Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analytical models for comparing operational costs of regular bus and semi-flexible transit services

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The provision of public transit services is essential to provide citizens with an improved quality of life. The most popular fixed route bus service (FRBS) is intended to serve a large population along with fixed stops, routes, and schedules. However, in low demand conditions, bus transit operators pay a high cost per passenger to maintain the desired level of service. A demand-responsive transit (DRT) is a commonly discussed transportation solution for serving low passenger demand. Although the conventional DRT system offers a shared-ride door-to-door service to passengers, its implementation is challenging and expensive during peak hours. The present study suggests a form of transit system that combines the rigidity of FRBS and flexibility of DRT to operate in low demand routes. This defined category of transit service is referred to as semi-flexible transit (SFT) system. The proposed SFT service is delivered along the fixed bus route and a limited number of fixed stops based on a flexible schedule to meet passenger requests. The defined SFT system offers reduced operating time and higher vehicle utilization. The study considers an operation of the proposed SFT service for two types of service delivery systems: Contract-Out Taxi Service (COTS), and In-House Paratransit Service (IHPS). A methodology is proposed to develop analytical models describing operational costs of regular FRBS, COTS, and IHPS as a function of demand or annual ridership. Operating cost models are proposed as a decision support tool to enable transit planners to determine the passenger demands along the route at which it is justifiable to “switch” from FRBS to the SFT system to minimize the total cost of operation. Further, the analysis results for FRBS indicate that operating costs are strongly related to vehicle-service hours and for SFT services to average vehicle occupancy rate and deadheading time. Applications of the proposed models and analysis method are demonstrated for a low demand route in the City of Regina.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas KA, Abd-Allah MH (1999) Estimation and assessment of cost allocation models for main transit systems operating in Cairo. Transp Rev 19:353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/014416499295448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldaihani MM, Quadrifoglio L, Dessouky MM, Hall R (2004) Network design for a grid hybrid transit service. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 38:511–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt JE (2010) Potential cost savings from taxi paratransit programs. 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED 2010). Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation (HKSR), Hong Kong, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Cayford R, Yim YB (2004) Personalized demand-responsive transit service. United States, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherwony W, Mundle S (1980) Transit cost allocation model development. J Transp Eng 106:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia D (2008) TCRP Synthesis 74: policies and practices for effectively and efficiently meeting ADA paratransit demand. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CUTA (2015) Canadian transit fact book, 2015 operating data. Canadian Urban Transit Association, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Daganzo CF (1978) An approximate analytic model of many-to-many demand responsive transportation systems. Transp Res 12:325–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(78)90007-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessouky M, Palmer K, Abdelmaguid T (2003) Benchmarking best practices of demand responsive transit systems. Richmond, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Diana M, Quadrifoglio L, Pronello C (2009) A methodology for comparing distances traveled by performance-equivalent fixed-route and demand responsive transit services. Transp Plan Technol 32:377–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060903119618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards D, Watkins K (2013) Comparing fixed-route and demand-responsive feeder transit systems in real-world settings. Transp Res Rec 2352:128–135. https://doi.org/10.3141/2352-15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis EH (2016) Use of taxis in public transportation for people with disabilities and older adults. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Enoch M, Potter S, Parkhurst G, Smith M (2006) Why do demand responsive transport systems fail? In: Transportation research board 85th annual meeting, 22–26 Jan 2006. Washington DC, United States, Washington DC, United States

  • Feigon S, Murphy C (2016) TCRP research report 188: shared mobility and the transformation of public transit. Washington, D.C.

  • Fittante SR, Lubin A (2015) Adapting the Swedish service route model to suburban transit in the United States. Transp Res Rec 2536:52–59. https://doi.org/10.3141/2536-07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwill JA, Carapella H (2008) Creative ways to manage paratransit costs: final report, July 2008 [summary]. National Center for Transit Research (US), Florida, US

  • Gupta D, Chen H-W, Miller LA, Surya F (2010) Improving the efficiency of demand-responsive paratransit services. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 44:201–217. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6292410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häll CH, Lundgren JT, Voß S (2015) Evaluating the performance of a dial-a-ride service using simulation. Public Transp 7:139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0101-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman SM, Smith A, O’Connell J, Marulli D (2016) Intelligent paratransit. Tech. rep., Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, New York University, New York, United States

  • KFH Group I (2008) Guidebook for measuring, assessing, and improving performance of demand-response transportation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koffman D (2004) Operational experiences with flexible transit services, TCRP Synthesis 53. Washington, D.C.

  • Li X, Quadrifoglio L (2009) Optimal zone design for feeder transit services. Transp Res Rec 2111:100–108. https://doi.org/10.3141/2111-13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Quadrifoglio L (2010) Feeder transit services: choosing between fixed and demand responsive policy. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 18:770–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2009.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Quadrifoglio L (2011) 2-Vehicle zone optimal design for feeder transit services. Public Transp 3:89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-011-0040-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers EJ, Burger MJ (2010) Spatial structure and productivity in US metropolitan areas. Environ Plan A 42:1383–1402. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navick DS, Furth PG (2002) Estimating passenger miles, origin-destination patterns, and loads with location-stamped farebox data. Transp Res Rec 1799:107–113. https://doi.org/10.3141/1799-14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navidi Z, Ronald N, Winter S (2018) Comparison between ad-hoc demand responsive and conventional transit: a simulation study. Public Transp 10:147–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0173-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nourbakhsh SM, Ouyang Y (2012) A structured flexible transit system for low demand areas. Transp Res Part B Methodol 46:204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer K, Dessouky M, Abdelmaguid T (2004) Impacts of management practices and advanced technologies on demand responsive transit systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 38:495–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer K, Dessouky M, Zhou Z (2008) Factors influencing productivity and operating cost of demand responsive transit. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 42:503–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2007.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts JF, Marshall MA, Crockett EC, Washington J (2010) A guide for planning and operating flexible public transportation services. Washington, D.C.

  • Qiu F, Li W, Haghani A (2015a) A methodology for choosing between fixed-route and flex-route policies for transit services. J Adv Transp 49:496–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu F, Shen J, Zhang X, An C (2015b) Demi-flexible operating policies to promote the performance of public transit in low-demand areas. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 80:215–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quadrifoglio L, Li X (2009) A methodology to derive the critical demand density for designing and operating feeder transit services. Transp Res Part B Methodol 43:922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quadrifoglio L, Dessouky MM, Ordóñez F (2008) Mobility allowance shuttle transit (MAST) services: MIP formulation and strengthening with logic constraints. Eur J Oper Res 185:481–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.12.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimi M, Amirgholy M, Gonzales EJ (2018) System modeling of demand responsive transportation services: evaluating cost efficiency of service and coordinated taxi usage. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 112:66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rufolo AM, Kuhner E, Peng Z (1996) Assessment of demand responsive versus fixed-route transit service: Tri-Met case study. Tech. rep., Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, Portland, U.S.

  • Statistics Canada (2016) The changing landscape of Canadian metropolitan areas. Statistics Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor B, Chin R, Melanie C et al. (2015) Special Report 319: Between public and private mobility: examining the rise of technology-enabled transportation services. Washington, D.C.

  • Tsay S, Accuardi Z, Schaller B, Hovenkotter K (2016) Private mobility, public interest: how public agencies can work with emerging mobility providers. Tech. rep., TransitCenter, New York, United States

  • Tsygalnitsky S (1977) Simplified methods for transportation planning. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte M (2008) Dependence on cars in urban neighbourhoods. Can Soc Trends 85:20–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Turmo V, Rahimi M, Gonzales EJ, Armstrong P (2018) Evaluating potential demand and operational effects of coordinated Americans with disabilities act paratransit and taxi service. Transp Res Rec 2672:686–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118796732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle D, Eaton K (2012) Optimizing accessible taxi service to augment traditional public transit services in delaware. Delaware, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuchic VR (2017) Urban transit: operations, planning, and economics. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Wirasinghe SC, Kattan L, Saidi S (2018) Optimization of demand-responsive transit systems using zonal strategy. Int J Urban Sci 22:366–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2018.1431144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Cherry CR, Zaretzki R et al. (2016) A GIS-based method to identify cost-effective routes for rural deviated fixed route transit. J Adv Transp 50:1770–1784. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the City of Regina for providing the data needed for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, 66 Chancellors Cir, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

    Babak Mehran & Sushreeta Mishra

  2. City of Calgary, Building Q, Manchester Centre, 655 25 Ave SE, Calgary, AB, T2G 4K8, Canada

    Yongzhe Yang

Authors
  1. Babak Mehran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yongzhe Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sushreeta Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Babak Mehran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mehran, B., Yang, Y. & Mishra, S. Analytical models for comparing operational costs of regular bus and semi-flexible transit services. Public Transp 12, 147–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00222-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00222-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation