2016Journal of Public TransportationOpen access

Exploring Diversified Performance Indicators for Evaluating Non-Urbanized Transit Program Outcomes

Eunice V. Akoto

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Non-urbanized (rural) transit goals include the ability to use available government funds to provide adequate and efficient transportation services while increasing mobility and accessibility. However, outcomes of these goals cannot be examined exclusively with the “traditional” transit performance indicators that are more conducive to urban systems. This study explores diversified indicators—namely, efficiency, effectiveness, and mobility constructs for evaluating program outcomes of non-urbanized transit systems—using Mississippi’s Section 5311 program as the case. The study examined how Section 5311 providers met their program goals during the implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) using paired sample t-tests and time-series with linear trend analysis. The results suggest that mobility indicators better communicate positive outcomes of transit goals within the unique rural transit environment. Using service characteristics data as mobility indicators to supplement the traditional performance reporting may motivate continuous investment in non-urbanized transit programs at different levels government.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Non-urbanized (rural) transit goals include the ability to use available government funds to provide adequate and efficient transportation services while increasing mobility and accessibility. However, outcomes of these goals cannot be examined exclusively with the “traditional” transit performance indicators that are more conducive to urban systems. This study explores diversified indicators—namely, efficiency, effectiveness, and mobility constructs for evaluating program outcomes of non-urbanized transit systems—using Mississippi’s Section 5311 program as the case. The study examined how Section 5311 providers met their program goals during the implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) using paired sample t-tests and time-series with linear trend analysis. The results suggest that mobility indicators better communicate positive outcomes of transit goals within the unique rural transit environment. Using service characteristics data as mobility indicators to supplement the traditional performance reporting may motivate continuous investment in non-urbanized transit programs at different levels government.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Non-urbanized (rural) transit goals include the ability to use available government funds to provide adequate and efficient transportation services while increasing mobility and accessibility. However, outcomes of these goals cannot be examined exclusively with the “traditional” transit performance indicators that are more conducive to urban systems. This study explores diversified indicators—namely, efficiency, effectiveness, and mobility constructs for evaluating program outcomes of non-urbanized transit systems—using Mississippi’s Section 5311 program as the case. The study examined how Section 5311 providers met their program goals during the implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) using paired sample t-tests and time-series with linear trend analysis. The results suggest that mobility indicators better communicate positive outcomes of transit goals within the unique rural transit environment. Using service characteristics data as mobility indicators to supplement the traditional performance reporting may motivate continuous investment in non-urbanized transit programs at different levels government.

Key concepts: Equity (law), Transit (satellite), Public transport, Business, Transport engineering, Government (linguistics), Investment (military), Performance indicator

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Exploring Diversified Performance Indicators for Evaluating Non-Urbanized Transit Program Outcomes — Research Paper | ScholarLens