Performance Optimization of Public Transport Using Integrated AHP–GP Methodology

Abstract

The State Road Transport Undertakings (SRTUs) are the economic providers of mass transport in India. The institutional constraints imposed on the SRTUs result in low productivity and inefficiency. In this fiercely competitive environment, the state-owned public transport industry cannot operate sustainably, showing mediocre performance. With relatively scarce financial resources, high political expectations, and competition between operators, the efficiency and performance of the industry must be improved by optimizing the available resources. In this study, an integrated analytical hierarchy process–goal programming technique considering both operators’ and users’ perceptions is used for performance optimization. The methodology starts with the selection of various performance indicators, considering both operators’ and users’ perceptions. The decision variables are then categorized into user-oriented and operator-oriented. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a multicriteria decision-making tool, is then used to evaluate the decision variables and calculate their weights to be used as penalties in goal programming (GP). Pairwise comparison of decision variables on the AHP rating scale was carried out by experts associated with bus transportation and academia. This was used to assign weights to the variables to denote their priority based on their importance. Then, these weights were assigned to the objective function of the GP problem to find a solution that minimizes the weighted sum of deviations from the goal values. As a case study, performance optimization of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was undertaken. Twelve decision variables were identified, by taking into account both user and operator perceptions, viz. controllable costs, noncontrollable costs, taxes, staff per bus ratio (fleet operated), safety, accessibility, regularity, load factor, fleet utilization, percentage of dead kilometers to effective kilometers, journey speed, and percentage of cancelled kilometers to scheduled kilometers. The perceived importance of each of these decisive factors from both the users’ and operators’ perspectives was obtained from the experts and prioritized using the AHP. The results indicated that operator cost and staff per schedule were the most important variables for the operators, while safety of travel had the highest weighting according to the users’ perceptions. The optimal solution indicated that increasing the accessibility, safety, and regularity would attract passengers to public transport, which would in turn improve the load factor and influence operators to maximize fleet utilization and reduce cancellation of schedules. Moreover, the solution also suggested that decreasing the staff per bus would further reduce the operating cost. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was carried out to identify the impact of variations in the decision variables on the performance of the system. The presented method could be used for performance evaluation and optimization of urban rail, metro, and various other public transport systems.

Keywords

Performance optimization / Analytical hierarchy process / Goal programming / Public transport

References

[1] Working Group on Urban Transport (2012) Final report. National Transport Development Policy Committee. New Delhi. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India

[2] Pérez JC, Carrillo MH, Montoya-Torres JR. Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review. Ann Oper Res, 2015, 226: 69-87

[3] Wu L, Xia H, Cao X, Zhang C, Dai C. Research on quantitative demand of underground space development for urban rail transit station areas: a case study of metro line 1 in Xuzhou, China. Urban Rail Transit, 2018, 4: 257-273

[4] Ambrasaite I, Barfod MB, Salling KB. MCDA and risk analysis in transport infrastructure appraisals: the Rail Baltica case. Proc Social Behav Sci, 2011, 20: 944-953

[5] Murugesan R, Ramamoorthy NV. Performance optimization of state transport undertaking integrating the user and operator perceptions. Indian Highw, 2001, 29: 11-20.

[6] Gleason JM, Barnum DT. Toward valid measures of public sector productivity: performance measures in urban transit. Manag Sci, 1982, 28: 379-386

[7] Famurewa SM, Stenström C, Asplund M, Galar D, Kumar U. Composite indicator for railway infrastructure management. J Mod Transp, 2014, 22: 214-224

[8] Karlaftis MG, Tsamboulas D. Efficiency measurement in public transport: are findings specification sensitive?. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 2012, 46: 392-402

[9] Kelley WJ, Rutherford GS (1983) Transit system performance evaluation methodology for Washington State (No. WA-RD-57.1 Final Rpt.)

[10] He L, Liang Q, Fang S. Challenges and innovative solutions in urban rail transit network operations and management: China’s Guangzhou metro experience. Urban Rail Transit, 2016, 2: 33-45

[11] Chen L, Yu R. Research on performance evaluation of urban public transport based on DEA competing cross efficiency. Adv Eng Res, 2016, 72: 465-470.

[12] Karlaftis MG. A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. Eur J Oper Res, 2004, 152: 354-364

[13] Li J, Chen X, Li X, Guo X. Evaluation of public transportation operation based on data envelopment analysis. Proc Social Behav Sci, 2013, 96: 148-155

[14] Sampaio BR, Neto OL, Sampaio Y. Efficiency analysis of public transport systems: lessons for institutional planning. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 2008, 42: 445-454

[15] Venkatesh A, Kushwaha S. Short and long-run cost efficiency in Indian public bus companies using data envelopment analysis. Socio Econ Plan Sci, 2018, 61: 29-36

[16] Lao Y, Liu L. Performance evaluation of bus lines with data envelopment analysis and geographic information systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst, 2009, 33: 247-255

[17] Vaidya OS. Evaluating the performance of public urban transportation systems in India. J Public Transp, 2014, 17(174): 191

[18] Tsai CHP, Mulley C, Merkert R. Measuring the cost efficiency of urban rail systems an international comparison using DEA and tobit models. J Transp Econ Policy, 2015, 49: 17-34.

[19] Yeh CH, Deng H, Chang YH. Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies. Eur J Oper Res, 2000, 126: 459-473

[20] Sun Y, Zhang C, Dong K, Lang M. Multi-agent modelling and simulation of a physical internet enabled rail-road intermodal transport system. Urban Rail Transit, 2018, 4: 141-154

[21] Aydin N, Celik E, Gumus AT. A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 2015, 77: 61-81

[22] Wey WM, Wu KY. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource allocation in transportation. Math Comput Model, 2007, 46: 985-1000

[23] Jones DF, Tamiz M. Gandibleux X. Goal programming in the period 1990–2000. Multiple criteria optimization: state of the art annotated bibliographic surveys, 2003, Boston: Springer 129-170

[24] Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ, 1998, 56: 199-212

[25] Lee CW, Kwak NK. Information resource planning for a health-care system using an AHP-based goal programming method. J Oper Res Soc, 1999, 50: 1191-1198

[26] Lee JW, Kim SH. Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput Oper Res, 2000, 27: 367-382

[27] Ho HP, Chang CT, Ku CY. On the location selection problem using analytic hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming. Int J Syst Sci, 2013, 44: 94-108

[28] Saaty TL. Transport planning with multiple criteria: the analytic hierarchy process applications and progress review. J Adv Transp, 1995, 29: 81-126

[29] Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 1994, 24: 19-43

[30] Annual Audit Report 2014–2015 (2015) Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

[31] Annual Audit Report 2015–2016 (2016) Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

[32] Economic Review-2016 (2017) Final report. State Planning Board. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

[33] Report of the Sub-Group of State Road Transport Undertakings (2012) Working group on road transport, planning commission, New Delhi, Government of India