queried about the importance of safety, this factor is given an
extremely high rating of importance (Solomon et al., 1968). These findings are
confirmed by Iseki and Taylor (2008) in their study about safety and security at stops,
and by Eboli and Mazzulla (2010) who explicitly investigated safety and security on
board.
In Nathanail (2008), safety during the trip was defined as the number of passenger
fatalities, owing to the responsibility of the transit operator. Passenger fatalities are
collected and retained by the operator for the year of analysis, and compared to the
average number of fatalities in the last five years. Grade 0 is given in case that the
fatalities of the current year are higher than double the five-year average, and 10 grade
when the fatalities are less than the five-year average; intermediate grades are
proportionally assigned to intermediate cases. Also in Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) the
indicator concerning safety and competence of drivers was calculated on the basis of the
number of road accidents verified during the last year, but this value was compared with

13

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

a standard value equal to the average number of road accidents verified during the last
three years. Analogously, the indicators of the service aspect regarding security against
crimes on board and at bus stops were calculated on the basis of the number of
complaints registered during the last year, and compared with the average number of
complaints registered during the last three years.
4.7 Fare.
The service aspect regarding fare includes characteristics of the monetary cost of the
journey by bus, like the cost of a one-way ride, the cost of a transfer, the availability of
discounted fares (e.g. for students), the availability of volume discounts (e.g. for
monthly passes), the cost of parking at bus stops.
There is an extensive literature supporting the thesis that costs affect mode choice
behaviour of travellers. On the other hand, many studies about the attitudes toward
transportation system alternatives found that the monetary travel cost does not constitute
a salient factor in the modal-choice decisions. As an example, Wallin and Wright (1974)
concluded that cost does not play a major role in the choice of a transportation mode,
whereas Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007) stated that public transport is generally
perceived as cheaper than car and monetary cost does not appear as a key factor for
changing to public transport, with the exception of the users with low income, who
consider travel cost as a very important aspect.
In Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) the average one-way ticket cost was adopted as
indicator regarding ticket cost. The authors considered standard values corresponding to
the average cost of the tickets for different typologies of service adopted by transit
agencies operating in similar territorial contexts characterized by high standards of
transit service quality.
4.8 Information.
Another service aspect affecting transit service quality is linked to the availability of
information pertinent to the planning and execution of a journey. Passengers need to
know how to use transit service, where the access is located, where to get off in the
proximity of their destination, whether any transfers are required, and when transit
services are scheduled to depart and arrive. Without this information, potential
passengers will not be able to use transit service (Transportation Research Board,
2003a). Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007) found that several respondents think that the
bus system is difficult to use and information is difficult to obtain; among bus users, the
main problem occurs when bus companies change timetables or routes and do not
provide enough information to users. In recent years, many transit agencies have taken
steps for increasing and improving transit service information. These steps reflect the
growing awareness among transit agency managers that service information is important
to transit users and can be effectively used to increase ridership by retaining existing
riders and potentially attracting new riders to the transit system (Transportation
Research Board, 1996). For designing and preparing information materials which will
meet the needs of all transit customers, TCRP report 45 (Transportation Research
Board, 1999a) could be of interest to schedulers, transit planners and others. Ideally,
passenger information should be available at every stage of the riders transit trip. Pretrip information helps the rider to plan routes and connections. Pre-trip information

14

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

needs consist of the location of the nearest bus stop, routes that travel to the desired
destination and transfer locations, fare, time of departure, and approximate duration of
the trip. In-transit information assists the rider at each decision point during the trip. Intransit information needs consist of the identification of the correct bus to board at the
departure point; identification of bus stops for transfers or disembarking on the bus;
how to transfer to another route at transfer points; cost, time limits, and restrictions;
identification of the correct bus to board; area geography (i.e., location of the final
destination in relation to the bus stop); return trip information at the destination (e.g.,
departure times and changes in route numbers). Supportive/confirming information
repeats and reinforces data and decisions; it should be provided at any point during the
trip when the rider may want to be reassured that he/she is progressing correctly and not
getting lost.
Nathanail (2008) proposes an indicator of the passenger information during the trip,
graded by a trained checker, depending on the type and quality of information provided
at five, arbitrarily selected, stations along a train itinerary. The average grade of all five
stations is used as the itinerary grade.
In Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) an indicator of the attribute availability of
schedule/maps on bus, and announcements was calculated as the ratio of the number of
vehicles with functioning information device on board to the total number of vehicles
sampled in a certain time period; a trained checker verifies the functioning of the
information devices on different days. In addition, an indicator of the attribute
availability of schedule/maps at bus stops was evaluated on the basis of a score
assigned to each stop of a line, from a minimum value of 0 to a maximum value of 10.
The minimum value was assigned to the stops without any kind of information device at
the stop; the maximum value to the stops with schedule and maps. The indicator was
calculated as average value of the scores assigned to all the line stops. Similar indicators
can be calculated by considering other user information devices; TCRP Synthesis 17
(Transportation Research Board, 1996) provides a useful review of the types and tools
of information at bus stops, with an indication of the relative costs.
4.9 Customer care.
Customer care includes those elements needed to make easier and more pleasant the
journey, like courtesy and knowledge of drivers, courtesy and helpfulness of ticket
agents, personnel appearance, together with elements linked to the easiness of
purchasing tickets or paying fare, presence and condition of the ticket issuing and
validation machines, and effectiveness of the ticket selling network.
In Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) personnel appearance was evaluated by means of
trained checkers who verified if personnel use the uniform. An indicator was proposed
as the ratio of the number of uniformed staff to the total staff number. Personnel
helpfulness was evaluated by means of a mystery rider who verified the behaviour of
the personnel and assigned a score to each personnel unit, according to a scale from 0 to
10. In the same research work the authors propose an indicator for evaluating the ease of
purchasing the ticket by taking into account the only opportunity of purchasing the
tickets on bus by a manual operator or automatic ticket machines. This indicator was
calculated as the ratio of the number of vehicles with functioning automatic ticket
machines to the total number of vehicles sampled in the period of data gathering. A

15

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

trained checker verified the functioning of the automatic ticket machines in different
days of the same time period.
Tyrinopoulos and Aifadopoulou (2008) introduce an indicator aiming to access the
sufficiency and effectiveness of the ticket selling network and the easiness to purchase
tickets. For each selling point mystery-shoppers collect some data regarding tickets
availability, existence of the special indication informing customers about availability of
tickets, position and visibility of the indication. This information can be used for
calculating the percentage and location of the selling points that do not have tickets to
sell, and of the selling points having special and clearly visible indication.
4.10 Environmental impacts.
The service aspect regarding the impacts of the bus systems on the environment
includes effects in terms of emissions, noise, visual pollution, vibration, dust and dirt,
odour, waste, but also effect of vibrations on road and natural resources consumption in
terms of energy or space. In the scientific literature, there is a considerable amount of
models and procedures which allow the effects of the transport systems to be quantified,
especially in terms of pollution and noise. In order to obtain some indicators one can
refers to the well-known literature of the specific sector.
Most simply, the service aspect regarding environmental protection could be
evaluated by considering the use of ecological vehicles, and the ratio of the number of
vehicles in keeping with the CE 2001/27/CEE regulation to the total number of vehicles
needed for the line can be proposed as indicator, as well as the regulation regarding
vehicle noise emissions can be taken into account.

5. General findings
Some interesting considerations emerge from the review provided in the proposed
research work. Firstly, there are some service quality aspects which were very much
investigated in the scientific literature, such as service availability and reliability, and
some aspects less analysed, such as customer care and environmental protection. A
reason for which some service aspects are less investigated than others is linked to the
easiness to find data for calculating the indicators; as an example, the most qualitative
aspects are less easily measurable because of the difficulty of finding appropriate data
and indicators for expressing the quality of the service aspects. There are some sources
of data which more easily offer the information for calculating the indicators. As an
example, automated data are usually quickly and efficiently collected, but they should
be also characterized by a certain accuracy, precision, and repeatability. For this reason,
automated collection methods are not always the best way to collect data. In fact, some
objective measures of transit performances are more appropriately calculated from other
different sources of data, such as manual data provided by operators, dedicated trained
checkers or field supervisors.
Each service quality aspect depends on different factors, and each factor can be
analysed by various indicators. In the scientific literature, there is an extensive
collection of measures for evaluating transit service quality. There are indicators used
for evaluating service factors which are more quantitative and indicators measuring
factors having a qualitative disposition. By considering the indicators analysed in this

16

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

work, we can distinguish between usual and unusual, easily and hardly measurable,
simple and complex, single and composite, traditional and innovative indicators.
There are indicators more usually adopted by the transit agencies for evaluating and
monitoring their performances; on the other hand, other indicators are less used. As an
example, line path is traditionally evaluated in terms of travel speed; other less usual
indicators of this service factor are linked to the itinerary accuracy or directness.
The most easily measurable indicators are represented by the measures based on more
available data. These measures generally refer to the aspects which more properly
describe the service, such as service frequency and service span, simply measured on
the basis of the number of offered runs or the number of service hours, respectively.
Less easily measurable indicators refer to more qualitative aspects, like comfort on
board, for which a very appropriate parameter is difficult to be found.
Some indicators are expressed by simple mathematical formulations (e.g. the ratio of
passengers to offered seats); others have a more complex formulation, such as the
indicator proposed for calculating the load factor on board.
Some service aspects are properly evaluated by single indicators characterized by an
only one parameter. An example is represented by safety which essentially depends on
the number of road accidents. Sometimes composite indicators, made up of more single
indicators, can be conveniently adopted to take into account more features of the same
service aspect. As an example, service reliability, which is commonly measured in
terms of on-time performance, headway regularity and running time adherence, can be
more effectively measured through a composite indicator obtained by combining all the
three single indicators.
Some indicators are more traditional, while others can be considered more innovative,
such as the indicator regarding seat comfort measured by trained checker in terms of
seat-back slope, seat width, and available leg distance.
The selection of the most appropriate parameters for evaluating the level of quality of
a service aspect is a very important issue. In fact, some typologies of data and/or
parameters provide more reliable and unbiased indicators, while some parameters could
be not very appropriate for giving the real level of service quality of an aspect. As an
example, the quality of the service factor linked to the air conditioning on board can be
measured by verifying the presence on board of the climate control devices; however, a
more appropriate measure could be derived by making use of a trained checker or a
mystery rider who verifies the level of temperature on board by providing a measure of
service quality which should be more oriented to the customer need and linked to the
users tastes.
Some problems are linked to the definition of the standards. Specifically, for some
parameters standard values are not well defined or not available. Several times standard
values are not established according to regulations; in these cases target values used by
the main transit agencies can be adopted. Future research could be oriented to the
definition of the standards for indicators for which a standard has not been established
yet.
Given the wide variety of indicators, there is need to explore the applicability and
appropriateness of the different types of performance measures for the different types of
services (local versus express services, grid versus feeder). As a consequence, transit
agencies should select indicators and standards that accurately depict performance level,
in order to develop or update a performance measurement programme.

17

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

In the USA specific manuals and handbook, developed starting from research
programmes supported by important research institutions, have been adopted as
guidelines for evaluating transit service quality; on the contrary, in the EU countries,
and specifically in Italy, there is lack of regulations and necessity to arrange univocal
procedures for service quality measurement. However, an attempt was made by the
European Committee for Standardization which establishes some criteria for
encouraging the benchmarking among transit agencies, public transit practitioners and
policy makers.

6. Some conclusive considerations

Service quality measure in general represents an essential tool for focusing transit
agencies on their strategic goals of improving the delivered transit services. The
scientific literature provides an extensive collection of measures for evaluating transit
service quality. This research work has focused on the objective indicators. We retain
that these indicators provide a quite reliable and realistic measure of the quality levels of
a service. In fact, these measures, compared to the subjective indicators based on
customers perceptions, have the advantage of giving clearer and less biased
information. However, sometimes there can be the difficulty of objectively measuring
some more qualitative aspects and the risk of using not appropriate standard or target
values. Despite of passengers perceptions are considered as fundamental for evaluating
a transit service, also subjective measures have some disadvantages linked to the
heterogeneity of users judgments and also the risk that users could have distorted
opinions of the service.
Starting from these considerations, we can retain that both subjective and objective
measures are necessary for evaluating the performance of a transit service. More effort
could be made by the researchers in the analysis of the two types of indicators and in
their combination, with the aim to provide a more useful and reliable measurement tool
of transit performance.

References
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. (1990) Five imperatives for improving
service quality, Sloan Management Review Summer, pp. 9-38.
Beiro, G., Sarsfield-Cabral, J.A. (2007) Understanding attitudes towards public
transport and private car: A qualitative study, Transport Policy 14 (6), pp. 478-489.
Bickel, P., Friedrich, R., Link, H., Stewart, L., Nash, C. (2006) Introducing
Environmental Externalities into Transport Pricing: Measurement and Implications,
Transport Reviews 26 (4), pp. 389-415.
Carter, D.N., Lomax, T.J. (1992) Development and Application of Performance
Measures for Rural Public Transportation Operators, Transportation Research
Record 1338, pp. 28-36.
Cirillo, C., Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2011) On the Asymmetric User Perception of
Transit Service Quality, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5 (4),
pp. 216-232.
Dalton, D., Nestler, J., Nordbo, J., St. Clair, B., Wittwer, E., Wolfgram, M. (2000)

18

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

Transportation Data and Performance Measurement, Proceedings from the 26th

Annual Meeting on Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and
Agency Operations, Irvine, October 29-November 1.
Deakin, E. (2001) Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transportation: Strategies
for Economic Prosperity, Environmental Quality, and Equity, Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, UC Berkeley, IURD Working Paper Series.
Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 30 dicembre 1998, (1999)Schema
generale di riferimento per la predisposizione della carta dei servizi pubblici del
settore trasporti (Carta della mobilit), G.U. n. 26 del 2 febbraio 1999.
Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2008) An SP Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in
Public Transport, Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (5), pp. 509-523.
Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2010) How to capture the passengers point of view on a
transit service through rating and choice options, Transport Reviews 30 (4), pp. 435450.
Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2011) A methodology for evaluating transit service quality
based on subjective and objective measures from the passengers point of view,
Transport Policy 18 (1), pp. 172-181.
El-Geneidy, A., Horning, J. and Krizek, K.J. (2007) Using Archived ITS Data to
Improve Transit Performance and Management, Minnesota Department of
Transportation Research Services Section.
EU Transport RTD programme (1998) Quality Approach in Tendering/contracting
Urban Public Transport Operations (QUATTRO), Final Report.
EU Transport RTD programme (2000) Extending the quality of public transport
(EQUIP), Final Report and its Annex: Practical Handbook.
EU Transport RTD programme (2003) Promotion of results in transport research and
learning (PORTAL), Final Report.
European Committee for Standardization (2002) Transportation-logistics and servicespublic passenger transport-service quality definition, targeting and measurement.
Fielding, G.J. (1987) Managing Public Transit Strategically: A Comprehensive
Approach to Strengthening Service and Monitoring Performance, Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Gudmundsson, H. (2001) Indicators and performance measures for Transportation,
Environment and Sustainability in North America, Report from a German Marshall
Fund Fellowship 2000 individual study tour October 2000, Research Notes n. 148,
National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde.
Hartgen, D.T., Tanner, G.H. (1970) Individual attitudes and family activities: a
behavioral model of modal choice, High Speed Ground Transportation Journal 4,
pp. 439-467.
Hellenic Institute of Transport (2003) Handbook for the implementation of the quality
control system of OASA, Stage 2 Final Report of the Project: An Integrated System
for the Quality Assessment of the OASA Passenger Services.
Hellenic Institute of Transport (2005) Application manual of the service and
performance indicators, Stage 2 Final Report of the Project: An Integrated Quality
Control System for the Public Transport Services in Thessaloniki.
Hensher, D.A. (2007) Bus Transport: Economics, Policy, and Planning, JAI Press, NY.
Hensher, D.A. and Prioni, P. (2002) A service quality index for area-wide contract
performance assessment regime, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 36 (1),
pp. 93-113.

19

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

Iseki, H., Taylor, B.D. (2008) Style versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions
of Transit Stops and Stations in Los Angeles, Transportation Research Board,
Proceedings from the 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 13-17.
Friman, M., Fellesson, M. (2009) Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation: The Quality Paradox, Journal of Public Transportation 12 (4), pp.
57-69.
Kimpel, T.J. (2001) Time point-level analysis of transit service reliability and passenger
demand, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland.
Lin, J., Wang, P., Barnum, D.T. (2008) A quality control framework for bus schedule
reliability, Transportation Research 44 (E), pp. 1086-1098.
Litman, T. (2009) A Good Example of Bad Transportation Performance Evaluation,
Working paper, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Meyer, M. (2000) Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured At Least According to
Conventional Wisdom, Transportation Research Board - Proceedings from the 26th
Annual Meeting on Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and
Agency Operations, Irvine, October 29-November 1.
Nakanishi, Y.J. (1997) Bus performance indicators. On-time performance and service
regularity, Transportation Research Record 1571, pp. 3-13.
Nash, A.N., Hille, S.J. (1968) Public attitudes toward transport modes: a summary of
two pilot studies, Highway Research Record 233.
Nathanail, E. (2008) Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the hellenic
railways, Transportation Research 42 (A), pp. 48-66.
Nocera, S. (2010) An Operational Approach for the Evaluation of Public Transport
Services, Ingegneria Ferroviaria 64 (4), pp. 363-383.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. (1985) A conceptual model of service
quality and its implication for future research, Journal of Marketing 49, pp. 41-50.
Rienstra, S.A. and Vleugel, J.M. (1995) Options for sustainable passenger transport: an
assessment of policy choices, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Serie Research
Memoranda/VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen
en Econometrie, Amsterdam.
Solomon, K.M., Solomon, R.J. and Sillien, J.S. (1968) Passenger psychological
dynamics: sources of information on urban transportation, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York.
Strathman, J.G., Kimpel, T.J., Callas, S. (2003) Headway deviation effects on bus
passenger loads: Analysis of Tri-Mets archived AVL-APC Data, Center for Urban
Studies, Portland.
Strathman, J.G., Kimpel, T.J., Dueker, K.J. (1999) Automated Bus Dispatching,
Operations Control, and Service Reliability Transportation Research Record 1666,
pp. 28-36.
Transportation Research Board (1965) Highway capacity manual, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1994) The Role of Performance-Based Measures in
Allotting Funding For Transit Operations, TCRP Synthesis 6, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1995a) Bus Route Evaluation Standards, TCRP
Synthesis 10, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1995b) Transit Bus service Line and Cleaning
Functions, TCRP Synthesis 12, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

20

European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 51, Paper n 3, ISSN 1825-3997

Transportation Research Board (1996) Customer Information at Bus Stops, TCRP

Synthesis 17, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1997) AVL systems for bus transit. A Synthesis of
Transit Practice, TCRP Synthesis 24, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1999a) Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook
for Transit Systems, TRCP Report 45, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (1999b) A handbook for measuring customer
satisfaction and service quality, TRCP Report 47, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (2000) Data analysis for bus planning and monitoring,
TCRP Synthesis 34, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (2003a) A guidebook for developing a transit
performance-measurement system, TCRP Report 88, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (2003b) Transit capacity and quality of service
manual, TCRP Report 100, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (2004a) Bus Routing and Coverage, TRCP Report 95,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board (2004b) Performance-Based Measures in Transit Fund
Allocation. A Synthesis of Transit Practice, TCRP Synthesis 56, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
Turnquist M, Blume S. (1980) Evaluating potential effectiveness of headway control
strategies for transit systems, Transportation Research Record 746, pp. 25-29.
Tyrinopoulos, Y., Aifadopoulou, G. (2008) A complete methodology for the quality
control of passenger services in the public transport business, European Transport
38, pp. 1-16.
Tyrinopoulos, Y., Antoniou, C. (2008) Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and
policy implications, Transport Policy 15 (4), pp. 260-272.
Vuchic, V.R. (2007) Urban Transit: Systems and technology, Wiley, New York.
Wallin Rex, J., Wright, P.H. (1974) Factors which influence modal choice, Traffic
Quarterly 28, pp. 271-289.
Wachs, M. (1976) Consumer attitudes towards transit service: An interpretive review,
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 42 (1), pp. 96-104.
Wilson, N., Nelson, D., Palmere, A., Grayson, T.H., Cederquist, C. (1992) Service
quality monitoring for high frequency transit lines, Transportation Research Record
1349, pp. 3-11.
Zak, J. (2011) The methodology of multiple criteria decision making/aiding in public
transportation, Journal of Advanced Transportation 45, pp. 1-20.

21