Performance of Urban Public Transportation Networks

Introduction

Urban structures and everyday life modifications have influenced mobility practices in the last decade, mainly characterized by broadening travel needs (Van Audenhove et al., 2014). Public transportation (PT) and non-motorized travel are increasingly considered mandatory components of the sustainable development of cities (COM, 2020; Veryard & Perkins, 2018). Moreover, the pandemic of Covid-19 has hugely impacted learning and working conditions, with significant consequences on the daily mobility pattern and concerns about safety travelling (Das et al., 2021; Vickerman, 2021). Therefore, the PT system must be constantly adapted to new requirements to ensure the social, environmental, and urban planning objectives.

Especially in the last period, statistics show low PT performances in European cities (Eurostat, 2021). In addition to the competition with private car usage, PT is a community service that must be supplied quasi-permanently, not only in peak periods. Despite the increased operating deficit, the socio-economic relevance of PT in time and space is unquestionable. It is essential to provide methods for adequate sizing of the PT supply, e.g., the social role of public transportation is recognized, but from an environmental point of view, is it justified to operate a bus on a line for an average of 5 passengers/hour? The answers to this category of questions need correct definitions of PT tasks. Additionally, appropriate methods for assessing the relationships between the effectiveness of public policies and PT efficiency must be available to decision-makers.

Although the term performance is frequently applied in the transport sector, it is utilized for different meanings. The concept most often refers to the quality/price ratio, which integrates the sense of efficiency rather than effectiveness (from a socio-economic point of view). Generally, public policies consider a set of performance measures based on specific objectives at the administrative level. Three main categories of indicators are notable (D'Arcier, 2012):

• •

  Indicators for Socio-Economic Effectiveness measure the benefits of public policies for citizens; they reflect citizens' viewpoints (e.g., reducing congestion, reducing pollution, enhancing the urban environment, etc.).

• •

  Indicators for Service Quality assess the improvement of PT attributes perceived by users (the viewpoint of users).

• •

  Indicators for Efficiency aim at the optimum of the consumed resources function of the supplied offering (the viewpoints of operators and funding authorities).

The assessment of public transport performances, depending on the implemented operating technologies, is essential for increasing its attractiveness to users. Additionally, public transport operators must identify solutions for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the service. The service functions and public transport performance indicators result from the correlated examinations of the public transport system (infrastructures, vehicles, implemented technologies, offered services), mobility system (the assembly of mobility demands and offerings in an area) and specific urban structure and shape. The factors that determine the performance of an urban public transport network are synthesized based on the links between commercial efficiency and the main goals of the public transport system – social, environmental, and urban planning.

This chapter discusses the particularities of PT effectiveness and efficiency. To properly understand the necessary actions for sustainable mobility, the PT functions and their linked criteria for performance evaluations are explained. Mainly, it is emphasized that the correlation between effectiveness and efficiency must be clarified to avoid the simplicity and inaccuracy of assessing the component lines of a PT network. The presented criteria and indicators constitute a basis for guiding the management actions of a PT system.