Ensuring high-quality public transport is a key challenge for cities aiming to reduce car dependency and promote more sustainable and equitable urban mobility. This study examines how infrastructure and urban configuration shape the operational performance of public transport services, using Santiago, Chile, as a case study. We analyze three quality indicators—average speed, frequency compliance, and regularity compliance—and show that measured performance is not only a function of operator efficiency but also of structural factors beyond their control. Our findings demonstrate that external factors play an important role in quality indicators, with implications for contract design: when contracts involve relative performance comparisons between operators, contextual factors should be incorporated to avoid unfair penalization, while in systems like Santiago that use absolute standards, these factors could inform bidding decisions and performance evaluation frameworks. More broadly, our results suggest urban transport policy should consider contextual factors appropriately in contract design and performance evaluation.
AbkowitzMEngelsteinI (1984) Methods for maintaining transit service regularity. Transportation Research Record961: 1–8.
2.
AlipourDDiaH (2023) A systematic review of the role of land use, transport, and energy-environment integration in shaping sustainable cities. Sustainability15(8): 6447.
3.
AlmeidaFLoboACoutoA, et al. (2022) Urban factors influencing the vehicle speed of public transport. Transportation Research Procedia62: 318–324.
4.
AndersonPDaganzoCF (2020) Effect of transit signal priority on bus service reliability. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological132: 2–14.
5.
ArriagadaJGschwenderAMunizagaMA, et al. (2019) Modeling bus bunching using massive location and fare collection data. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems23(4): 332–344.
6.
BarabinoBCabrasNAConversanoC, et al. (2020) An integrated approach to select key quality indicators in transit services. Social Indicators Research149: 1045–1080.
7.
BassoFFrezJMartínezL, et al. (2020) Accessibility to opportunities based on public transport GPS-monitored data: the case of Santiago, Chile. Travel Behaviour and Society21: 140–153.
8.
BassoFCoxTPezoaR, et al. (2024a) Characterizing last-mile freight transportation using mobile phone data: the case of Santiago, Chile. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice186: 104149.
9.
BassoFFeijooFPezoaR, et al. (2024b) The impact of electromobility in public transport: an estimation of energy consumption using disaggregated data in Santiago, Chile. Energy286: 129550.
10.
BatarceMÁvilaF (2020) Misguided quality incentives: the case of the Santiago bus system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice139: 376–399.
11.
BatarceMBassoFBassoLJ (2023) The elasticity of demand on urban highways: the case of Santiago. Transport Policy133: 234–241.
12.
BatarceMMuñozJCTorresI (2022) Characterizing the public transport service level experienced by users: an application to six Latin American transit systems. Journal of Public Transportation24: 100006.
13.
BeltránPGschwenderAPalmaC (2013) The impact of compliance measures on the operation of a bus system: the case of Transantiago. Research in Transportation Economics39(1): 79–89.
14.
BurinskieneMGusarovieneMGabruleviciute-SkebieneK (2014) The impact of public transport lanes on the operating speed of buses. In: Environmental Engineering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Engineering. ICEE. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Department of Construction Economics, Vol. 9–1.
15.
ChenXYuLZhangY, et al. (2009) Analyzing urban bus service reliability at the stop, route, and network levels. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice43(8): 722–734.
16.
ChocholacJSommerauerovaDHyrslovaJ, et al. (2020) Service quality of the urban public transport companies and sustainable city logistics. Open Engineering10(1): 86–97.
17.
DaetzCVD (2016) ¿ De Qué Factores depende la evolución de la regularidad de los intervalos de un servicio de buses? Caso transantiago. PhD thesis. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (Chile).
18.
DeepaLPinjariARNirmaleSK, et al. (2023) The adverse impact of headway variability on bus transit ridership: evidence from Bengaluru, India. Transport Policy141: 343–356.
19.
EboliLMazzullaG (2012) Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. European Transport - Trasporti Europei (51): 1–23.
20.
El-GeneidyAMHorningJKrizekKJ (2011) Analyzing transit service reliability using detailed data from automatic vehicular locator systems. Journal of Advanced Transportation45(1): 66–79.
21.
FeresFBassoFPezoaR, et al. (2023) The impact of bus punctuality on users’ decisions and welfare. Transportation Letters15(9): 1154–1173.
22.
FrimanMLättmanKOlssonLE (2020) Public transport quality, safety, and perceived accessibility. Sustainability12(9): 3563.
23.
GarridoCDe OñaRDe OñaJ (2014) Neural networks for analyzing service quality in public transportation. Expert Systems with Applications41(15): 6830–6838.
24.
GodachevichJTirachiniA (2021) Does the measured performance of bus operators depend on the index chosen to assess reliability in contracts? an analysis of bus headway variability. Research in Transportation Economics90: 101000.
25.
GonzálezFValdiviesoVDe GrangeL, et al. (2019) Impact of the dedicated infrastructure on bus service quality: an empirical analysis. Applied Economics51(55): 5961–5971.
26.
GutiérrezADomènechAZaragozíB, et al. (2020) Profiling tourists’ use of public transport through smart travel card data. Journal of Transport Geography88: 102820.
27.
HoCQHensherDAWangS (2020) Joint estimation of mode and time of day choice accounting for arrival time flexibility, travel time reliability and crowding on public transport. Journal of Transport Geography87: 102793.
28.
ImranM (2009) Public transport in Pakistan: a critical overview. Journal of Public Transportation12(2): 53–83.
29.
JanatabadiFErmagunA (2024) Unraveling transit service and land use components of the socio-spatial inequality of access. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science51(7): 1447–1462.
30.
KopsacheilisAPolitisIGeorgiadisG (2023) Assessment of bus speed influencing factors through the exploitation of machine learning techniques. Transportation Research Procedia69: 751–758.
31.
LiZHensherDA (2012) Congestion charging and car use: a review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence. Transport Policy20: 47–61.
32.
LuoSHeSY (2021) Using data mining to explore the spatial and temporal dynamics of perceptions of metro services in China: the case of Shenzhen. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(3): 449–466.
33.
MaddalaGS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press. Number 3.
34.
MilkovitsMN (2008) Modeling the factors affecting bus stop dwell time: use of automatic passenger counting, automatic fare counting, and automatic vehicle location data. Transportation Research Record2072(1): 125–130.
35.
MohamedAHAdwanIAAhmedaAG, et al. (2021) Identification of affecting factors on the travel time reliability for bus transportation. Knowledge-Based Engineering and Sciences2(1): 19–30.
36.
MonteiroJSousaNCoutinho-RodriguesJ, et al. (2024) Challenges ahead for sustainable cities: an urban form and transport system review. Energies17(2): 409.
37.
MoslemSStevićŽTanackovI, et al. (2023) Sustainable development solutions of public transportation: an integrated imf swara and fuzzy bonferroni operator. Sustainable Cities and Society93: 104530.
38.
MouwenA (2015) Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice78: 1–20.
39.
MugionRGToniMRaharjoH, et al. (2018) Does the service quality of urban public transport enhance sustainable mobility?Journal of Cleaner Production174: 1566–1587.
40.
MuñozJCSoza-ParraJRaveauS (2020) A comprehensive perspective of unreliable public transport services’ costs. Transportmetrica: Transportation Science16(3): 734–748.
41.
NieuwenhuijsenMJ (2020) Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environment International140: 105661.
42.
RussoAAdlerMWvan OmmerenJN (2022) Dedicated bus lanes, bus speed and traffic congestion in Rome. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice160: 298–310.
43.
SarkarSCottineau-MugadzaCWolfLJ (2024) Spatial inequalities and cities: a review. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science51(7): 1391–1407.
44.
SecoAGonçalvesJ (2007) The quality of public transport: relative importance of different performance indicators and their potential to explain modal choice. Urban transport XIII: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century96: 313–325.
45.
SorratiniJLiuRSinhaS (2008) Assessing bus transport reliability using micro-simulation. Transportation Planning and Technology31(3): 303–324.
46.
Soza-ParraJRaveauSMuñozJC, et al. (2019) The underlying effect of public transport reliability on users’ satisfaction. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice126: 83–93.
47.
Soza-ParraJMuñozJCRaveauS (2021) Factors that affect the evolution of headway variability along an urban bus service. Transportation Business: Transport Dynamics9(1): 479–490.
48.
StrathmanJGDuekerKKimpelTJ, et al. (2000) Service reliability impacts of computer-aided dispatching and automatic vehicle location technology: a tri-met case study. Transportation Quarterly54(3): 85–102.
49.
TamblaySGschwenderADragicevicM, et al. (2017) Risks involved in transit provision of bus contracts: case study of Transantiago, Chile. Transportation Research Record2649(1): 89–96.
50.
Te MorscheWPuelloLLPGeursKT (2019) Potential uptake of adaptive transport services: an exploration of service attributes and attitudes. Transport Policy84: 1–11.
51.
TirachiniAHensherDARoseJM (2013) Crowding in public transport systems: effects on users, operation and implications for the estimation of demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice53: 36–52.
52.
TirachiniAGodachevichJCatsO, et al. (2022) Headway variability in public transport: a review of metrics, determinants, effects for quality of service and control strategies. Transport Reviews42(3): 337–361.
53.
Transportation Research Board (1999). A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. Transit Cooperative Research Program(TCRP) Report 47, published by Transportation Research Board, Washington.
54.
Urrutia-MosqueraJFlórez-CalderónLCortésY, et al. (2024) Impact of urban facilities spatial inequality on sustainable travel mode. PLoS One19(10): e0308610.
55.
Van LieropDBadamiMGEl-GeneidyAM (2018) What influences satisfaction and loyalty in public transport? A review of the literature. Transport Reviews38(1): 52–72.
56.
VasconcellosE. A.MendonçaA. (2016). Observatorio de Movilidad Urbana: Informe 2015-2016 (resumen ejecutivo) (report). Caracas: CAF. Retrieved fromhttps://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/981
57.
WimbadiRWDjalanteRMoriA (2021) Urban experiments with public transport for low carbon mobility transitions in cities: a systematic literature review (1990–2020). Sustainable Cities and Society72: 103023.
58.
ZhuBHuSKapariasI, et al. (2024) Revealing the driving factors and mobility patterns of bike-sharing commuting demands for integrated public transport systems. Sustainable Cities and Society104: 105323.
