Subsidy and public transit performance: A factor analytic approach

The need to measure and evaluate transit system performance has led to the development of numerous performance indicators. However, depending upon the indicator, we oftentimes reach different conclusions regarding transit system performance. The research reported in this paper uses factor analytic methods to generate a set of underlying attributes (factors) that capture the performance of public transit systems in Indiana. Similar to what is reported in the literature, this study finds three attributes that best describe transit system performance: efficiency, effectiveness, and overall performance. Based upon systemsÕ factor scores, the study finds that systems scoring highly on one attribute generally perform well on the remaining attributes. Further, there is an inverse relationship between system performance and subsidies, a finding that supports performance based subsidy allocations.

[1]  A R Tomazinis,et al.  A STUDY OF EFFICIENCY INDICATORS OF URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS , 1977 .

[2]  J. Pucher.  URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES IN WESTERN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA , 1988 .

[3]  R. Oldfield,et al.  The effects of public transport subsidies on demand and supply , 1986 .

[4]  Kofi Obeng,et al.  The effect of policy and background variables on total factor productivity for public transit , 1990 .

[5]  Wayne K. Talley,et al.  A SINGLE MEASURE FOR EVALUATING PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS , 1982 .

[6]  R. Cattell.  The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[7]  A. Markstedt,et al.  IMPACTS OF SUBSIDIES ON THE COSTS OF URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT , 1983 .

[8]  J. Loehlin.  Latent variable models , 1987 .

[9]  E K Morlok,et al.  THE COMPARATIVE COSTS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF MASS TRANSIT , 1985 .

[10]  S. C. Anderson.  THE EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND SUBSIDY ON PERFORMANCE : EVIDENCE FROM THE BUS TRANSIT INDUSTRY , 1983 .

[11]  F. Webster,et al.  Effects of subsidies on urban public transport , 1980 .

[12]  W C Underwood.  PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: A NECESSARY MANAGEMENT TOOL? , 1979 .

[13]  Gordon J. Fielding,et al.  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[14]  G J Fielding,et al.  Distribution and allocation of transit subsidies in California , 1976 .

[15]  J. Stevens.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[16]  Gordon J. Fielding,et al.  Performance indicators for transit management , 1978 .

[17]  D. Pickrell.  RISING DEFICITS AND THE USES OF TRANSIT SUBSIDIES IN THE UNITED STATES , 1985 .

[18]  A. B. Winn,et al.  THE ROLE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MEASURES IN ALLOCATING FUNDING FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS , 1994 .

[19]  A. R. Tomazinis,et al.  Study of efficiency indicators of urban public transportation systems. Final report , 1977 .

[20]  Jae-On Kim,et al.  Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues , 1978 .

[21]  Matthew Georgios Karlaftis.  On the cost structure, efficiency and productivity of mass transit systems , 1996 .

[22]  Gordon J. Fielding,et al.  PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR BUS TRANSIT , 1985 .

[23]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[24]  J. Berechman.  Public transit economics and deregulation policy , 1993 .

[25]  R. Cervero.  Examining The Performance Impacts of Transit Operating Subsidies , 1984 .

[26]  R. Cervero.  Cost and performance impacts of transit subsidy programs , 1984 .

[27]  David J. Forkenbrock,et al.  TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATION , 1979 .

[28]  E K Morlok,et al.  VARIATIONS IN DRIVER WAGE RATES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSPORT COST REDUCTION , 1983 .

[29]  J. Pucher.  URBAN PASSENGER TRANSPORT IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIES. PART 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT, OVERALL COMPARISONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , 1995 .

[30]  Anthony R. Tomazinis.  Productivity, efficiency, and quality in urban transportation systems , 1975 .