Abstract
Under a maximum welfare objective, a fixed route bus system and a flexible route bus system are optimized subject to various financial constraints. For each bus system, the decision variables including fare, headway, route spacing, and service zone area are optimally solved to analyze unconstrained, break-even and subsidy cases. Numerical results and sensitivity analysis are presented in the paper. From the numerical evaluation, it is shown that the effects of subsidies on welfare are quite different for a fixed route bus system versus a flexible route bus system. For the fixed route bus system, the optimal welfare curve is very flat over a wide range of subsidies. However, for the flexible route bus system, the break-even constraint causes a large loss in the social welfare. Thus, with the welfare maximization objective, the break-even policy or low transit subsidy policy may be preferable for the fixed route bus system, but not for the flexible route bus system. The results derived from this study can support effective decision-making on bus transit systems in areas that may experience significant shifts in residential density, as well as geographic or physical changes in their street networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bly PH, Oldfield RH (1986) An analytic assessment of subsidies to bus services. Transp Sci 20(3): 200–212
Chang SK, Schonfeld PM (1993) Welfare maximization with financial constraints for bus transit systems. Transp Res Rec 1395: 48–57
Clarens GC, Hurdle VF (1975) An operating strategy for a commuter bus system. Transp Sci 9(1): 1–20
Gwilliam KM, Nash CA, Mackie PJ (1985) Deregulating the bus subsidy in Britain—(B) the case against. Transp Rev 5(2): 105–132
Hurdle VF, Wirasinghe (1980) Location of rail stations for many to one travel demand and several feeder modes. J Adv Transp 14(1):29–45
Jansson K (1993) Optimal public transport price and service frequency. J Transp Econ Policy 27: 33–50
Karlaftis MG, McCarthy PS (1997) Subsidy and public transit performance: a factor analytic approach. Transportation 24: 253–270
Kocur G, Hendrickson C (1982) Design of local bus service with demand equilibration. Transp Sci 16(2): 149–170
Lee YJ, Vuchic VR (2005) Transit network design with variable demand. J Transp Eng 131(1): 1–10
Oldfield RH, Bly PH (1988) An analytic investigation of optimal bus size. Transp Res 22((5): 319–337
Pucher J (1983) Who benefits form transit subsidies? Recent evidence from six metropolitan areas. Transp Res 17((1): 39–50
Stein DM (1978) Scheduling dial-a-ride transportation systems. Transp Sci 12(3): 232–249
Tsiaton P (1997) User economies of scale bus subsidy in adelaide. Econ Rec 73(223): 329–347
Vaughan R (1986) Optimum polar networks for an urban bus system with a many-to-many travel demand. Transp Res 20(3): 215–224
Vuchic VR, Newell GF (1968) Rapid transit interstation spacing for minimum travel time. Transp Sci 2(4): 359–374
Wirasinghe SC (1980) Nearly optimal parameters for a rail/feeder-bus system on a rectangular grid. Transp Res 14(1): 33–40
Zhou Y (1999) Subsidy and bus transit system optimization. Unpublished Term Paper, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper was presented at the 46th annual meeting of Western Regional Science Association in Newport Beach, California, 21–24 February 2007.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, Y., Kim, H.S., Schonfeld, P. et al. Subsidies and welfare maximization tradeoffs in bus transit systems. Ann Reg Sci 42, 643–660 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0177-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0177-8