Compact development

Scattered development

Polynucleated development
Linear Strip Development
a.k.a Ribbon or Strip development
characterized by concentration of development along
both sides of major transportation routes such as
roads, navigable rivers or other form of transport
network
generally start on a one-lot-deep into a grid system.
also resembles what Kevin Lynch refers to as the
Urban Star which is characterized by a strong urban
core with secondary centers of moderate densities,
distributed along main radials roads.
very strong visual image

Leapfrogging development

Multi-Nodal Urban Form:

re-directs development away from the urban core or city

center toward identified urban growth areas or nodes.

approximates Lynchs Galaxy form, which is

characterized by clusters of development with each
cluster having its own specialization.

the major center provides specialized facilities and

services to its nodes and acts as it external linkage to
other centers of the city or municipality. The nodes
support the major center as its captive market while
providing neighborhood facilities and services to its area
of influence.

Under the Centric and Nodal form, a number of additional

mixed-use growth areas will be developed outside the
Poblacion area existing center of development.

another related nodal-central type of development is Radial

and Circumferential. It shows a development channel fanning
out from a given center where points of activities are
interconnected by radial and circumferential road systems
which are potential development corridors

Concentric Urban Form

this form reflects an outward expansion of urban development

from the city center/core induced by the construction of new
circumferential and radial roads.

the form pattern matches the Core City of Kevin Lynch has the
unique characteristic of concentrating development into one
continuous body originating from the center or core.

aiming to maximize land use in the Poblacion or city center to

provide more open space outside, this urban form redirects

future development in and around the Poblacion/city center,
extending to the adjoining barangays or barrios. As a result,
the direction of growth enlarges the urban core.

Grid Form

this system is made up of rectangular blocks defined by

parallel and intersecting streets. The simplicity of this layout
provides accessibility of plots and/or structures, but conflict or
movement could arise due to numerous intersections.

Objective quantitative performance measures are expressed as a numerical value which

provides no information by itself about how good or bad a specific result is, and for this
reason it must be compared with a fixed standard or past performance.
Subjective measures
Service quality can be also evaluated on the basis of transit user judgements. These
judgements, which can be considered a subjective measure of service quality, generally
derive from the well-known Customer Satisfaction Surveys (CSS), which help transit
operators to identify which service quality factors are considered the most important by their
customers. Customer judgements can be expressed in terms of expectations, which represent
what customers expect of the service, and perceptions, which represent what customers
receive from the service (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Service quality measurement based on
customer opinions allows the perceived performances of a given transit service to be
analysed. The main disadvantages of this type of measure are the strong subjectivity of transit
users judgements and the failure to take non-users perceptions into account. In addition,
considerable statistical errors could occur when respondents are not correct sampled, or users
judgements are too heterogeneous. In order to minimize these problems, several researchers
have proposed methodologies based on the use of SP or mixed RP-SP survey, as a

consequence of their belief that passengers behavioural intentions significantly depends on

the perceived value of service quality linked to their level of satisfaction. Interesting readers
can take some examples in Hensher and Prioni(2002), and in Eboli and Mazzulla (2008,
2010).
In order to provide a more useful and reliable measurement tool of transit performance,
current research about the topic is ever more oriented to consider both objective and
subjective service quality measures (e.g. Tyrinopoulos and Aifadopoulou 2008; Nathanail,
2008). In addition, the authors experience suggests that very promising results could be
obtained through the combination of the two types of measures. As an example, in Eboli and
Mazzulla (2011) a methodology for measuring transit service quality is proposed which aims
to develop an indicator with an intermediate value between subjective and objective
measures, calculated by considering the bias of the two different measures. The final
indicator was obtained by solving a problem of optimization which minimizes the distance of
the desired indicator from the subjective and objective ones.
In addition to the above mentioned approaches, Zak (2011) emphasizes that there are several
stakeholders interested in the efficient, comfortable, and effective operations of the transit
systems; as a consequence, a conflict of interests is observed. As an example, while
passengers insist on high level of transportation services, operators are focused on costeffective operations of the transit system, as well as the authorities play a double role of a
stakeholder and decision maker at the same time. In order to search for compromise
solutions, Zak (2011) proposed the application of the methodology of multiple criteria
decision making/aiding for public transportation analysis. This methodology enables the
decision maker to take into account several contradictory points of view, and assures that the
most satisfactory and compromise solution is finally selected.
Transit service aspects: a interpretative review of the objective indicators

Service availability
The attributes belonging to this category of service aspects are represented by characteristics
of the route of the bus line in terms of path and coverage, number of bus stops, distance
between bus stops, location of the bus stops, and characteristics of the service, like service
frequency, span of service, travel time, need for transfers.
Transportation Research Board, 1995a proposes to evaluate the characteristics of the line path
through indicators of the route directness expressed in terms of the additional travel time for a

one-way bus trip, or the additional travel time required over an automobile making the same
trip, or a time limit increase in average travel times per passenger, or an absolute limit to the
total number of path deviations.
The indicator regarding line path is evaluated on the basis of;

Line path: Travel speed on the line path.(transport travel speed corresponds to the

perceived travel time)

the bus stop location the walking distance (or time) from home to the access bus stop; the
time spent in walking for reaching the bus stop defines the level of accessibility to the
transit services. Therefore, a transit stop must be located within walking distance, and the
pedestrian environment in the area should not discourage walking (Transportation
Research Board, 2003a). As reported in TCRP Report 100, about 80% of the passengers
walk 400 metres or less to bus stops; at an average walking speed of 5 km/h, this is

equivalent to a maximum walking time of 5 minutes.

service frequency is the most distinctive aspect of service reliability. Service

frequency measures how often transit service is provided. It is an important factor in

ones decision to use transit; in fact, the more frequent the service, the shorter the
waiting time when a bus or train is missed, and the greater the flexibility that
customers have in selecting travel times (Transportation Research Board, 2003a).
Eboli and Mazzulla (2008) service frequency resulted to be the attribute with the

highest weight on the overall transit service quality.

Span of service is the number of hours during a day that transit service is provided.
Hours of service can vary by day of the week, by route, and even by stop. Then, an
indicator can be calculated as average value of the number of hours per day in
different periods of the year (winter, summer, etc.) and/or for different routes/stops.
The length of the service in a day can impact the convenience of using transit system
and constrain the types of trips that the passengers are able to make by transit. The
level-of-service thresholds reported in TCRP Report 100 (Transportation Research
Board, 2003b) can be adopted as target values for the service span.

Service reliability
Service reliability is one of the most investigated transit service aspects and it is considered
as a very important aspect for the transit users. Turnquist and Blume (1980) define transit
service reliability as the ability of the transit system to adhere to schedule or maintain
regular headways and a consistent travel time. Strathman et al. (1999) and Kimpel (2001)

agree that reliability is mostly related to schedule adherence, as well as Beirao and SarsfieldCabral (2007), who state that the lack of control due to the uncertainty of the vehicle arrival
makes the service unreliable. Unreliable service results in additional travel and waiting time
for passengers. As a consequence, service unreliability can lead to loss of passengers, while
improvements in reliability can lead to attraction of more passengers (El-Geneidy et al.,
2007).
Conducted researches have confirmed that service reliability is one of the most important
service aspect for the users. Also arriving on time at destination is often seen by travellers as
more important than minimizing elapsed travel time (Nash and Hille, 1968). The study of
Wachs (1976) found that reliability or variance in travel time is an important component of
attitude toward transportation modes, and also revealed that time spent in waiting, walking,
transferring modes, or parking a vehicle is consistently viewed by travellers as more onerous
than time spent on board.
Public transit agencies have developed multiple indicators to measure service reliability, but
the three most common measures are on-time performance, headway regularity and running
time adherence (Transportation Research Board, 2003a; Lin et al., 2008). On-time
performance can be evaluated by considering the percentage of transit vehicles departing
from or arriving to a location on time. The indicator is generally calculated as the ratio of the
number of runs that come on time to the number of total runs.
Headway regularity is defined as the evenness of intervals between transit vehicles. An
indicator (expressed in %) is calculated as the ration of the average difference between the
actual and the scheduled headway to the scheduled headway (Transportation Research Board,
2003a). Reliability of runs that come on schedule can be also easily evaluated on the basis of
the runs removed from the daily schedule. An indicator can be calculated as the ratio of the
number of runs executed in a period of data gathering to the number of runs scheduled for the
same period.
Running time adherence can be defined, analogously to the headway regularity, as the
average difference between the actual and the scheduled running times compared to the
scheduled running time. Also this indicator is measured in percent. Lin et al. (2008) state that
the concurrent use of more indicators of service reliability can make difficult the
determination of the routes having the overall worst performance; in fact, routes doing well
on some measures may be poor on others. Thus, they propose one comprehensive service
reliability indicator by aggregating the various service reliability measures by means of data

envelopment analysis (DEA). El-Geneidy et al. (2007) introduced a regression model for
estimating the amount of time it takes a bus to travel along its route as a function of several
determinants of bus running time, like segment length, number of signalized intersections,
number of bus stops, number of passenger boarding or alighting, departure delay, stop delay
time, and so on.
Comfort
Comfort during the journey is important for transit users, both the physical comfort regarding
vehicles and comfort regarding ambient conditions on board or at stops.
Comfort on board means having soft and clean seats, comfortable temperature, not many
people on board, smoothness of the bus ride, low levels of noise and vibrations, not nasty
odours. These many factors are differently evaluated across different groups of users. Beirao
and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007) found that habitual public transport users consider the new
vehicles with air-conditioning and lower floor as very good and very comfortable, but the
overcrowding on board at peak hours is considered a problem. On the other hand, car users
and occasional public transport users usually see buses as uncomfortable, overcrowded,
smelly and airless. Wachs (1976) underlined that vehicle comfort is less important to the
travellers decision process than other service aspects.
Comfort at bus stops can be considered as a function of the passenger amenities provided at
the stops. Amenities include shelters, benches, vending machines, trash receptacles, lighting,
phone booths, and so on. The effects of particular amenities on transit passengers are not well
known. Some researchers have argued that the term amenities implies something extra and
not necessarily required (Transportation Research Board, 2003a). Iseki and Taylor (2008)
found that stop and station-area