International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

Sustainability Evaluation of Rapid Routes for Buses

with a Network DEA Model

Jin-Seok Hahn Ph.D., Seung-Young Kho Ph.D., Keechoo Choi Ph.D. & Dong-
Kyu Kim Ph.D.

To cite this article: Jin-Seok Hahn Ph.D., Seung-Young Kho Ph.D., Keechoo Choi Ph.D. & Dong-
Kyu Kim Ph.D. (2017): Sustainability Evaluation of Rapid Routes for Buses with a Network DEA
Model, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2017.1302022

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302022

Accepted author version posted online: 10

Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 14 March 2017, At: 18:59
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sustainability Evaluation of Rapid Routes for Buses with a Network DEA Model

Jin-Seok Hahn, Ph.D.

Research Fellow, Division of Atmospheric Environment, Korea Environment Institute

370 Sicheong-daero, Sejong, 30147, Korea

Phone: +82-44-415-7809, Fax: +82-44-415-7799, E-mail: jshahn@kei.re.kr

Seung-Young Kho, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University

1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Korea

Phone: +82-2-880-1447, Fax: +82-2-873-2684, E-mail: sykho@snu.ac.kr

Keechoo Choi, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Transportation Engineering, Ajou University

5 Woncheon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Korea

Phone: +82-31-219-2538, E-mail: keechoo@ajou.ac.kr

Dong-Kyu Kim, Ph.D. (corresponding author)

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National

University

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Adjunct Professor, Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National

University

1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Korea

Phone: +82-2-880-7348, Fax: +82-2-873-2684, E-mail: dongkyukim@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

This study establishes a network data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to evaluate the

sustainability of public transportation services targeting rapid routes for buses in the Seoul

metropolitan area. A network DEA-based optimization model is formulated to evaluate the

sustainability of the public transportation service. By considering public transportation services

from the both operators’ and users’ perspectives, this model produces results that reflect the

interaction of three sustainable transport service properties, i.e., efficiency, equity, and

environmental impacts. It is identified that the expansion of median bus lanes and the conversion

of conventional buses into compressed natural gas vehicles could improve the sustainability of

the public transportation services in the Seoul metropolitan area. Some limitations and future

research agenda also are presented.

Keywords

sustainability evaluation, rapid routes for buses, network data envelopment analysis (DEA)

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the concept of sustainable (or green) transportation has become a new paradigm that offers

efficient, equitable, and pro-environment transport services, it is expected that any sustainable

transport system should provide mobility and accessibility to all users in a safe and

environmentally-friendly mode of transport. With that in mind, many projects and/or initiatives

have been developed and implemented around the world with a reasonable set of sustainability

indicators. While there have been many studies related to the evaluation of the sustainability of

transportation services, most of them have focused on reviewing and arranging suitable indices

for their concerns. As mentioned by Cornel and Mirela (2008), the indicators used in traditional

models measured changes in one part as if they were entirely independent of changes in the other

parts. Sustainability indicators should reflect the interaction of three key factors of sustainable

transport service, i.e., efficiency, equity, and the environment (López and Monzón, 2010).

In the transportation sector, as asserted by Stag and Gifford (2005) in their article entitled

“Sustainable transportation and quality of life,” these kinds of interactions are very important,

and, especially, any evaluation of sustainability in the transportation sector also should consider

both the operators and the users. Therefore, an expanded scope of analysis is needed to switch

from external aspects, such as the transportation system, to internal aspects, such as the

transportation service.

The goal of this study can be summarized as:

(1) Evaluation of the sustainability of rapid routes for buses in the Seoul metropolitan area;

(2) Development of an approach to estimate the sustainability of rapid routes for buses using

a network data envelopment (DEA) model.

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This approach includes the provision of transport services and their usage because it

considers the detailed aspects of both operators and users. While evaluating the performance in

the transportation sector, it is worth noting that a transportation service cannot be stored, so the

output consumed (the final output), such as total riders, may vary considerably from the output

produced (the intermediate output), such as vehicle-km. However, as mentioned by Färe and

Grosskopf (2000), the traditional DEA model cannot consider the intermediate output. They also

showed the differences in the structures of the traditional DEA model and the network DEA

model. This is why we chose to use a network DEA model in this study. The research process of

this paper is shown in Figure 1.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the sustainability of the transportation sector. In

2007, Yu and Wen (2010) used the DEA model to evaluate the sustainability of the transportation

systems in 46 Chinese cities. They also used the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) to evaluate

changes in sustainability between 2006 and 2007, and the influential factors were found to be

GDP per capita, the scale of the cities, and the structure of industry.

Jeon et al. (2010) evaluated the sustainability of the Atlanta transportation system using

the multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process. Yoshino et al. (2010) proposed the

environmental efficiency (EE) model, which expands the concept of the data envelopment

analysis cost-efficiency model. They considered the application of this model to

environmentally-sustainable transportation policies.

Shen et al. (2011) evaluated the productivity of road transportation in the 27 member

states of the European Union using the DEA model. They also measured the change in

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

productivity from 1995 to 2007 using the MPI. Li et al. (2013) evaluated the performance of bus

routes within a public transportation system using a revised DEA method and sensitivity analyses

of indexes.

Li et al. (2016a) assessed the efficiencies of seven bus companies in Nanjing City based

on 2009 and 2010 datasets using an enhanced DEA model with constrained fuzzy-Analytic

Hierarchy Process(AHP) cones. Li et al. (2016b) evaluated the efficiency of integrated transport

in China’s provinces over the period 1988-2009 based on the DEA model.

Fielding et al. (1985) proposed the performance evaluation for bus transit framework

which is composed of input, output, and consumption of three elements. These elements can be

combined into three generalized efficiency indicators, i.e., cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, and

service effectiveness. Hendrickson et al. (2006) evaluated the performance of U.S. transportation

service sectors using 1992 and 1997 benchmark input-output models. Potter (2007) used a

formula to calculate environmental impact in order to evaluate the sustainability of the

transportation system by estimating the CO2 emissions from vehicles used for personal

transportation in the future.

Crotte et al. (2009) used time series and panel co-integration techniques to estimate the

effects that fares, income, quality of service, and fuel prices have on the demand for the Mexico

City metro. Shiau and Jhang (2010) extended the framework proposed by Fielding et al. (1985)

to five generalized efficiency indicators to cope with transport sustainability measurement, i.e.,

cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, service effectiveness, service reduction, and service impact.

In addition to these earlier studies, many studies have considered the indices of

sustainable transportation (Kang and Kim, 2000; Hong, 2002; Lee, 2003; Hwang and Song,

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2004; Kim, 2005; Kyeon, 2005). Kao (2014) reviewed some studies of the network DEA model

by examining the network DEA models used and the structures of the network system of the

problem being studied. Castillo and Pitfield (2010) suggested a framework for identifying and

selecting a small subset of sustainable transport indicators, ELASTIC. They demonstrated the

ELASTIC with an application to the English Regions, UK.

Tang and Lo (2008) reviewed the factors that contributed to the changes in Hong Kong’s

transportation policy and their successful implementation, and they emphasized the importance

of taking into account ongoing sustainability in transport policy. Their study was related to the

suggestion of a political plan for developing a sustainable transportation system, and many

studies have addressed the progress that has been made on this subject (Barker, 2005; Hidalgo

and Graftieaux, 2008; Boschmann and Kwan, 2008; Loo and Chow, 2008; Shay and Khattak,

2010; Wachs, 2010; Debnath et al., 2011; Buehler and Pucher, 2011; Dash and Balachandra,

2016; Li et al., 2016c; Piña and Martínez, 2016; Umer et al., 2016).

Chen (2016) investigated the interrelationships of group-level service quality, customer

satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for bus passengers in Taiwan through a hierarchical linear

modeling technique. De Oña et al. (2016) proposed a structural equation model for investigating

on the relationship among some aspects influencing passengers’ behavioral intentions towards

the use of transit services. Many other studies also focus on investigation of quality in bus

service (de Oña and de Oña, 2015; Racehorse et al., 2015; Kurtulmuşoğlu et al., 2016; Wu et al.,

2016).

As mentioned above, most of the studies have focused on selecting evaluation indices

for urban transportation systems. However, Steg and Gifford (2005) proposed a different

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

evaluation framework to address the sustainability of transportation services from the

perspectives of both the user and the operator.

Kim (2008) and Jeon et al. (2010) conducted studies to consider the three aspects of

efficiency, equity, and the environment when evaluating sustainability. However, it was difficult

to ensure appropriate temporal and spatial transferability with the results of their studies, because

the former was based on expert surveys, and the latter was based on subjective weight values.

To overcome these limitations and to decrease the variability of the results, an objective

and robust statistical model is needed that can consider a variety of properties of a sustainable

transport service. Among them, we used three sustainability indicators, i.e., efficiency, equity,

and the environment, proposed by López and Monzón (2010) to evaluate the rapid routes for

buses from the perspectives of both operators and users. These indicators can evaluate the three

efficiency indicators of transport sustainability such as cost efficiency, service effectiveness, and

service impact among five efficiency indicators proposed by Shiau and Jhang (2010).

From the model side, only three studies considered the DEA model for the evaluation of

sustainability (Yu and Wen, 2010; Yoshino et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2011). These studies

evaluated both efficiency and environmental issues or only undesirable issues in their

sustainability analysis; equity issues were not addressed in these studies. Thus, further

consideration of the equity aspect is important to make the entire evaluation procedure more

sound and acceptable.

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. THE MODEL

In this section, we describe the statistical data used to develop the network DEA model. A

multiple regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between inputs and outputs.

Based on the results of the analysis, the proposed network DEA model was formulated.

3.1 Data

The city of Seoul has an area of 605 km 2 and a population of more than 10 million. Five

hundred and ninety-three bus routes are being operated and bus transport constitutes more than

27% of all journeys. Among them, this study evaluated the sustainability of 110 rapid routes for

buses based on data collected in 2009.

We classified outputs into operator outputs (intermediate outputs) and user outputs (final

outputs) based on the findings of Fielding et al. (1985). We also matched the final outputs with

three sustainable transport service properties based on the findings of Hahn et al. (2011a, 2011b).

Hahn et al. (2011a) constructed a network DEA model considering both desirable and

undesirable outputs. Also, Hahn et al. (2011b) performed an equity analysis of feeder bus routes

using a modified BCC model.

The final desirable outputs, i.e., total riders (TR) and equity estimates (EEs), reflected the

efficiency and the equity aspects of the rapid transit routes, and the final undesirable output, i.e.,

air pollution cost (APC), reflected the environmental aspect of rapid routes for buses, the

intermediate outputs, i.e., vehicle-km (VK) and travel speed (TS), the inputs, i.e., total

transportation costs (TTC), the ratio of stops of median bus lanes to all bus stops (MBL), and the

ratio of compressed natural gas vehicles to the total fleet of vehicles (CNG), and exogenous

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

factors, i.e., population (POP) and the number of registration vehicles (RV), were collected by

the Department of Transportation of the City of Seoul.

The data on bus stops were provided by the operation center called Transportation

Operation and Information Service (TOPIS), which is operated by the city of Seoul. We

computed the cost of the final undesirable output of air pollution (APC) using the emission

factors of air pollutants (CO, HC, NOX, PM, and CO2) provided by the guidelines published by

National Institute of Environment Research (NIER), which is under the umbrella of the Ministry

of Environment, 2007). We also computed the unit costs of each air pollutant, as suggested by

the guidelines and manuals published by the Korea Development Institute (Korea Development

Institute, 2008). Table 1 shows the unit costs of each air pollutant. Some other studies also have

provided the unit costs of each air pollutant (Markandya, 1998; European Commission, 1999;

Holland and Watkiss, 2000), but these unit costs for APC could not be used because they did not

reflect the characteristics of the air pollutants in Korea.

We used the standard deviation suggested by Hahn et al. (2011b) to estimate the equity

estimates of routes (EEs), as expressed in Equation (1).

m
2
EEi tij t / m 1 , (1)
j 1

where:

EEi = the equity estimates of route i

tij = the bus users against frequency in zone j through which route i passes

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

t = the average bus users against frequency in the overall zone j through which route i

passes

m = the number of zones j that are on route i

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the data used in this study. Most previous studies that

have employed DEA model to evaluate the performance of but transit utilized labor, capital, and

fuel as inputs and the number of passengers and vehicle-km as outputs. In addition to these

variables, we considered several elements in relation to the equity and environment.

3.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Unlike the traditional DEA model, the network DEA model can consider internal or linking

activities of DMUs because the model reflects their disaggregated inputs and outputs (Tone and

Tsutsui, 2009). To identify the relationship between inputs and outputs, a multiple regression

analysis was used to modify the network DEA model, and the sustainability of the analysis target

was evaluated. The results of these relationships are summarized in Figure 2. In case of outputs

that are affected by exogenous factors (POP, RV, DV), we performed the reverse two-stage

method (Barnum et al., 2008) to eliminate these factors. Table 3 shows the results of the multiple

regression analysis. As can be observed, all of the coefficients are statistically significant at the

5% significance level, and all of the adjusted R-squares of the estimated regression models were

greater than 0.8.

Based on the results provided in Table 3, the exogenous factors, DV and POP, were

correlated with the final undesirable output (EE) and the intermediate output (VK), respectively.

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We used the reverse two-stage method to eliminate these factors, as expressed in Equations (2)

and (3).

6
EEadjust EE 1.065 10 DV (2)

VK adjust VK 4.350 POP (3)

The traditional DEA model cannot reflect the desirable input or undesirable output

because this model only allows the sustainability of DMUs to improve as input elements

decrease or output elements increase. Therefore, the data were transformed in this study, such

that MBL and CNG of the desirable inputs were increased, and the EE and APC of the final

undesirable outputs were decreased. These transformations did not influence the calculated

efficiency or inefficiency obtained from the DEA model (Seiford and Zhu, 2002). The

descriptive statistics of the adjusted data are listed in Table 4.

3.3 Model Formulation

The proposed network DEA model is formulated in Equations (4) - (11) based on the network

DEA model suggested by Hahn et al. (2011a). This model can consider the output of efficiency

(TR), the output of equity (EE), and the output of the environment (APC) separately to estimate

the sustainability scores of each rapid routes for buses, and we can evaluate the sustainability of

the public transportation service using these scores. In addition, the sustainability scores

estimated by the proposed model can reflect internal or linking activities for the process of

producing DMUs, and this model considers the operator- and user-oriented outputs of the rapid

routes for buses sequentially, so we can estimate sustainability scores that represent the supply

and consumption process of the transportation service.

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3 shows the proposed network DEA model for evaluating the sustainability of the

rapid routes for buses. The proposed model differs from the model suggested by Hahn et al.

(2011a) in that it uses the air pollution costs of various air pollutants as an undesirable output and

the ratio of CNG vehicles to fleets of vehicles as an input that affects the undesirable output.

Furthermore, the correlations of inputs with outputs are different from those in Hahn et al.

(2011a) due to our consideration of equity estimates.

Equation (4) is the objective function that minimizes the sustainable scores. The most

sustainable rapid routes for buses satisfies the condition that the value of is equal to 1.0.

Equation (5) is the input (TTC, MBLadjust, CNGadjust) constraint for intermediate (VKadjust, TS) or

final outputs (TR, EEadjust, APCadjust), and Equation (6) gives the output constraint for

intermediate outputs. Equation (7) is the intermediate output constraint for the final desirable

outputs (TR, EEadjust). These equations do not have the sustainability score k in the right-side

term. Equations (8) and (9) are output constraints for the final desirable and final undesirable

outputs (APCadjust), respectively. As shown in Equation (10), variable returns to scale are

assumed for all intermediate and final outputs. The intermediate and desirable final outputs are

assumed to exhibit strong disposability, while the undesirable outputs are assumed to exhibit

weak disposability. The traditional radial approach was used to measure the sustainability of the

rapid routes for buses. The DEA model can measure of efficiency with different characteristics,

i.e., radial and non-radial. In the radial approach, if a DMU has two inputs, the input-oriented

DEA model aims at obtaining the maximum rate of reduction with the same proportion. Seiford

and Zhu (2002) give radial measures which assume that the efficiency can be improved via

increasing the desirable outputs and decreasing the undesirable outputs

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Min k (4)

subject to

ji λ j
x ab b
xkiabθk , i, a, b, (5)
j 1

jm λ j
y ab a
ykm
ab
, m, a, b, (6)
j 1

jm λ j
y ab b
ykm
ab
, m, a, b, (7)
j 1

jf λ j
z ab a
zkfab , f , a, b, (8)
j 1

jf λ j
z ab a
zkfab , f , a, b, (9)
j 1

n
λcj 1, c, (10)
j 1

λcj 0, c, (11)

where:

k = the optimal solution of input-oriented network DEA model with DMU k

ji = the amount of an input i of a bus rapid route j from node a to node b

x ab

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

jm = the amount of an intermediate output m of a bus rapid route j from node a to node
y ab

jf = the amount of a final output f of a bus rapid route j from node a to node b
z ab

λcj = the coefficient of determination of node c of a bus rapid route j

4. RESULTS

4.1 Results of Sustainability Scores

The sustainability scores of 110 rapid routes for buses in the 2009 Seoul metropolitan area were

estimated by the proposed network DEA model, and they are shown in Table 5. The results

indicate that 36 routes were operated and managed sustainably (sustainability score of 1.0), and

the average of the sustainability scores estimated by the proposed model was approximately 0.6.

Route 720, for example, was the poorest route from the sustainability viewpoint, and a solution is

urgently required to improve sustainability. The standard deviation of the sustainability score was

0.303, indicating the existence of significant disparities in sustainability among the routes.

Table 6 shows the sustainability and efficiency scores of the analysis target, and the

equity and environmental scores were classified into seven Seoul districts and Gyeonggi

Province, which make up the Seoul Metropolitan Area. All areas were designated based on the

departure location of the bus route. District 2 in Seoul had the highest average sustainability and

environmental scores, whereas Gyeonggi Province had the highest average efficiency and equity

scores.

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7 shows the input element rates that each route should reduce or increase to

improve its sustainability score. On average, TTC should be reduced by 44%, while MBL and

CNG should be increased by 220 and 118%, respectively. Additionally, Table 8 shows the

average rate of inputs that must either be increased or decreased to increase the sustainability of

the analysis target. These results showed that district 4 in Seoul had the highest reduction rate

according to the needs of TTC and the highest increase rate according to the needs of MBL,

whereas Gyeonggi Province had the highest rate of increase according to the needs of CNG.

4.2 Analysis of Determinant Factors

We used a Tobit regression model (Tobin, 1958; Amemiya, 1973; Buckley and James, 1979;

Breen, 1996; Green, 1997) to investigate the influential determinant factors on sustainability

scores because DEA sustainability scores are censored above 1.0. The sustainability score

computed from the proposed network DEA model was used as the dependent variable, and the

efficiency, equity, and environment scores were used as independent variables.

Table 9 shows the result of the Tobit regression analysis using the sustainability score as

the dependent variable and the efficiency, equity, and environment scores as the independent

variables. Table 10 shows the results of the Tobit regression analysis using input factors as

independent variables. The results show a satisfactory level of statistical significance. The

influences of efficiency, equity, and environmental scores on the sustainability of rapid routes for

buses in the metropolitan areas were shown to be similar.

Therefore, a new method of operating that acknowledges the divergence of equity and

environment indices must be developed and implemented. Additionally, among the inputs that

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

influenced sustainability, TTC was the most influential factor, which means reasonable cost-

saving measures are necessary for the operators of the metropolitan rapid routes for buses.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

To establish a development strategy for sustainability in the transportation sector, it is necessary

to lay the groundwork to gather details and make precise evaluations about the current

transportation status. To accomplish such groundwork, this study, focusing on 110 rapid routes

for buses in the Seoul metropolitan area, collected data and formulated a network DEA model to

evaluate the sustainability of the Seoul BRT system and its services.

The proposed model reflects the relationships between outputs by sharing common

intermediate outputs. The model also considers sequentially the operator- and passenger-oriented

outputs in order to reflect the non-storable nature of the public transportation service, which

means that the service is not stored irrespective of whether or not it is used up. The proposed

model can provide the representative criteria required to assess the sustainability of rapid routes

for buses. In summary, 33% of the total analysis target reached the level of full sustainability,

and the average sustainability score was 0.628, meaning that there is still some room for

improvement in the future. A review of the average rate of increase and decrease of inputs to

meet sustainability targets showed that the TTC could be decreased by an average of 44%,

whereas MBL and CNG were required to increase by 220 and 118%, respectively.

After conducting a Tobit regression analysis to analyze the determinants for the

sustainability of the analysis target, the most significant determining factor on the sustainability

of DMUs was the environmental index, whereas the influence of the TTC was found to be the

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

highest of the inputs. Based on these results, an effective sustainability policy plan for the

poorest analysis target should be prepared to make the entire system even more sustainable. In

addition, a new operation method that considers equity and the environment is required,

diverging from the previous operation method, which emphasizes only efficiency. We also have

shown that, to enhance sustainability, reasonable cost-saving measures for the TTC must be

formulated and implemented from the outset.

This study differs from previous studies in that it established a network DEA model to evaluate

the sustainability of the public transportation service, targeting rapid routes for buses. The

authors suggested an index to judge the sustainability of the analysis target by using the model.

With additional consideration of various inputs and outputs based on this empirical model, we

can take a more multifaceted approach to future policy planning for attaining a more sustainable

public transportation service.

The proposed model and results can be improved through further research. This study

selected variables based on the findings of Fielding et al. (1985). However, the result of

sustainability scores can be biased depending on the variables that are used. To enhance the

accuracy and reliability of the result of sustainability scores, the optimal variables that can reflect

the sustainability of rapid routes for buses should be investigated. Furthermore, consideration of

the additional efficiency indicators which can evaluate the transport performance such as cost

effectiveness, service reduction will contribute to enhancing the reliability of the sustainability

scores.

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The service quality is particularly one of most important factors to determine the

sustainability of bus service. To enhance the applicability of the developed model, therefore, it is

required to select appropriate factors for measuring the service quality and to include those in the

sustainability evaluation, which is a subject for further research.

Tables 11 and 12 show the characteristics of the roads in the Seoul metropolitan area and

Gyeonggi Province, respectively. The characteristics of the roads in these two areas are different,

and road length per area, road length per capita, road length per automobile, and the number of

lanes, for example, affect the sustainability of buses. Therefore, the sustainability of buses can be

improved by considering the characteristics of the roads in each region.

In order to expand the sustainability of rapid routes for buses based on the results of this

study, several actions can be implemented, e.g., 1) expansion of the median-exclusive bus-lane

system that guarantees a fast speed for buses, 2) establishment of a bus route network in which

arterial buses that connect suburban areas and downtown Seoul and feeder buses that link the

major subway stations or bus terminals in downtown Seoul complement each other to increase

the equity of bus users, and 3) a policy on the dissemination of CNG buses to improve the

environment is necessary in the short term.

Especially, the city of Seoul has a good level of bus transit service but moderate equity

imbalances have been detected. In order to enhance the sustainability of rapid routes for buses, in

some populous districts of the periphery could be adequate to check the current level of bus

service and adapt it to their actual level of need. This finding was confirmed by Jun et al. (2015).

They suggested that rapid routes for buses in the Seoul metropolitan area contributed to increase

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in the probability of choosing transit over automobiles and the accessibility of rapid routes for

buses is an important factor in determining the choice to use the bus.

Moreover, the establishment of a people-centered transportation system by decreasing the

energy consumption from cars and increasing the use of walking and bicycles, for example, are

necessary in the long term.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded

by the Korean government (MSIP) (NRF-2010-0029446). The research was also funded by

Korea Environment Institute project (GP2015-01-02-02). The opinions expressed in the paper,

however, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the

respective agencies.

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

REFERENCES

Amemiya, T., 1973. Regression Analysis When the Dependent Variable Is Truncated Normal.

Econometrica 41:997-1016.

Barker, W.G., 2005. Can a Sustainable Transportation System Be Developed for San Antonio,

Texas?, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1924:120-128.

Barnum, D. T., Tadon, S., and McNeil, S. 2008. Comparing the Performance of Bus Routes after

Adjusting for the Environment Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of

Transportation Engineering, 134:77-85.

Boschmann, E.E. and Kwan, M.P. 2008. Toward Socially Sustainable Urban Transportation:

Progress and Potentials. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2:138-157.

Breen, R., 1996. Regression models; censored, sample selected, or truncated data. SAGE

Publications.

Buckley, J., and James, I., 1979. Linear regression with censored data. Biometrika 66:429-436.

Buehler, R. and Pucher, J., 2011. Sustainable Transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s

Environmental Capital. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5:43-70.

Castillo, H. and Pitfield, D. E., 2010. ELASTIC – A methodological framework for identifying

and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transportation Research Part D 15:179-

188.

Chen, H. K., 2016. Structural interrelationships of group service quality, customer satisfaction,

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and behavioral intention for bus passengers. International Journal of Sustainable

Transportation 10(5):418-429.

Cornel, L., and L. Mirela, 2008. The Quantification of the Sustainable Development at Local

level. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics 5:310-319.

Crotte, A., Graham, D.J., and Noland, R.B., 2011. The Role of Metro Fares, Income, Metro

Quality of Service and Fuel Prices for Sustainable Transportation in Mexico City.

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5:1-24.

Dash, N., and Balachandra, P., 2016. Benchmarking urban sustainable efficiency: a case of

Indian cities. Transportation Research Procedia 14:1809-1818.

Debnath, A.K., Haque, M.M., Chin, H.C, and Yuen, B., 2011. Sustainable Urban Transport:

Smart Technology Initiatives in Singapore. Journal of the Transportation Research

Board 2243:38-45.

De Oña, R. and de Oña, J., 2015. Analysis of transit quality of service through segmentation and

classification tree techniques. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 11(5):365-387.

De Oña, J., de Oña, R., Eboli, L., and Mazzulla, G., 2016.Transit passengers’ behavioural

intentions: the influence of service quality and customer satisfaction. Transportmetrica A:

Transport Science 12(5):385-412.

European Commission, 1999. ExternE-Externalities of Energy, Vol. 10-National Implimentation.

Falcocchio, J. C., 2004. Performance Measures for Evaluating Transportation Systems:

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1895:220-227.

Färe, R. and Grosskopf, S., 2000. Network DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 34:35-49.

Fielding, G. J., Babitsky, T. T., and Brenner, M. E., 1985. Performance Evaluation for Bus

Transit. Transportation Research Part A: General 19A (1):73-82.

Green, W. H., 1997. Econometrics Analysis. Prentice Hall.

Hahn, J. S., Kim, H. R., and Kho, S. Y.2011a, Analysis of the Efficiency of Seoul Arterial Bus

Routes and Its Determinant Factors. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15 (6):1115-

1123.

Hahn, J. S., Kim, H. R., and Kho, S. Y. 2011b, Equity Analysis of Feeder Bus Routes in Seoul

using DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) Model. Journal of Korean Society of

Transportation 29 (2):15-24.

Hendrickson, C., Cicas, G., and Matthews, H.S., 2006. Transportation Sector and Supply Chain

Performance and Sustainability. Journal of the Transportation Research Board

1983:151-157.

Hidalgo, D. and Graftieaux, P., 2008. Bus Rapid Transit Systems in Latin America and Asia:

Results and Difficulties in 11 Cities. Journal of the Transportation Research Board

2072:77-88.

Holland, M. and Watkiss, P., 2000. Beta Version E1.02a Benefits Table Database: Estimates of

the Marginal External Costs of Air Pollution in Europe. National Environmental

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Technology Centre.

Hong, G. S., 2002. Strategies for Sustainable Transportation. Korea Transport Institute.

Hwang, S. K., and Song, S. A., 2004. A Study for the Sustainable Urban Transport System

(Phase 2): The Evaluation of Sustainable Transportation System in Seoul Metropolitan

Area. Korea Transport Institute.

Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A. A., and Guensler, R. L., 2010. Evaluating Plan Alternatives for

Transportation System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. International

Journal of Sustainable Transportation 4:227-247.

Jun, M. J., Choi, K. C., Yu, J. W., and Chung, W. H., 2015. Bus Patronage Change after

Sustainable Bus Reform: A Nested Logit Approach with the Case of Seoul. International

Journal of Sustainable Transportation 9(7):520-528.

Kang, S. M., and Kim, M. S., 2000. Environmental Indices and Development of Index System.

Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.

Kao, C., 2014. Network Data Envelopment Analysis: A Review. European Journal of

Operational Research 239: 1-16.

Kim, D. H., 2008. A Study on the Sustainability Evaluation Indicators and Method on Urban

Traffic. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Kyungwon University, Korea.

Kim, J. S., 2005. A Study on the Evaluation in the Sustainable Transportation of the Seoul

Metropolitan Area by Comparing with Foreign Large Cities. Master’s Thesis, Graduate

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

School of Chung-Ang University, Korea.

Korea Development Institute, 2008. A Study on Standard Guidelines for Pre-feasibility Study on

Road and Railway Projects (5th Edition), Korea Development Institute, Korea.

Kurtulmuşoğlu, F. B., Pakdil, F., and Atalay, K. D., 2016. Quality improvement strategies of

highway bus service based on a fuzzy quality function deployment approach.

Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 12(2):175-202.

Kyeon, Y. S., 2005. A Study on Estimation of Sustainable Transportation in the Metropolitan

Area with Reflected Dwellers’ Intention. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Chung-Ang

University, Korea.

Lee, S. Y., 2003. A Study for the Sustainable Urban Transport System (Phase 1): Land

Development Pattern and Transportation Network System for Energy Saving. Korea

Transport Institute.

Li, J., Chen, X., Li, X., and Guo, X., 2013. Evaluation of Public Transportation Operation Based

on Data Envelopment Analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 96: 148-155

Li, X., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., and Gao, Z., 2016a. Evaluating transit operator efficiency: An

enhanced DEA model with constrained fuzzy-AHP cones. Journal of Traffic and

Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 3(3):215-225.

Li, T., Cao, X., and Yang, W., 2016b. Measuring the Efficiency of Regional Integrated Transport

in China: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation

Engineering 44(1):23-34.

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Li, L., Lei, Y., Pan, D., and Si, C., 2016c. Research on Sustainable Development of Resource-

Based Cities Based on the DEA Approach: A Case Study of Jiaozuo, China.

Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2016:1-10.

Loo, B.P.Y. and Chow, A.S.Y., 2008. Changing Urban Form in Hong Kong: What Are the

Challenges on Sustainable Transportation?, International Journal of Sustainable

Transportation 2:177-193.

López, E., and Monzón, A., 2010. Integration of Sustainability Issues in Strategic Transportation

Planning: A Multi-criteria Model for the Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans.

Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 25:440-451.

Markandya, A., 1998. Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations: the indirect costs and benefits

of greenhouse gas limitations. UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment,

Denmark.

Marsden, G., Kimble, M., Nellthorp, J., and Kelly, C., 2010. Sustainability Assessment: The

Definition Deficit. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 4:189-211.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 2015. Statistical Yearbook of MOLIT 2015,

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Korea.

National Institute of Environment Research, 2007. Air Pollutants Emission Estimation Method,

National Institute of Environment Research, Korea.

Nicolas, J. P., Pochet, P., and Poimboeuf, H., 2003. Towards Sustainable Mobility Indicators:

Application to the Lyons Conurbation. Transport Policy 10:197-208.

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Piña, W.H.A. and Martínez, C.I.P., 2016. Development and Urban Sustainability: An Analysis of

Efficiency Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Sustainability 8(2):148.

Potter, S. 2007. Exploring Approaches Towards a Sustainable Transport System. International

Journal of Sustainable Transportation 1:115-131.

Racehorse, V. J., Zhang, G., Sussman, A., Jian, A., and Parker, T. 2015. Bus rapid transit system

deployment for high quality and cost-effective transit service: a comprehensive review

and comparative analysis. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 9(2):175-183.

Seiford, L. M. and J. Zhu, 2002. Modeling Undesirable Factors in Efficiency Evaluation.

European Journal of Operational Research 142:16-20.

Shay, E. and Khattak, A.J., 2010. Toward Sustainable Transport: Conventional and Disruptive

Approaches in the U.S. Context. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

4:14-40.

Shen, Y., Ruan, D., Hermans, E., Brijs, T., Wets, G., and Vanhoof, K., 2011. Sustainable Road

Transport in the European Union. Journal of the Transportation Research Board

2242:37-44.

Shiau, T. A. and Jhang, J. S., 2010. An integration model of DEA and RST for measuring

transport sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World

Ecology. 17(1): 76-83.

Shin, S. I., Jang, Y. M., Kim, S. G., and Kim, C. S., 2005. Urban Accessibility Index for

Evaluation of Sustainability in Urban Transport System. Journal of Korean Society of

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Transportation. 23(8):31-42.

Steg, L. and R. Gifford, 2005. Sustainable Transportation and Quality of Life. Journal of

Transport Geography 13:59-69.

Tang, S. and Lo, H. K., 2008. The Impact of Public Transport Policy on the Viability and

Sustainability of Mass Railway Transit - The Hong Kong Experience. Transportation

Research Part A 42:563-576.

Tobin, J., 1958. Estimation of Relationship for Limited Dependent Variables. Econometrica

26:24-36.

Tone, K. and M. Tsutsui, 2009. Network DEA: A Slacks-based Measure Approach. European

Journal of Operational Research 197:243-252.

Umer, A., Hewage, K., Haider, H., and Sadiq, R., 2016. Sustainability assessment of roadway

projects under uncertainty using Green Proforma: An index-based approach.

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 2016: In Press.

Wachs, M., 2010. Transportation Policy, Poverty, and Sustainability. Journal of the

Transportation Research Board 2163:5-12.

Wu, J., Yang, M., Rasouli, S., and Xu, C. C., 2016. Exploring Passenger Assessments of Bus

Service Quality Using Bayesian Networks. Public Transportation 19(3):36-54.

Yoshino, D., Fujiwara, A., and Zhang, J., 2010. Environmental Efficiency Model Based on Data

Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to Environmentally Sustainable Transport

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Policies. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2163:112-123.

Yu, Y. and Z. Wen, 2010. Evaluating China’s Urban Environmental Sustainability with Data

Envelopment Analysis. Ecological Economics 69:1748-1755.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 1 Unit Costs of Each Air Pollutant (Korean won/kg)

CO HC NOX PM CO2

8,476 9,851 10,197 33,293 45.6

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 2 Data Description

Standard
Production factors/DMUs characteristics Data Max. Min. Mean
deviation

TR 114 3 45 24
Final Desirable
EE 0.037 0.005 0.020 0.007
outputs
Undesirable APC 10,961 59 2,393 2,242

VK 24,632 1,139 7,012 3,868

Intermediate outputs
TS 46 10 25 7
Production
Undesirable TTC 821 46 304 155
factors
Inputs MBL 0.523 0.010 0.155 0.113
Desirable
CNG 1.000 0.010 0.846 0.244

POP 391 50 213 60

Exogenous factors RV 113 15 66 20

DV 1 0 1 0

OB 52 2 18 9

DMUs characteristics LR 95 7 44 21

FR 313 43 170 56

TR: total riders (in ten thousands/month)

EE: equity estimates

APC: air pollution cost (in ten thousands of Korean won/month)

VK: vehicle-km (veh-km/month)

TS: travel speed (km/h)

TTC: total transportation costs (in millions of Korean won)

MBL: the ratio of stops of median bus lanes to all bus stops (%)

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CNG: the ratio of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to fleet of vehicles (%)

POP: population (in ten thousands)

RV: the number of registration vehicles (in ten thousands)

DV: dummy variables

OB: the number of running buses on the routes (vehicle)

LR: the length of routes (km)

FR: the frequency of running on the routes (frequency)

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 3 Result of the Multiple Regression Analysis

Dependent Independent
Production factors Coefficients t-statistics p-value R2
variable variables

VK 0.002 3.294 0.001

TR 0.88
TS 0.959 4.498 0.000
Desirable
Final VK 0.071 9.142 0.001
EE 0.76
Outputs DV 0.016 14.853 0.000

VK 0.459 17.994 0.000

Undesirable APC 0.87
CNG - 877.134 -3.783 0.000

TTC 19.716 14.205 0.000

VK 0.89
POP 4.350 2.035 0.044
Intermediate outputs
TTC 0.047 9.719 0.000
TS 0.79
MBL 46.262 5.367 0.000

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 4 Descriptive Statistics of the Adjusted Data

Standard
Production Factors Data Maximum Minimum Mean
Deviation

EE 0.037 0.005 0.020 0.007

Desirable
Final EEadjust 0.028 0.010 0.020 0.004
outputs APC 10,961 59 2,393 2,242
Undesirable
APCadjust 10,903 1 8,569 2,242

VK 24,632 1,139 7,012 3,868

Intermediate Outputs
VKadjust 24,488 1 6,585 3,896

MBL 0.523 0.010 0.155 0.113

MBLadjust 0.520 0.007 0.375 0.113

Inputs Desirable
CNG 1.000 0.010 0.846 0.244

CNGadjust 1.000 0.010 0.164 0.244

33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 5 Sustainability Scores of Each Rapid Bus Route

DMU Score DMU Score DMU Score DMU Score DMU Score

101 0.270 149 1.000 340 1.000 571 0.538 721 0.345

102 1.000 151 0.421 341 1.000 602 0.932 730 0.476

103 1.000 152 0.402 362 0.326 603 0.276 750A 0.644

104 0.230 153 1.000 363 0.325 604 1.000 750B 1.000

105 1.000 162 0.667 401 0.455 605 0.358 751 0.318

106 1.000 163 1.000 402 0.224 606 0.279 752 0.422

107 1.000 171 1.000 406 0.265 607 0.506 753 0.212

108 0.414 172 0.625 407 0.353 640 0.241 760 0.374

109 0.210 201 1.000 408 0.358 641 0.434 9401 0.473

110A 0.714 202 0.833 410 0.426 642 1.000 9403 0.389

110B 1.000 240 1.000 420 0.280 643 0.570 9404 0.489

120 0.748 241A 1.000 440 0.323 650 0.313 9408 0.416

130 1.000 241B 1.000 441 0.329 651 1.000 9409 0.929

141 0.454 261 0.383 461 0.625 652 1.000 9503 1.000

142 0.532 262 1.000 462 0.584 661 0.263 9701 0.547

143 0.909 263 0.696 472 0.404 702A 1.000 9703 0.402

144 0.436 271 0.351 501 1.000 702B 0.670 9707 1.000

145 0.437 272 0.342 503 0.253 703 0.431 9708 1.000

146A 1.000 301 0.744 504 0.328 704 1.000 9709 1.000

146B 1.000 302 0.313 505 0.380 706 1.000 9710 0.908

34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

147 0.269 303 1.000 506 0.240 708 1.000 9711 0.766

148 0.317 320 0.289 540 0.480 720 0.208 9714 1.000

# of
Max. 1.000 Min. 0.208 Ave. 0.628 S. D. 0.303 36
“1.0”

35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 6 Average Scores Classified into Seven Seoul Districts and Gyeonggi Province

Average scores from the proposed model

Region District
Sustainability Efficiency Equity Environment

1 0.702 0.488 0.395 0.652

2 0.760 0.416 0.392 0.740

3 0.625 0.350 0.320 0.596

Seoul 4 0.386 0.326 0.315 0.374

5 0.460 0.363 0.293 0.406

6 0.584 0.385 0.329 0.553

7 0.607 0.472 0.387 0.569

Gyeonggi - 0.737 0.665 0.409 0.541

36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 7 Decreasing or Increasing Rates of Inputs to Improve Sustainability Scores

Inputs (%) Inputs (%) Inputs (%)

DMU DMU DMU
TTC MBL CNG TTC MBL CNG TTC MBL CNG

101 -73 128 3 271 -65 140 5 643 -43 67 84

102 -49 0 0 272 -66 58 8 650 -69 616 2

103 -57 0 0 301 -29 118 1 651 -51 210 0

104 -77 176 28 302 -69 186 4 652 -6 41 0

105 -58 0 0 303 -34 0 0 661 -74 434 3

106 0 0 0 320 -71 104 3 702A 0 450 0

107 0 0 0 340 0 1874 0 702B -33 588 6

108 -59 59 3 341 0 465 0 703 -57 426 14

109 -79 298 134 362 -67 168 3 704 0 107 0

110A -65 615 0 363 -67 73 27 706 0 86 0

110B 0 0 0 401 -55 489 1 708 -64 0 0

120 -25 80 10 402 -78 229 22 720 -79 1065 59

130 0 0 0 406 -74 464 93 721 -65 56 3

141 -55 53 2 407 -65 214 26 730 -57 123 1

142 -47 16 2 408 -64 53 22 750A -36 7 2

143 -9 38 0 410 -57 1388 3 750B 0 0 0

144 -56 299 13 420 -72 182 125 751 -68 78 19

145 -56 416 4 440 -68 247 27 752 -58 114 3

146A 0 0 0 441 -67 182 2 753 -79 245 23

37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

146B 0 0 0 461 -40 673 1 760 -63 281 117

147 -73 1244 138 462 -42 52 1 9401 -53 440 113

148 -68 380 5 472 -60 453 151 9403 -61 77 36

149 -30 0 0 501 -49 0 0 9404 -51 166 2

151 -58 23 4 503 -75 188 6 9408 -58 62 256

152 -60 133 2 504 -67 144 25 9409 -7 14 0

153 -48 13 0 505 -62 109 7 9503 -9 0 0

162 -33 79 1 506 -76 182 25 9701 -45 2358 9859

163 0 0 0 540 -52 103 4 9703 -60 429 1209

171 0 0 0 571 -46 688 138 9707 0 0 0

172 -38 59 1 602 -7 83 0 9708 -36 0 0

201 -36 0 0 603 -72 112 5 9709 0 0 0

202 -29 50 0 604 -56 0 0 9710 -9 82 4

240 -64 128 0 605 -64 39 6 9711 -23 30 3

241A -46 0 0 606 -72 207 3 9714 0 0 0

241B 0 13 0 607 -49 105 2 Max. 0 2358 9859

261 -62 513 24 640 -76 149 4 Min. -79 0 0

262 0 0 0 641 -57 489 11 Ave. -44 220 118

263 -30 314 6 642 -24 0 0 S. D. 26 362 945

38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 8 Average Rates of Inputs to Improve Sustainability Scores

Inputs (%)
Region District
TTC MBL CNG

1 -39 137 12

2 -40 122 4

3 -42 374 5

Seoul 4 -62 386 39

5 -61 202 29

6 -51 182 9

7 -44 242 17

Gyeonggi - -30 261 820

39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 9 Result of Tobit Regression Using Scores as Independent Variables

Independent Variable Coefficient t-value

Constant -0.007* -2.36

Efficiency scores 1.003** 108.15

Equity scores 0.996** 77.29

Environment scores 1.008** 163.03

Number of observations = 110

Log likelihood = 220.8630

Likelihood ratio x 2 (2) = 594.19**

Prob > x 2 = 0.0000

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01

40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 10 Results of Tobit Regression Using the Inputs as Independent Variables

Independent Variable Coefficient t-value

TTC -0.222* -3.53

MBL 0.113* 2.30

CNG 0.044** 1.10

Number of observations = 110

Log likelihood = 71.7643

Likelihood ratio x 2 (2) = 41.91**

Prob > x 2 = 0.0000

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01

41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 11 Road supply rate in the Seoul and Gyeonggi Province

Road Length per Road Length per

Road Length per
Length Area Capita Automobile
Region Area
(km) (km2) (Km/thousand (km/thousand
(Km/km2)
people) vehicles)

Seoul 8,240 605 13.62 0.82 2.73

Gyeonggi 12,859 10,172 1.26 1.04 2.74

42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE 12 Status of road in the Seoul and Gyeonggi Province (km)

Paved
Non- Un
Region Length Sub Over
2 4 6 8 paved
10 opened
total Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes
Lanes

Special 1,005 1,005 71 318 336 221 59 - -

Seoul
Gu 7,036 7,036 6,226 581 161 68 0 - -

Provincial 2,741 2,330 1,699 477 124 30 1 41 371

Gyeonggi Si 7,352 6,653 4,239 1,600 529 237 48 177 523

Gun 501 357 337 10 10 - - 84 61

43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FIGURE 1 Research process of this paper

44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FIGURE 2 Relationship between inputs and outputs

45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

Node 01 (5) Node 11 (6) (7) Node 21 (8)
Node 31
Undesirable Input Intermediate Output1 Final Desirable Output1
Aggregation
(TTC) (VKadjust) Eq. Eq. (TR)
(6) (7)

Eq. Eq.
Node 02 (5) Node 12 (6) Node 22
Desirable Input1 Intermediate Output2 Final Desirable Output2 Eq.
(MBLadjust) Eq. (TS) Eq. (EEadjust) (8)
(5) (7)

Eq. Eq.
Node 03 (7) Node 23 (9)
Desirable Input2 Final Undesirable Output
(CNGadjust) Eq. (APCadjust)
(5)

Operator-oriented outputs Passenger-oriented outputs

(Intermediate outputs) (Final outputs)

TTC: total transportation costs (in millions of Korean won)

MBLadjust: the ratio of stops of median bus lanes to all bus stops adjusted by the reverse two-stage method (%)
CNGadjust: the ratio of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to fleet of vehicles adjusted by the reverse two-stage method (%)
VKadjust: vehicle-km adjusted by the reverse two-stage method (veh-km)
TS: travel speed (km/h)
TR: total riders (in ten thousands)
EEadjust: equity estimates adjusted by the reverse two-stage method
APCadjust: air pollution cost adjusted by the reverse two-stage method (in ten thousands of Korean won)

FIGURE 3 Proposed network DEA model

46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT