1. Three Layer Model for Realization of Multi-Dimensional
Evaluation Framework in Public Transport Planning
Dakshaini H V Sharathkumar K G Kusuma R
Dept. of CS&E Dept. of CS&E Lecturer, Dept. of CS&E
Kalpataru Institute of Technology Kalpataru Institute of Technology Kalpataru Institute of Technology
Tiptur Tiptur Tiptur
dakshainidivya@gmail.com sharu.gangadhar@gmail.com kusuma.r15@gmail.com
Abstract-This paper presents a multi-level framework to
measure public transit service performance. Multi-
dimensional framework contains different dimensions,
suitable dimension need to be select for implementation.
This framework uses a combination of subjective and
objective measures to access the service quality. It
allows for the opinions of the various stakeholders of
public transit services (users, operators, and service
providers) to be incorporated in a multi-criteria
evaluation process. With focus on the design and
implementation of the multi-dimensional framework,
this paper describes a transport planning system tool
built on the three-tier architecture to achieve good
flexibility, better user interface, accessibility,
extensibility and resistance to potential changes. The
framework can evaluate the public transit service
performance at different levels of details by using three-
tier architecture (system level and route level).
Keywords-Multi criteria, Three-tier architecture,
Decision making, Performance evaluation, Public
transit, Database
I. INTRODUCTION
Multi-Dimensional framework analysis
describes any structured approach used to determine
overall preferences among alternative options, where
the options accomplish several objectives. In Multi-
Dimensional framework analysis, desirable
objectives are specified and corresponding attributes
or indicators are identified [1]. The actual
measurement of indicators need not be in monetary
terms, but are often based on the quantitative analysis
(through scoring, ranking and weighting) of a wide
range of qualitative impact categories and criteria.
Multi-Dimensional framework provides techniques
for comparing and ranking different outcomes, even
though a variety of indictors are used. Multi-
Dimensional framework analysis includes a range of
related techniques.
The weighting process is used in this paper
to reflect the importance of the various evaluation
criteria and the performance indicators [1]. The
importance term refers to the perceived value of the
criteria (or the performance indicators) by
experienced a transport professionals or a
stakeholder. Such perception is likely to vary among
stakeholders and may reflect different biased
opinions towards specific criteria of importance to
the stakeholder group, and as such is deemed
necessary to involve a group of unbiased
transportation professional in such weighting process.
This will ensure the fairness and reflect unbiased
view.
II. MULTI-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK
ARCHITECTURE
The multi-dimensional framework architecture
includes multi-criteria data analysis, three layer
programming model, Unified-Modeling Language,
Model-View-Controller.
A. Multi-Criteria Data Analysis
Multi-criteria data analysis is a sub-
discipline of operations of research that explicitly
considers multiple criteria in decision-making
environments [2]. It is useful to evaluate the ability of
various activities of a model to fulfill a given
objectives. This assessment can take place to collect
the opinion of decision-makers and beneficiaries
about the effectiveness of the activities.
B. Three-Layer Programming Model
Three-layer architecture is a client-server
architecture in which presentation, application
processing, data management functions are
physically separated as shown in figure 1. A three-
layer architecture is typically composed of a
presentation layer, a domain logic layer and data
storage layer, where user interface, functional process

2. logic, computer data storage and data access are
developed and maintained as independent modules,
most often on separate platforms [3].
Figure 1: Three-tier Architecture
C. Unified-Modeling Language (UML)
UML offers a way to visualize a systems’
architectural blueprints in a diagrams including
elements such as, any activities, individual
components of the system and how they can interact
with other software components, how the system will
run, how the entities interact with others (
components and interfaces ), external user interface.
D. Model-View-Controller
Model-view-controller is a software pattern
for implementing user interfaces. It divides a given
application into three inter connected parts, so as to
separate internal representations from the ways that
information is presented to or accepted from the user.
The central component, the model, consists of
application data, business rules, logic and functions.
A view can be any output representation of
information such as chart or diagram. The third part,
the controller, accepts input and converts it to
commands for the model or view.
III. THREE-TIER MODEL
In this three-tier programming model
framework is based on the concept of evaluating
performance according to some selected criteria
where such criteria are assessed by indicators.
A .Performance Analysis Model
The framework is divided into five “major
steps” (Figure 1): defining the sets of criteria and
indicators, selection of evaluation methods, data
collection, analysis and interpretation and finally the
recommendations for service improvement.
The framework follows the typical sequence
of planning framework of problem identification,
methodology development, data collection, analysis
and mitigations development and deployment.
The framework has the ability to evaluate an
established transit system as well as a new transit
systems or systems with inadequate historical records
of performance measures. The Framework has also
flexibility in the choice of criteria-indicators and
methods: one can choose suitable evaluation methods
according to the objectives and resources [1] [4] [6].
It has also the ability to integrate the multiple
resources and forms of data. Another premise is the
involvement of the stakeholders to share their
knowledge, opinion and observation.
An interesting premise of the framework is
its ability to base the importance of performance
indicators on the national experts’ opinions.[6] Each
operating agency may have its own priorities and
preferences. While one agency with well-established
transit service pays particular attention to the
economic performance criterion, another agency with
relatively recent service may put more emphasis on
the user satisfaction criterion. It is reasonable to
assume that the experts opinions or true reflections of
there own societal characteristics and national needs.
Applying the same framework to a similar case study
in another country might reveal a different set of
weights. These weights are in fact the expert’s
perception on the characteristics of the operating
service provider, their priorities, user characteristics,
operators’ efficiency, etc. As such, one would expect
variability in these course or weights from one
country/or society to another. That is, the expert’s
opinion implicitly captures their understanding of all
the transit service stakeholders (operating agency,
operators and users), the cultural influences, the
operating conditions, and the user characteristics and
needs. Given all the above it is expected that the
application of the suggested framework can be
generalized. By recruiting appropriate experts with
broad knowledge of the studied service, the
framework can be applied to study any similar
service.
The first step of the framework is to define a
set of criteria and indicators that will be used for the
assessment. These criteria may be extracted from the
strategic objectives of the organization. The major
stakeholders like service providers, representatives of
transit users, service operators and public
transportation specialists are suggested to be involved

3. in the process. Workshops are round table
conferences can be useful tool for this step.
As shown in figure2 the evolution criteria
need to be divided in to two folds; one for route
evaluation and another for system evaluation. The
overall system evaluation is needed because some of
the service resources(e.g. road way, bus terminal and
bus stop) are commonly shared among the routes and
cannot be separated. Furthermore
assessment is mostly quantative in nature( qualitative
data can also be used), and aims at developing some
overall score for each route. The system evaluation
can also combine both qualitative and quantative
criteria and indicators.
Figure 2: Framework of performance assessment of
transport system
in the process. Workshops are round table
conferences can be useful tool for this step.
the evolution criteria
wo folds; one for route
evaluation and another for system evaluation. The
overall system evaluation is needed because some of
the service resources(e.g. road way, bus terminal and
bus stop) are commonly shared among the routes and
thermore, the route
assessment is mostly quantative in nature( qualitative
data can also be used), and aims at developing some
overall score for each route. The system evaluation
can also combine both qualitative and quantative
assessment of public
The multi-criteria analysis can be used at
system level. The evaluation ( system or route
depends a on the set of indicators and criteria used
for evaluation at the various level. For system level
the indicators and the criteria is usually at the system
level. For the route level analysis, indicators and
criteria are route-based. One can see the system l
to be an overall assessment of the individual route
levels. The system is set of routes; i.e. the system’s
assessment is the Conclusion of individual route
assessment. Other “pure” system observation made
through users, operators and safety indicators
combined with the individual route assessment to
make an overall assessment of the system.
no well-defined strategic objectives, this definition
process is deemed necessary to account for various
stakeholder’s opinions and resolving co
interests. In addition, it is also essential to define the
set of criteria to be used.
Literature review can be useful in listing
such criteria and performance measures or indicators.
For example, in one of its reports, Transportation
Research Board(2003) categorized the performance
measures into eight categories: availability, service
delivery, safety and security, maintenance and
construction, economic, community, capacity, and
travel time, Zak(2010) chose waiting time, riding
time, timeliness, reliability, situational safety,
transferring frequency, comfort of travel, financial
efficiency and investment probability. Nathanail
(2008) considered multiple criteria including the
itinerary accuracy, system safety, cleanliness,
passenger comfort, servicing, and passenger
information. Ramani et al. (2011) identified 12
performance measures, including measures of
congestion, safety, alternative modes, and air quality.
Yeh et al. (2000) utilized the safety, comfort,
convenience, operation, and social dut
primary measurements of performance. Benn (1995)
investigated five performance criteria: route design,
schedule design economy and productivity, passenger
comfort and safety standard, and service delivery.
Service reliability was also taken as a c
et al.,2009; Chen, 2009; El-Geneidy et al.,2010). The
end result of this step is to identify the two separate
groups of criteria (one for route and one for overall
system performance) and to suggest their associated
indicators.
criteria analysis can be used at
system or route-based)
on the set of indicators and criteria used
for evaluation at the various level. For system level
and the criteria is usually at the system
level. For the route level analysis, indicators and
based. One can see the system level
to be an overall assessment of the individual route
levels. The system is set of routes; i.e. the system’s
Conclusion of individual route
assessment. Other “pure” system observation made
through users, operators and safety indicators are all
combined with the individual route assessment to
make an overall assessment of the system. In cases of
defined strategic objectives, this definition
process is deemed necessary to account for various
stakeholder’s opinions and resolving conflicting
interests. In addition, it is also essential to define the
Literature review can be useful in listing
such criteria and performance measures or indicators.
For example, in one of its reports, Transportation
oard(2003) categorized the performance
measures into eight categories: availability, service
delivery, safety and security, maintenance and
construction, economic, community, capacity, and
travel time, Zak(2010) chose waiting time, riding
reliability, situational safety,
transferring frequency, comfort of travel, financial
efficiency and investment probability. Nathanail
(2008) considered multiple criteria including the
itinerary accuracy, system safety, cleanliness,
vicing, and passenger
information. Ramani et al. (2011) identified 12
performance measures, including measures of
congestion, safety, alternative modes, and air quality.
Yeh et al. (2000) utilized the safety, comfort,
convenience, operation, and social duty as the
primary measurements of performance. Benn (1995)
investigated five performance criteria: route design,
schedule design economy and productivity, passenger
standard, and service delivery.
Service reliability was also taken as a criterion(Chen
Geneidy et al.,2010). The
end result of this step is to identify the two separate
one for route and one for overall
system performance) and to suggest their associated

4. The basic concept involved in this multi
dimensional framework is option, option is at the
core of this framework because there will be many
options and one of the option has to be chosen.
Option and optimizer are the two central concepts of
this multi-dimensional framework.
Figure 3: Class Diagram
Each option will be indicating a certain set
of indicators based upon which the
optimize which option has to be chosen
figure 3. Stop indicates list of stops in a particular
route, stop id, stop name, population at that stop.
Route indicates the stop list. Model indicates route
information, stop list etc. Project indicates session
where session contains model information, option li
and optimizer. Some indicators and criteria are used
in order to evaluate the performance. Some of the
criteria are passenger loading, vehicle, operator,
economy and user satisfaction and various indicators
are chosen for each indicator. These indicators were
selected to cope with ones found in the literature,
taking into considerations the availability of data.
B .Weighting of criteria and indicators
The weighting process is used in this paper
to reflect the importance of the various evaluation
criteria and the performance indicators.
figure 4 shows the Tree Wise Decomposition
Criteria has relative weight age in total Goal of
Transit Quality Plan. In the end they are computed
bottom up way to derive single score for the plan.
The importance term refers to the perceived
value of the criteria (or the performance indicators)
by experienced a transport professionals or a
stakeholder.[6] Such perception is likely to vary
among stakeholders and may reflect different biased
opinions towards specific criteria of importance to
Route
Indicators
and
Criteria
Domain
Variables
Stop
Project Session Model
OptionOptimizer
ept involved in this multi-
dimensional framework is option, option is at the
core of this framework because there will be many
options and one of the option has to be chosen.
Option and optimizer are the two central concepts of
Class Diagram
Each option will be indicating a certain set
of indicators based upon which the optimizer will
optimize which option has to be chosen as shown in
. Stop indicates list of stops in a particular
route, stop id, stop name, population at that stop.
el indicates route
oject indicates session
ation, option list
Some indicators and criteria are used
in order to evaluate the performance. Some of the
criteria are passenger loading, vehicle, operator,
ction and various indicators
. These indicators were
selected to cope with ones found in the literature,
taking into considerations the availability of data.
Weighting of criteria and indicators
The weighting process is used in this paper
to reflect the importance of the various evaluation
the performance indicators. The below
shows the Tree Wise Decomposition. Each
in total Goal of
uality Plan. In the end they are computed
bottom up way to derive single score for the plan.
The importance term refers to the perceived
or the performance indicators)
by experienced a transport professionals or a
h perception is likely to vary
among stakeholders and may reflect different biased
opinions towards specific criteria of importance to
the stakeholder group, and as such is deemed
necessary to involve a group of unbiased
transportation professional in such
This will ensure the fairness and reflect unbiased
view.
Figure 4: Tree Wise Decomposition
The literature indicates the use of various
approaches for the weighting process (
2009; Saremi et al., 2009; Wang
Yeh et al., 2000). A simple weighting processes that
involve several transport professional and experts can
be used as explained here after. [
part of this section, we present the formulation of the
process of criteria and indicators weighting in a
generalized transit system.
C. User Interface
Figure 5: User Interface
Route
Stop
Model
the stakeholder group, and as such is deemed
necessary to involve a group of unbiased
transportation professional in such weighting process.
This will ensure the fairness and reflect unbiased
Tree Wise Decomposition
The literature indicates the use of various
process (Wang and Lee,
; Wang and Chang 2007;
). A simple weighting processes that
involve several transport professional and experts can
[5] In the remaining
part of this section, we present the formulation of the
nd indicators weighting in a
User Interface

5. These are some of the snapshots of the
three-tier architecture that we are used in this
Transport Planning system that is how a UI of M.D.F
can be shown in an UI. Figure 4 shows the 3-Pane
UI. Right pane will be Model Explorer, where there
will be a tree model containing a route, stops in that
route and population at that stop. Left Pane will be
Control Pane for Options, where we can select
various options for computation. And Central Pane
for visualization of Domain Data, whatever the
operations performed in the backend will be
visualized in the central pane.
D. Database
In this three tier programming model some
of the backend databases are used such as Tproject,
containing project id, project name and description of
project. TStop, containing stop name, stop id and the
population at the stop in different interval, and route
information. Tmodel, containing model id, model
name, route id, project id, and session id. Figure 5
shows Tstop database information.
Figure 5: Data Base containing stop list
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper provides a three-tier
programming model for framework which can be
utilized as a tool for evaluating public transit
performances. One of the important features of this
framework is flexibility and involvement of each
stakeholders in the public transport system
assessment.
The primary contribution of this research is
that the presented approach can be used to identify
the areas of operational concerns and based on
indicators and criteria of the routes and for the whole
system, and to suggest actions for improvement. It
can also account for the various stakeholders of the
transit system(users, operators, and administrators)
with various weights. This research provides a
comprehensive framework with ability to
simultaneously account for various indicators and
stakeholders weights. Finally, it can be used to
provide in-depth assessment of particular
shortcomings of individual routes or the entire
system.
The presented scoring technique can be
validated against other performance evaluation
methodologies like the DEA. We believe that the
presented approach is a better approach, because it
allows the analysis to incorporate multiple criteria
and indicators, while the DEA is commonly use to
estimate either the efficiency or the effectiveness
using limited system outputs( namely vehicle
kilometers and ridership ). Future research can
include the validation of the presented multi-criteria
scoring technique against the DEA.
REFERENCES
[1] The use of multi-criteria techniques to rank
highway investment proposals. In Improving
Decision Making in Organisations, A.G. Lockett and
G. Islei (eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 158-165.
[2] Belton, V. and T. Stewart (2002) Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrate, Approach ,
Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
[3] M. Xue, K. Droegemeir, and D. Wang, “The
Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS) - A
Multiscale Nonhydrostatic Atmospheric Simulation
and Prediction Tool. Part I: Model Dynamics and
Verification” Meteor. Atmos. Physics, vol. 75, pp.
161–193, 2000.
[4] Collette, Y. and P. Siarry (2003). Multi- objective
optimization: principles and case studies. Decision
Engineering, Springer, New York
[5] Ecotechnica (2007). Special framework of
regional planning and sustainable development for
RES, 1st phase: support study. Ministry of Regional
Planning, Environment and Public Works, January,
Athens.
[6] Public Transportation Systems: Basic Principles
of System Design, Operations Planning and Real-
Time Control -Carlos F. Daganzo ITS Berkeley.