A COMPREHENSIVE METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

SYSTEMS IN URBAN AREAS

Presented By:
Jitendra Gurjar
P.K. Agarwal
P.K. Jain

Department of Civil Engineering, MANIT Bhopal

May-2019
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Proposed Methodology

4. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Bhopal Transport

System

5. Conclusions
References
 INTRODUCTION
• Public transport system is a mode of transportation
which operates at regular time on fixed routes and in
which mass movement of people is possible in a
vehicle.
• Public transport system are most commonly used for
providing mass mobility, managing traffic
congestion, minimizing air pollution, reducing
energy consumption and creating development
opportunities.
 INTRODUCTION
• It is observed that the demand of motorized transport
vehicles increased with increasing urban population but the
mode share of public transport system is almost constant.

• Public transport system is adequately provided in some

areas while there are inadequate or no services provided in
other areas At present scenario, there is a continually
increasing preference towards use of private vehicles for
commuting.
 INTRODUCTION
Public Transport Problems

Source: tropical-rainforest-animals.com
Traffic Congestion More Walking Distance

Higher Accidents Rate Higher Waiting Time

 INTRODUCTION
Public Transport Problems

Source: tropical-rainforest-animals.com
Overcrowding
Unsafe Rides

Higher Pollution Level Uncomfortable Trips

 INTRODUCTION
Public Transport Problems

Source: tropical-rainforest-animals.com
Traffic Congestion
More Walking Distance

Improper Passenger Stops Improper Signal Design

 INTRODUCTION
Therefore, there is urgent need to develop such a public
transport system which is
• Fast, Economical, Comfortable, Reliable, and Safe,
• Flexible,, Maximum revenue generation
• Environment friendly, Support the economy and social
development of a country.
Hence, most of the researchers are emphasis an
immense need to improvement the performance of
public transport system.
 INTRODUCTION
However providing efficient public transport system is a

challenging task because the performance of public

transport system affects by three different Perspectives

• User Perspective
• Operator Perspective
• City Perspective
 INTRODUCTION
User Perspective
• As highlighted by most of the researchers, ‘user perception’
is the primary determinant of public transport system.

• User perspective reflects the users perception of the public

transport system.

• It includes the quality of system, availability, affordability

and accessibility to the service as well as the user’s
comfort-discomfort and safety at the same time.
 INTRODUCTION
Operator Perspective
• The operator perspective usually deals the public
transport system as a business point of view.
• the main objective of their service provision is
mainly maximization of profit.
• Ryus (2003) discussed that the financial
performance indicators affects the performance of
a public transport system from a operator
perspective.
 INTRODUCTION
City Perspective
• City perspective reflects the impact of public transport system
in a city which largely depends upon traffic flow pattern,
social development, economical development and reduction in
environmental emissions in a city.

• Some authors consider performance indicator from city

perspective as sustainable transportation indicators (Alonso A.
et al, 2015) while others (Litman, 2009) as decision-making
tools.
 INTRODUCTION
• At present various types of public transport systems
like BRT, LRT, Metro, Mini buses and various other
types of systems are operating, some under
construction, and also being planned in various Indian
cities.

• It is also observed that the enormous amount of money is

required for implementation of these public transport
systems in Indian cities.
 INTRODUCTION
Objective of the study

A Comprehensive Methodology for Comparative

Performance Evaluation of Alternate Public Transport
System in Indian Cities
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Research Need
 It is indicated that the single measure and single perspective is
inappropriate for all situations therefore; multiple performance indicators
and multiple perspectives are needed to evaluate performance of alternate
public transport system.

 The classification of performance indicators from user, city and operator

perspective is a complicated task because many indicators are available in
literature and there is no comprehensive classification.

Hence, need to develop a balanced assessment methodology which can

identify most appropriate performance indicators from user, operator and city
perspective from Indian context.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Research Need
 It is notified that in most of the research studies developed performance
indicators which are often relatively straight forward but in practice it may
be much more complicated to obtain the necessary comparative
information due to absence of data base or the process of data collection is
more time consuming and costly.

Thus, there is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive methodology which

can be executed with minimal data or which are easily available.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Research Need
• Most of the researchers simply aggregate the performance indicators
to estimate the overall performance of public transport system from
user perspective. However, the significant differences exist between
several categories of performance indicators that have a greater or
lesser impact on comparative performance of alternate public
transport system.

• Hence, need to determine the relative contribution of performance

indicators in analyzing the overall comparative performance of public
transport system in Indian context from different perspective and
indicators.
 Proposed Methodology
Frame Work of Proposed Methodology

Stage: I
Comparative Performance Evaluation from User Perspective

Stage: II
Comparative Performance Evaluation from City Perspective

Stage: III
Comparative Performance Evaluation from Operator Perspective

Stage: IV
Overall Comparative Performance Evaluation of Alternate
Public Transport System
 Stage-I: Comparative Performance Evaluation
from User Perspective
• The first Stage of the proposed comprehensive methodology is
to evaluate the comparative performance of alternate public
transport system from user perspective.

• The proposed methodological framework can be used to

compare the performance of an existing public transport
system as well as a new public transport system to any similar
system or different public transport system or any alternate
public transport system individually as well as combined from
user perspective.
Stage-I: Comparative Performance Evaluation
from User Perspective
Framework of Stage-I
Sub Stage : IA
Identification of Comparative Key User Performance
Indicators (CUIi)

Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User
Performance Indicators (CUIi)

Sub Stage : IC
Determination of Relative Weight of Key User Performance
Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP Technique

Sub Stage : I D
Development of a Methodology for Evaluation of
User Comparative Performance
 Sub Stage : IA
Identification of Key Indicators for Comparative Performance
Evaluation from User Perspective

• The main purpose of this stage is to identify the most appropriate

performance indicators for evaluating the performance of public
transport system from user perspective.

• The criteria used for classification of user performance indicator in this

study are acceptable from Indian context, consistent with goals and
objectives, easy to understand, measurable, minimum cost for data
collection, availability of data, and lesser time needed to collection of
data.

• Total 9 performance indicators are identified logically on the basis of

literature review.
 Sub Stage : IA
Identification of Key Indicators for Comparative Performance Evaluation
from User Perspective

A Hierarchical Structure for Identification of Comparative Key User Performance Indicator

 Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User Performance Indicators

• Comparative Performance indices are developed in such a way so that

comparative performance of alternate public transport system can be
evaluated individually considering various aspects such as in-vehicle
time, out-of-vehicle time, in-vehicle cost, user comfort, user safety and
reliability individually as well as combined.

• The value of indices may be greater than one, equal to one and less
than. The value of indices greater than one, equal to one and less than
one indicates the comparative performance of alternate public
transport system I is superior, equal and inferior quality with respect to
alternate public transport system II.
 Sub Stage : IB
Sub Stage: Key
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative IB User Performance Indicators
Evaluation of Condition of Key User Performance Indicators

• The second stage developed various performance indices which are

developed in such a way so that performance of alternate public

transport system can be evaluated considering various aspects such as

in-vehicle time, out-of-vehicle time, in-vehicle cost, out-of-vehicle cost,

user comfort, user safety and reliability.

• The value of indices may vary from 0 to 1. The value ‘0’and ‘1’

indicates worst and better performance of public transport system ‘s’

respectively.
 Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User Performance Indicators

Comparative Key Methodology for Evaluation of Condition of Identified Key User Performance
User Indicators
Performance
Indicator
Comparative In-
Vehicle Time
Index (CITII/II )
IVTII=In-Vehicle Time Index of Alternate Public Transport System I
IVTIII=In-Vehicle Time Index of Alternate Public Transport System II
IVTIs =In-vehicle time Index of public transport system ‘s’., DTIs,i= Desirable time
spent by passengers in a vehicle of public transport system ‘s’ from origin to
destination on a route ‘i’, in minute., ATIs,i= Average time spent by passengers in a
vehicle of alternate public transport system‘s’ from origin to destination on a route ‘i’
in minute.
Comparative Out-
of- Vehicle time
Index
(COTII/II) OVTII=Out-of-vehicle time index of alternate public transport System I,
OVTIII=Out-of-vehicle time index of alternate public transport system II. OVTIs =Out-
of-vehicle time Index of public transport system ‘s’., ATO = Average time spent by
 Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User Performance Indicators

Key User Methodology for Evaluation of Condition of Identified Key User Performance
Performance Indicators
Indicator

Comparative
In- Vehicle
Cost Index IVCII= In-Vehicle Cost Index of Alternate Public Transport System I, IVCIII= In-Vehicle
(CICII/II) Cost Index of Alternate Public Transport System II. IVCIs =In-vehicle cost Index of public
transport system ‘s’., AFIs,i = Average fare spent by a passenger in a vehicle of public
transport system ‘s’ to travel 1 km distance from origin to destination on a route ‘i’ in
rupees per km., AFIc,i = Average fare spent by a passenger in a car to travel 1 km distance
from origin to destination on a route ‘i’ in Rs/km.
Comparative
Out-of- Vehicle
Cost Index OVCII= Out-of-Vehicle Cost Index of Alternate Public Transport System I, OVCIII= Out-
(COCII/II) of-Vehicle Cost Index of Alternate Public Transport System II.
OVCIs =Out-of-vehicle cost Index of public transport system ‘s’., AFOs,i = Average fare
spent by a passenger from out of a vehicle from origin to destination for public transport
system ‘s’ on a route ‘i’ in rupees per km. TTFs,i= Total fare spent by passengers from
origin to destination for public transport system ‘s’ on a route ‘i’ in rupees per km.
 Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User Performance Indicators

Key User Methodology for Evaluation of Condition of Identified Key User Performance
Performance Indicators
Indicator
Comparative
User Safety
Index
USCII=User safety condition index of alternate public transport system ‘I’, User Safety Condition
(CUSII/II)
Index, USCIII= User Safety Condition Index of Alternate Public Transport System II, TSRs.i= Total
safety rating given by passengers for alternate public transport system ‘s’ on a route ‘i’ from origin to
destination during whole journey. MSRs.i= Maximum possible safety rating given by passengers for
alternate public transport system‘s’ on a route ‘i’ from origin to destination during whole journey.

Comparative
User comfort
index (CUCII/II) UCCII= User comfort condition index of alternate public transport system I, UCCI II=
User comfort condition index of alternate public transport system II. TCRs.i= Total
comfortrating given by passengers for alternate public transport system‘s’ on a route ‘i’
from origin to destination during whole journey. MCRs.i= Maximum possible comfort
rating given by passengers for alternate public transport system‘s’ on a route ‘i’from
origin to destination during whole journey.
 Sub Stage : IB
Evaluation of Condition of Comparative Key User Performance Indicators

Key User Methodology for Evaluation of Condition of Identified Key User Performance
Performance Indicators
Indicator

Comparative
Reliability Index
(CRBII/II) RBTII= Reliability Index of alternate public transport system I. RBTIII= Reliability
index of alternate public transport system II. NOTs,i=Number of trips on time for public
transport system ‘s at stop of a route ‘i’ in Nos. TNTs,i=Total number of trips for public
transport system ‘s’ on a route ‘i’ in Nos.
 Sub Stage : IC
Determination of Relative Weight of Key User Performance
Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP Method

• The objective of third stage is to determine the relative

weight of identified performance indicators using Fuzzy
AHP technique.

• FAHP is used to generate the weighting of the

comparative user performance indicators.
 Sub Stage : IC
Determination of Relative Weight of Key User Performance
Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP Method

Detailed Summary of Relative Weight of Comparative User Performance

Indicators
S. Comparative Key User Relative Comparative Sub User Relative
Notation Notation
No. Performance Indicators Weight Performance Indicators Weight
1 Comparative in-vehicle WIVT
0.238
time Comparative Time
WTMP 0.334
2 Comparative out-of-vehicle WOVT Performance
0.096
time
3 Comparative in-vehicle WIVC
0.259
cost Comparative Cost
WCSP 0.402
4 Comparative out-of-vehicle WOVC Performance
0.143
cost
5 Comparative user safety WUSF 0.086
6 Comparative user comfort WUCF Comparative Quality
0.110 WQTP 0.264
Performance
7 Comparative reliability WRBT 0.068
Sum 1.000 Sum 1.000
 Sub Stage : IC
Determination of Relative Weight of Key User Performance
Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP Method

A methodology for development of user comparative performance index

(UCPI
S. I/II )
Performance
No index
1 Comparative time 𝐖𝐈𝐕𝐓 × 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐎𝐕𝐓 × 𝐂𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈
𝐂𝐓𝐏𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝐄𝐪. (𝟏)
performance 𝐖𝐈𝐕𝐓 + 𝐖𝐎𝐕𝐓
index CITII/II=Comparative in-vehicle time index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’
(CTPII/II) COTII/II=Comparative out-of-vehicle time index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’

2 Comparative cost 𝐖𝐈𝐕𝐂 × 𝐂𝐈𝐂𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐎𝐕𝐂 × 𝐂𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈

𝐂𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝐄𝐪. (𝟐)
performance 𝐖𝐈𝐕𝐂 + 𝐖𝐎𝐕𝐂
index CICII/II=Comparativein-vehicle cost index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’
(CCTII/II) COCII/II=Comparativeout-of-vehicle cost index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’

3 Comparative 𝐖𝐔𝐒𝐓 × 𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐔𝐂𝐓 × 𝐂𝐔𝐂𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐑𝐁𝐓 × 𝐂𝐑𝐁𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈

𝐂𝐐𝐏𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 = … … … … … … . 𝐄𝐪. (𝟑)
quality 𝐖𝐔𝐒𝐅 + 𝐖𝐔𝐂𝐅 + 𝐖𝐑𝐁𝐓
performance CUSII/II=Comparative user safety condition index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system
index ‘II’
(CQPII/II) CUCII/II=Comparative user comfort condition index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system
‘II’ CRBII/II= Comparative reliability indexof public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’.,

4 User comparative 𝐔𝐂𝐏𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 = 𝐖𝐓𝐌𝐏 × 𝐂𝐓𝐏𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐂𝐒𝐏 × 𝐂𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 + 𝐖𝐐𝐓𝐏 × 𝐂𝐐𝐏𝐈𝐈/𝐈𝐈 … … … … … … . 𝐄𝐪. (𝟒
performance CTPII/II=Comparative time performance index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’
index CCTII/II=Comparative cost performance index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system ‘II’
(UCPII/II) CQPII/II=Comparative quality performance index of public transport system ‘I’ w.r.t. public transport system
‘II’
 Sub Module-ID:
Development of A Methodology for Evaluation of
User Comparative Performance
Evaluation of User Performance of Alternate Public Transport System ‘s’

• The value of indices may vary from 0 to 1. The value ‘0’and ‘1’
indicates worst and better performance of Alternate public transport
system ‘s’ respectively.
• User Performance Index of Alternate Public Transport System ‘s’ is
evaluated by

TMPIS= Time performance index for Alternate Public Transport System‘s’

CSPIS= Cost performance index for Alternate Public Transport System‘s’
QTPIS= Quality performance index for Alternate Public Transport
System‘s’
 Sub Module-ID:
Development of A Methodology for Evaluation of
User Comparative Performance
Evaluation of User Performance of Alternate Public Transport System ‘s’

• User comparative Performance Index of Alternate Public Transport System

‘s’ is evaluated by

URPII= User Performance index for Alternate Public Transport system I

URPII=User Performance index for Alternate Public Transport system II

• The value of indices may be greater than one, equal to one and less than.
The value of indices greater than one, equal to one and less than one
indicates the comparative performance of alternate public transport system
I is superior, equal and inferior quality with respect to alternate public
transport system II
• Similarly remaining two stages are
developed in same manner.
 Sub Stage : IVA
Identification of Key Indicators for Comparative
Performance Evaluation from City Perspective

A Hierarchical Structure for Identification of Comparative Major Performance Indicator

 Sub Stage : IVB
Determination of Relative Weight of Major Performance
Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP Method

• The objective of third stage is to determine the relative weight of

Major performance indicators
• FAHP is used to generate the weighting of the major
performance indicators.

S. ID Key Operator Notations Relative

No. Performance Indicators Weight

1 MPI-1 User Performance WCUP 0.346

2 MPI-2 City Performance WCCP 0.452

3 MPI-3 Operator Performance WCOP 0.212

 Sub Module-IVC
Development of A Methodology for Evaluation of
Overall Comparative Performance
Evaluation of Overall Performance of Alternate Public Transport ‘s’

•The value of overall performance index may vary from 0 to 1. The value ‘0’ and
‘1’ indicates worst performance and better performance of alternate public
transport system respectively. It can be determined using

URPIs = User performance index for alternate public transport system‘s’, CPMIs =
City performance for alternate public transport system‘s’, OPPIs= Operator
performance for alternate public transport system‘s’, WURP = Relative weight of
user performance, WCPP = Relative weight of city performance, WOPP= Relative
weight of operator performance
 Sub Module-IVC
Development of A Methodology for Evaluation of
Overall Comparative Performance
Evaluation of Overall Comparative Performance of Alternate Public Transport System

•The value of indices may be greater than one, equal to one and less than. The
value of indices greater than one, equal to one and less than one indicates the
comparative performance of alternate public transport system I is superior, equal
and inferior quality with respect to alternate public transport system II.
•The overall comparative performance index can be determined using

OLPII = Overall Performance index of Alternate Public Transport System I

OLPIII = Overall Performance index of Alternate Public Transport System II
BASIC DETAILS OF EXISTING ROUTES OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEM‘S’ CONSIDERED IN STUDY AREA
S. No Average Passenge
Average Total number distance r Carrying
Number of
Length of number of of vehicles ply travelled from capacity
Details of Route ‘i’ Bus stop on
Public transport route ‘i’ trips in a day on a route ‘i’ in depot to origin of a
a route ‘i’
system ‘s’ per vehicle a day of route to by a vehicle
vehicle *** ***
Unit km Nos. Nos. Nos. km Nos.
Notation LORI,i NBSI,i ANTI,i TNVI,i ADOI,i PCVI,i
1 SR1 (Sehore Naka to
19.30 29 4 17 10 80
Bairagarh Chichili)
SR2 (Nehru Nagar to
20.50 44 4 19 10 80
Katara Hills)
*Public Transport SR4 (People's College to
22.80 36 4 26 10 80
System ‘I’ (BCLL Bairagarh Chichili)
bus system)
SR5 (Chirayu Hospital to
27.90 45 4 24 10 80
Awadhpuri)

SR8 (Coach Factory to

23.40 49 4 28 10 80
Bairagarh Chichili)
2 RA1 (Nayapura Kolar to
21.5 30 5.5 21 10 44
Nadra Bus Station)
RT1 (Indus Garden to
**Public 17.4 18 6.0 35 10 44
Lambakheda)
Transport System
RT2 (Indus Garden to
‘II’ (Mini bus 27.4 23 5.0 46 10 44
Gandhi Nagar)
system)
RT7 (Bairagarh to
28.2 28 4.0 18 10 44
Bagmugalia)
RT11 (Bairagarh To Aura
25.3 29 4.5 32 10 44
Mall Trilanga)
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM
‘I’ FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-I

Input Value for Route ‘i’

S. No. Parameters Unit Notation Input Data Source
SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8
1 Desirable journey speed of a vehicle Wilbur Smith
kmph DJSI 30 30 30 30 30
from origin to destination Associates, (2008)
2 Average time spent by a passenger in a Field survey
Minute ATII,i 85.0 89.0 94.0 116.0 101.0
vehicle from origin to destination
3 Number of vehicles passes through the Field survey at Major
Nos. NVHI,i 4 4 6 5 6
stop within an hour stop
4 Average transfer time of a vehicle from Questionnaire Survey
Minute TFTI,i 14.5 13.6 15.3 14.9 12.8
origin to destination in Field
5 Average fare in-vehicle spent by a www.mybrts.com
Details of fare chart on km basis is given in
passenger to travelling 1 km distance in Rs/km AFII,i
Table 14
a trip
6 Rate of fuel which is used in car in Bhopal Petrol pump
Rs/lit ROFc 75.87 75.87 75.87 75.87 75.87
rupees per liter (Petrol) Survey
7 Average fuel efficiency of car in km per Car Operators
km/lit AFEc 17 17 17 17 17
liter
8 Parking fare from origin to destination Questionnaire Survey
Rs APFI,i 0 0 0 0 0
in Field
9 Average transfer fare of a vehicle from Questionnaire Survey
Rs ATFI,i 10 10 7 7 7
origin to destination in Field
10 Safety rating given by users The details of safety rating given by users is Questionnaire Survey
Rating NSRRs,i
presented in Table 15 in Field
11 Comfort rating given by users The details of comfort rating given by users Questionnaire Survey
Rating NCRRs,i
is presented in Table 16 in Field
12 Number of trips on time at stop by Field survey at Major
Nos. NOTI,i 48 59 78 72 87
vehicles in a day stop
13 Total number of trips by vehicles in a day BCLL bus Operator
Nos. TNTs,i 68 76 112 96 104
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM
‘II’ FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-I
Input Value for Route ‘i’
S. No. Parameters Unit Notation Input Data Source
RA1 RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11
1 Desirable journey speed of a vehicle from kmph
Wilbur Smith
origin to destination DJSII 30 30 30 30 30
Associates, (2008)

2 Average time spent by a passenger in a Minute Questionnaire Survey

ATIII,i 111 89 131 124 119
vehicle from origin to destination in Field
3 Number of vehicles passes through the stop Nos. Field survey at Major
NVHII,i 5 7 6 4 6
within an hour stop
4 Average transfer time of a vehicle from Minute Questionnaire Survey
TFTII,i 12.5 13.0 14.5 16.5 12.5
origin to destination in Field
5 Average fare in-vehicle spent by a Rs/km
Jain and Nanda
passenger to travelling 1 km distance from AFIII,i Details of fare chart on km basis is given in Table 14
(2014)
origin to destination
6 Rate of fuel which is used in car in rupees Bhopal Petrol pump
Rs/km ROFc 75.87 75.87 75.87 75.87 75.87
per liter (Petrol) Survey
7 Average fuel efficiency of car in km per liter AFEc
km/lit 17 17 17 17 17 Car Operators

8 Average parking fare from origin to Rs Questionnaire Survey

APFII,i 0 0 0 0 0
destination in Field
9 Average transfer fare of a vehicle of from Rs Questionnaire Survey
ATFII,i 5 7 7 5 7
origin to destination in Field
10 Safety rating given by users Rating The details of safety rating given by users is Questionnaire Survey
NSRII,i
presented in Table 15 in Field
11 Comfort rating given by users Rating The details of comfort rating given by users is Questionnaire Survey
NCRII,i
presented in Table 16 in Field
12 Number of trips on time at stop by vehicle in Nos. Questionnaire Survey
NOTII,i 62 109 113 44 83
a day in Field
13 Total number of trips by vehicle in a day Nos. Questionnaire Survey
TNTII,i 116 210 230 72 144
in Field
 DETAILS OF FARE ON KM BASIS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEM‘S’

S.
Particular Input value for public transport system ‘s’
No.

Travel
1 10- 13- 16- 19- 22- 25- 28- 31-
distance 0-2 2-3 3-7 7-10
13 16 19 22 25 28 30 34
in km
Travel fare
for public
2 5 9 12 14 17 19 22 24 26 28 30 30
transport
system ‘I’
Travel fare
for public
3 5 7 10 12 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 30
transport
system ‘II’
SAFETY RATING GIVEN BY USERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEM ‘S’ ON ROUTE ‘I’

Safety Rating given by Users on a Route ‘i’

Public transport system ‘I’ Public transport system ‘II’
S. Description Notation
SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8
No. RA1 RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11

1 Number of users given safety

rating 5 for public transport NSR5S,i 9 9 11 10 8 6 9 6 7 7
system ‘s,
2 Number of users given safety
rating 4 for public transport NSR4S,i 11 13 12 11 14 7 8 12 11 13
system ‘s’
3 Number of users given safety
rating 3 for public transport NSR3S,i 17 14 16 15 13 11 13 11 12 13
system ‘s’
4 Number of users given safety
rating 2 for public transport NSR2S,i 9 10 8 9 11 13 11 11 12 10
system ‘s’
5 Number of users given safety
rating 1 for public transport NSR1S,i 7 7 6 8 7 16 12 13 11 10
system ‘s’
6 Total number of users given
safety rating for public TNSS,i 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
transport system ‘s’
COMFORT RATING GIVEN BY USERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEM ‘S’ ON ROUTE ‘I’

Comfort Rating given by users on a Route ‘i’

Notation
S. Description Public transport system ‘I’ Public transport system ‘II’
No. SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8 RA1 RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11
Number of users given 4 3 3 4 5
1 comfort rating 5 for public NCR5S,i 11 9 13 9 12
transport system ‘s’
Number of users given 9 6 12 11 9
2 comfort rating 4 for public NCR4S,i 12 12 11 10 15
transport system ‘s’
Number of users given 12 9 13 12 12
3 comfort rating 3 for public NCR3S,i 15 13 11 13 12
transport system ‘s’
Number of users given 16 15 14 15 17
4 comfort rating 2 for public NCR2S,i 12 15 14 16 11
transport system ‘s’
Number of users given 12 13 14 11 10
5 comfort rating 1 for public NCR1S,i 3 4 4 5 3
transport system ‘s’
Total number of users given 53 53 53 53 53
comfort rating for public TNCS,i 53 53 53 53 53
transport system ‘s’
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM ‘I’
FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-II
Notation Unit Value Source of Input Data
S. No Parameters
SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8
Field Survey
1 Average Operational speed in a trip AOSI,i kmph 42.62 37.95 39.93 37.20 31.65
(RadarSpeed Gun)
Bhopal RTO
2 Maximum Operational speed in a trip MOSI,i kmph 60 60 60 60 60
Guidelines
Total number of passengers to travel per Field survey
3 TNPI,i Nos. 3820 6500 11890 10792 10908
day
4 passenger carrying capacity of a vehicle TCVI Nos. 80 80 80 80 50 Field survey

Total route length of roads on which ply Singh, et al. (2012)

5 TRLI km 291.17
vehicles in a city
6 Total Network Length of roads in a city TNL km 1500 Jaiswal (2012)

Average operational mile speed in miles Survey by Speed

7 AMSI,i Mile/h 26.50 23.59 24.82 23.13 19.68
per hour Radar method
Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘p’ Details of Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘p’ are
8 (CARB technology) A, B Unit less ARAI,2007
presented in previous Table 18
Air emission rate of pollutant ‘p’, from a Details of air emission rate of pollutant ‘p’ are
9 AERp,I gm/km ARAI,2007
vehicle presented in Table 20
Details of respondent of Noise rating is presented in Questionnaire Survey
10 Noise quality Rating given by users NNRRs,i Rating
Table 21
Average land value near the transport Bhopal Collector
11 APVI,i Rs/ft2 3567 4266 3678 3216 3782
route on which ply Guidelines (2016)
Maximum land value of area near any
12 MLV Rs/ft2 8357 8357 8357 8357 8357
transport route
Bhopal city link
13 No of jobs created by in a city NJCI,i Nos. 980
limited
Total No. of Job created by transport
14 TJCt Nos. 4730 Bus Operator Survey
system in a city
DETAILS OF CYCLE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR POLLUTANT ‘P’ OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEM ‘I’

S. No. Parameters Notation Value

Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘CO’ of ACO,I -0.0287910

1
public transport system ‘I’ BCO,I 0.0019220

Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘CO2’ of ACO2,I -0.0259500

2
public transport system ‘I’ B CO2,I -0.0003090

Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘HC’ of AHC,I -0.0317600

3
public transport system ‘I’ BHC,I 0.0009080

Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘NOX’ of ANOX,I 0.0089670

4
public transport system ‘I’ BNOX,I -0.0000270
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM
‘II’ FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-II
Notation Unit Value Source of
S. No. Parameters Input Data
RT1(A1) RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11

1 Average Operational speed in a trip AOSII,i kmph 30.21 31.89 29.75 28.25 34.26 Field survey

Maximum Operational speed in a trip Bhopal RTO

2 MOSII,i kmph 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Office
in a city
Total number of passengers to travel Field survey
3 TNPII,i Nos. 6783 11795 15686 5922 10528
per day
Passenger carrying capacity of a Field survey
4 PCVII,i Nos. 44 44 44 44 44
vehicle in a day
Total route length of roads on which Jaiswal A.
5 TRLI km 276.67
ply vehicles (2014)
Total Network Length of roads in a Bhopal Smart
6 TNL km 1500 city Authority
city
Average operational mile speed in Field survey
7 AMSII,i Mile/h 18.78 19.83 18.50 17.56 21.30
miles per hour
Cycle correction factor for pollutant Details of Cycle correction factor for pollutant ‘p’ are
8 ‘p’ (CARB Technology) A, B Unit less ARAI,2007
presented in previous Table 18
Air emission rate of pollutant ‘p’, from Details of air emission rate of pollutant ‘p’ are presented
9 AERp,I gm/km ARAI,2007
a vehicle in previous Table 20
Noise rating given by users are presented in Table 21 Questionnair
10 Noise quality Rating given by users NNRRII,i Rating e Survey
Average land value near the transport Bhopal
11 APVII,i Rs/ft2 3126 3028 3286 2968 3925
route on which ply Collector
Maximum land value of area near any Guidelines
12 MLV Rs/ft2 8357 8357 8357 8357 8357
transport route (2016)
Bhopal city
13 No of jobs created in a city NJCI,i Nos. 1350 link limited
Total No. of Job created by transport
14 TJCt Nos. 4730 Survey
system in a city
DETAILS OF AIR EMISSION RATE OF POLLUTANT ‘P’ FROM PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM‘S’

Public transport system ‘I’ Public transport system ‘II’

Air Emission Air Emission

S. No. Parameters
Notation Rate Notation Rate
(gm/km) (gm/km)

1 Air emission rate of pollutant ‘CO’, from a 3.92

AERCO,I AERCO,II 3.66
vehicle
2 Air emission rate of pollutant ‘CO2’, from a 602.1
AERCO2,I AERCO2,II 401.25
vehicle
3 Air emission rate of pollutant ‘HC’, from a 0.16
AERHC,I AERHC,II 1.35
vehicle
4 Air emission rate of pollutant ‘NOX’, from a 6.53
AERNOx,I AERNOx,II 2.12
vehicle
 NOISE QUALITY RATING GIVEN BY USERS FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORT SYSTEM‘S’ ON ROUTE ‘I’

Noise Rating given by users on a Route ‘i’

S. Public transport system ‘I’ Public transport system ‘II’
Description Notation
No.
SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8 RA1 RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11

1 Number of users given noise

rating 5 for public transport NNR5S,i 13 12 14 11 12 9 8 8 5 6
system ‘s’
2 Number of users given noise
rating 4 for public transport NNR4S,i 9 10 12 13 12 8 7 10 11 9
system ‘s’
3 Number of users given noise
rating 3 for public transport NNR3S,i 16 13 11 12 13 13 16 15 12 15
system ‘s’
4 Number of users given noise
rating 2 for public transport NNR2S,i 9 10 9 11 9 11 12 11 13 14
system ‘s’
5 Number of users given noise
rating 1 for public transport NNR1S,i 6 8 7 6 7 12 10 9 12 9
system ‘s’
6 Total number of users given
noise rating for public transport TNNS,i 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
system ‘s’
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM
‘I’ FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-III

Unit Value Source of Input

S. No Parameters Notation
SR1 SR2 SR4 SR5 SR8 Data
Average fuel required by a vehicle in
BCLL bus
1 a day AFRI,i Liters 50 53 55 60 55
operator survey
Rate of fuel used in a vehicles Bhopal Petrol
2 ROFI Rs/Lit 62.67 62.67 62.67 62.67 62.67
Pump Survey
Maintenance cost per km www.team.bhp.
3 MCKI,i Rs/km 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93
com
4 Revenue generation by fare in a day RFVs,i Rs 32153 51438 113580 94183 96938
BCLL Bus
Number of vehicles used in
5 NVAI,i Nos. 8 10 13 12 13 Authority
advertising
Revenue generation by
BCLL Bus
6 advertisement from a vehicle per day RAVI,i Rs 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Authority
per vehicle
Number of bus shelters used in BCLL Bus
7 NBSI,i Nos. 38 39 32 34 39
advertising Authority
Revenue generation from
BCLL Bus
8 advertisement by a bus stop shelter RASI,i Rs 950 950 950 950 950
Authority
per day per shelter
Number of drivers required for
9 NODI,i Nos. 17 19 28 24 26 BCLL Bus
operation of vehicle
Authority
10 salary per day paid to drivers SODI,i Rs 600 600 600 600 600
Number of conductors required for
11 NOCI,i Nos 17 19 28 24 26 BCLL Bus
operation of a vehicle
Authority
12 Salary per day paid to conductor SOCI,i Rs 400 400 400 400 400
Total number of passengers BCLL Bus
13 TNPI,i Nos. 3820 6500 11890 10792 10908
travelled per day Authority
DETAILS OF INPUT DATA FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM ‘II’ FOR APPLICATION OF STAGE-III

Notation Unit Value Source of

S. No. Parameters
RA1 RT1 RT2 RT7 RT11 Input Data
Average fuel required by a vehicle Mini Bus
1 AFRII,i Liters 30 27 35 30 30
in a day Operator
Rate of fuel used in a vehicles Bhopal petrol
2 ROFII Rs/Lit 62.67 62.67 62.67 62.67 62.67
pump survey
Maintenance cost per km www.team.bhp
3 MCKII,i Rs/km 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96
.com
Revenue generation per day by Mini bus
4 RFVII,i Rs 69390 113700 193100 51000 110000
fare operator
Number of vehicles used in Mini Bus
5 NVAII,i Nos. 0 0 0 0 0
advertising Operator
Revenue generation by
Mini Bus
6 advertisement from a vehicle per RAVII,i Rs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operator
day per vehicle
Number of bus shelters used in Mini Bus
7 NBSII,i Nos. 0 0 0 0 0
advertising Operator
Revenue generation from
Mini Bus
8 advertisement on a bus stop RASII,i Rs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operator
shelter per day per shelter
Number of drivers required for Field Survey
9 NODII,i Nos. 21 35 46 18 32
operation Mini Bus
10 salary per day paid to drivers SODII,i Rs 500 500 500 500 500 Operator
Number of conductors required
11 NOCII,i Nos 21 35 46 18 32 Field Survey
for operation of a vehicle
Salary per day paid to conductor Mini Bus
12 SOCII,i Rs 300 300 300 300 300
of a vehicle Operator
Total number of passengers Mini Bus
13 TNPII,i Nos. 6783 11795 15686 5922 10528
travelled per day Operator
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION FROM USER PERSPECTIVE

• The comparative performance of public transport system ‘I’

(i.e. BCLL bus system) with respect to public transport
system ‘II’ ( i.e. Mini bus system) from user perspective is
evaluated using proposed methodology of Stage-I.

• The input data are analyzed to determine the performance

of BCLL bus system and Mini bus system.

• The results obtained from the analysis of input data of BCLL

bus system and Mini bus system are presented in Figure.
 6.1
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM USER PERSPECTIVE
The results obtained from the analysis of input data of BCLL bus system and Mini bus system are
presented in Figure 6.

0.900 BCLL bus System 0.827 0.855

0.800 Mini Bus System 0.753
0.700 0.656 0.652
0.629 0.629 0.613
0.610
0.600 0.555 0.547
0.524
Index Value

0.500 0.469
0.415
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
IVTIs OVTIs IVCIs OVCIs SRTIs CRTIs RBTIs

Figure : Analysis results of performance of Bhopal bus systems from

various aspects of user perspective
 6.1
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM USER PERSPECTIVE

• It is clearly indicated that analysis results from Figure the users

are average satisfied from in-vehicle time aspect, fairly
satisfied from out-of-vehicle time, in-vehicle cost, user safety,
and user comfort aspects and good satisfied from out-of-
vehicle cost, and reliability aspects from performance of BCLL
bus system of Bhopal city.
 6.1
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM USER PERSPECTIVE

• Further, the analysis results also indicated that the users are
preferably satisfied from in-vehicle time aspect, fairly satisfied
from out-of-vehicle time, in-vehicle cost, user safety, and user
comfort aspects and good satisfied from out-of-vehicle cost,
and reliability aspects from performance of Mini bus system of
Bhopal city.

• Further, the analysis and results of comparative performance

of BCLL bus system with respect to Mini bus system from user
aspects are also presented in Figure.
 6.1
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM USER PERSPECTIVE

1.400 1.377
1.350
1.300
1.250
Index Value

1.200 1.170
1.150 1.129 1.133
1.100
1.050
1.000
0.950 0.967
0.959
0.900 0.936

Figure : Results of comparative performance of BCLL bus system w.r.t Mini

bus system from various user aspects
6.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF OVERALL COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BHOPAL BUS SYSTEM

 The overall comparative performance of BCLL

bus system w.r.t. Mini bus system is evaluated
using proposed methodology of Stage-IV and
presented in Figure. The analysis results from
Figure clearly indicated the overall performance
of BCLL bus system with respect to Mini bus
system is superior under user aspect, city
aspects and operator aspects individually as
well as combined
6.4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF OVERALL COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BHOPAL BUS SYSTEM

1.075
1.070
1.070
1.065
1.061
1.060
Index Value

1.055
1.055
1.050
1.045 1.043

1.040
1.035
1.030
1 2 3 4

Figure Analysis results of overall comparative performance of BCLL bus

system with respect to Mini bus system
 CONCLUSIONS

 In the present study, four stage methodologies for

comparative performance evaluation of alternate public
transport system are developed.
 They are developed in reference to user, city, and operator
perspective separately and are referred as stage I, II and III.
The methodology that considers all three together is referred
as stage IV.
 The methodologies of the stage I, II and III, each have four
major sub stages. The sub stages (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are
related to identification of important performance indicators,
development of performance indices, determination of
relative weights to the indicators and finally determination of
comparative performance. The relative weights are
assignedusing Fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP)
technique by analysing the opinions of transport experts and
academician.
 CONCLUSIONS

 The stage IV methodology has three sub stages. In sub stage

(i) interrelationship between user, city and operator indicators
is developed. In sub stage (ii), relative weights are
determined for the key indicators. The overall comparative
performance is then determined in sub stage (iii).
 The performance of two different public transport systems in
respect to user perspective needs to be evaluated, then the
user comparative performance index (UCPII/II) is
determined in stage I. This index quantify the comparative
performance of public transport system ‘I’ with respect to
public transport system ‘II’ considering all aspects of user
i.e.in-vehicle time, out-of-vehicle time, in-vehicle cost, out-
of-vehicle cost, user safety, user comfort and reliability.
 CONCLUSIONS

 From city point of view travel coverage, environment and

economics of the city are important. Hence to compare the
performance of two public transport systems, I and II from city
perspective, the city comparative performance index (CCPII/II)
is determined in stage II. This index takes care of seven key
city performance indicators namely city mobility, city coverage,
transport capacity, air quality, noise quality, economic activity
and city employment.
 While comparing two transport systems I and II from operator’s
perspective; operational cost and resource performance are
considered as important criteria. The operator comparative
performance index (OCPII/II) is determined in stage III, which
considers and compares fuel cost, maintenance cost, staff
utilization and travel utilization related to them. The Stage-IV
identified three comparative major performance indicators and
the inter-relationship between them.

 CONCLUSIONS

 The relative weights to comparative user performance,

comparative city performance and comparative
operator performance are then assignedusing FAHP
technique by analysing the opinions of transport
experts and academician.
 The overall comparative performance index
(OLCPII/II) is developed which compare the overall
performance of public transport system ‘I’ with respect
to public transport system ‘II’.
 CONCLUSIONS

 The methodologies proposed in this study are illustrated by

evaluating comparative performance of Bhopal City Link
Limited (BCLL) bus system with respect to Mini Bus
system of Bhopal city. The results of analysis shows that
UCPII/II, CCPII/II and OCPII/II values are 1.061, 1.043 and
1.070 respectively.
 A value of these comparative performance indices more
than one indicates that the system ‘I’ is better than the
system ‘II’. Thus BCLL bus system is superior to the Mini
bus system from user, city and operator perspectives.
 Further, the value of OLCPII/II is 1.055 that indicates that
BCLL bus system is superior to the Mini bus system from
overall perspectives also.
 CONCLUSIONS

 Further, examining the details of comparative user,

operator and city indices it is noted that the value of city
coverage index and city employment index of BCLL and
Mini bus system is less than 0.3 that indicate both the
systems are poor in respect to city coverage and city
employment aspects and thus, there is need to improve
these aspects.
 However in respect to other aspects related to city, operator
or user both the systems obtain the value of different
indices more than 0.30 but less than 0.85 and hence, the
performance may be said to be in preferably satisfied
(0.30-0.45), average satisfied (0.45-0.55), fairly satisfied
(0.55-0.70), good satisfied (0.70-0.85) categories . An
index value (0.85-1.00) is put under extremely satisfied
criteria and therefore there is a need to maintain this level.
 REFERENCES
 Abreha, D. A., (2007), “Analyzing Public Transport Performance using Efficiency Measures and Spatial
Analysis; the case of Addis Ababa”, International Institute for Geo- Information Science and Earth Observation,
University of Twente, Ethiopia, Enschede, Netherlands.
 Advani M., and Tiwari G., (2005)“Evaluation of Public Transport Systems: Case Study of Delhi Metro”, START
Conference Proceedings, IIT Kharagpur, India, 575–83.
 Advani, M. and TiwariG.,(2006), "Review of Capacity Improvement Strategies for Bus Transit Service", Indian
Journal of Transport Management, 30(4), 363-391.
 Agarwal P.K., Gurjar J., Gupta V (2017),“Evaluation of Socio-economic Impact of City Bus Services in
Developing Countries.”Transportation Research Procedia 25(2017), 4589–4605.
 Agarwal P. K., Gurjar J., Gautam A., Jain P. K. (2015), “A Rational Methodology for Evaluation of the Impact of
Public Transit Service in a City” International Journal of Frontier technology (IJFT), 2 (2), 18-25.
 Agarwal P.K., and Singh A.P., (2010) “Performance Improvement of Urban Bus System: Issues and Solutions”,
International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2(9), 4759-4766.
 Agarwal S., Yadav S.P., and Singh S.P., (2011) “DEA Based Estimation of the Technical Efficiency of State
Transport Undertaking in India”, Operational Research Society of India, 47(3), 216-230.
 Aidoo E.N., Agyemang W., Monkah J.E., and Afukaar F.K.,(2010), “Passenger’s Satisfaction with Public Bus
Transport Services in Ghana:A Case Study of Kumasi–Accra Route”, theoretical and Empirical Researches in
Urban Management, 8(2), 33–44.
 Ali, Z.M., Ismail, M., Suradi, N.R.M., and Ismail, A.S., (2009) ‘’Importance-Performance Analysis and Customer
Satisfaction Index for Express Bus Services’’ Proceedings of the World Congress on Nature & Biologically
Inspired Computing (NaBIC), Coimbatore, 590-595.
 Alonso A., MonzónA.,andCascajo R., (2015) “Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in
European cities”, Ecological Indicators, 48,578–592.
 REFERENCES
 Andaleeb S.S.,Haq E.M., and Ahmed R. I., (2007) “Reforming Intercity Bus Transportation in a Developing
Country: A Passenger-Driven Model”,Journal of Public Transportation,10(1), 1–25.
 AwasthiA.,andChauhan S.S. (2011)“Environmental Modellingand Software Using AHP and Dempster
Shafer Theory for Evaluating Sustainable Transport Solutions”, EnvironmentalModelling and Software,
26(6), 787–79.
 Badami G., and Haider M., (2007) “An Analysis of Public Bus Transit Performance in Indian Cities”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(10), 961-981.
 Bartman K., Ogle J., Chowdhury M., and Dunning A., (2011), “ Transit system Evaluation Process from
Planning to Realization” Technical Report, Clemson University, Clemson.
 Baskaran R., and Krishnaiah K., (2011) “Performance Evaluation of Bus Routes Using AHP”, European
Journal of Scientific Research, 64(4), 631-642.
 BasbasS., (2006) “Evaluation of Bus Transfer Stations from the Passenger’s Point of View”, WIT
Transactions on The Built Environment, 89(12),73–82.
 Beevi R., Agarwal P. K. and Gurjar J. ,A Framework for Performance Evaluation of Bus Rapid Transit
System in India, Colloquium on Transportation Systems Engineering and Management ,CTR, CED, 2014,
Calicut.
 Behera, S.N., Singh, A.K., and Prasad, S.C., (2005) “Assessment of Vehicular pollution on Urban air
quality –An Indian Case Study ” Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 25,(8), 727-731.
 Belwal R., and Belwal S., (2010) “Public Transportation Services in Oman: A Study of Public
Perceptions”, Journal of Public Transportation, 13(4), 1-21.
 Berhan, E., Beshah, B.,andKitaw, D., (2013), “Performance Analysis on Public Bus Transport of the City
of Addis Ababa” International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management
Applications, 5, 722-728.
 Bhat C.R., GuoJ.Y., Sen S., and Weston L., (2005)“Measuring Access to Public Transportation Services:
Review of Customer-Oriented Transit Performance Measures and Methods of Transit Submarket
Identification”, Technical Report, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas, Austin.
 REFERENCES
 Birnerova E., (2007) “Assessment of Customer Satisfaction in Public Transport Companies”, Promet-
Traffic and Transportation, 19(3), 163–166.
 Black J.A.,Paez A., andSuthanaya P.A.,(2012) “Sustainable Urban Transportation: Performance Indicators
and Some Analytical Approaches”, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 128(4), 184-209.
 Borger, B., and Kerstens, K., (2000) "The Performance of Bus-transit Operators", Handbook of Transport
Modelling, Elsevier Science, Pergamon, 577-595.
 Budiono O.A., (2009)“Customer Satisfaction in Public Bus Transport: A Study of Traveler’s Perception in
Indonesia” A Dissertation, Karlstad University, Karlstad.
 Breithaup M.,(2010) “Challenges of Urban Transport in Developing Countries: A Summary” Technical
Report based on GTZ Sourcebook on Sustainable Urban Transport for Policymakers in Developing Cities.
 Cancer, C., (2005) “Design Criteria of High Capacity Bus Transportation Systems”, A A Dissertation
submitted to Uzmir Institute of Technology.
 Carrasc N., (2014) “Planning, Operation and the Influence of National Culture on Public Transport
Service Reliability”, A dissertation, ETH Zurich, Colombia.
 Cascajo, R., (2004) “Socio-Environmental Benefits of Rail Urban Projects: An European Benchmarking”,
Proceedings of the European Transport Conference.
 Castillo Del J. M., and. Benitez F. G. (2012),“A Methodology for Modeling and Identifying Users
Satisfaction Issues in Public Transport Systems Based on Users Surveys” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 54 ( 2012 ) 1104 – 1114.
 Castillo, H.,and Pitfield D.,(2010) “A Methodological Framework for Identifying and Selecting Sustainable
Transport Indicators”, Transportation Research Part D,15(4), 179–188.
 Castillo J.M.D., and Francisco G. B., (2012) “A Methodology for Modeling and Identifying User’s
Satisfaction Issues in Public Transport Systems Based on Users Surveys” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 54, 1104 – 1114.
 Choocharukul K., andSriroongvikrai K.,(2013) “Multivariate Analysis of Customer Satisfactions: A Case
Study of Bangkok’s Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)”, Thailand.