ScienceDirect

ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Transportation
Available Research
online Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
Evaluation
Evaluation of
of Socio-Economic Impact of
Socio-Economic Impact of City
City Bus
Bus
Services in
Services in Developing
Developing Countries
Countries
P. K. Agarwalaa, Jitendra Gurjarbb, Vikram Guptacc
P. K. Agarwal , Jitendra Gurjar , Vikram Gupta
a
a
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
b Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
b
Ph. D scholar & Contract Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
c
Ph. D scholar &scholar,
Contract Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
c
PG Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
PG scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India

Abstract
Abstract
City bus services encounter distinctive challenges in planning, maintaining and operating their services in developing countries.
City bus services
However, most ofencounter distinctive
the studies challenges in
are not structured in aplanning, maintaining
simple manner and operating
and cannot their services
find significant in developing
comparative countries.
information for
However, most of
socio-economic the studies
impact of city are
bus not structured
services. in a simple
Therefore, manner
this study and cannot
presents find significant
a methodology comparative
for comparative information
evaluation for
of socio-
socio-economic
economic impactimpact of citycity
of alternate busbus
services. Therefore,
services. this studyproposed
The methodology presents in
a methodology for comparative
this study is also evaluation
illustrated using a BRTSofservice
socio-
economic
in Bhopal impact
city. It of alternate city
is expected that bus
this services. The
study will be methodology
useful to takeproposed in this
significant study before
decisions is also implementation
illustrated using of
a BRTS service
new services,
in Bhopal
and city. Itimprovement
performance is expected that this study
of existing citywill
busbe useful to take significant decisions before implementation of new services,
services.
and performance improvement of existing city bus services.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©
© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of Elsevier
WORLDB.V. CONFERENCE ON ON TRANSPORTRESEARCH RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD
under of WORLD CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT TRANSPORT RESEARCHSOCIETY. SOCIETY.
Keywords:City bus service; Comparative evaluation; Performance indicator; Social impact; Economic impact
Keywords:City bus service; Comparative evaluation; Performance indicator; Social impact; Economic impact

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Public transport system is one of the key component to improve social as well as economy welfare of a city in
Public transport
developing countries system is one
including of the
India. At key component
present, city bustoservice
improveis social as well
the most as economy
important mode welfare
of publicof transport
a city in
developing countries including India. At present, city bus service is the most important mode
system in Indian cities. A range of city bus services like BRT, low floor buses, and mini buses are available for of public transport
system
differentincity
Indian
sizes.cities.
Hence,A range of city
a scientific bus services
analysis like to
is required BRT, low
select thefloor
mostbuses, and mini
appropriate city buses are available
bus service for
for a given
different
city size.city sizes. Hence,
However a scientific
providing equitableanalysis is required
and efficient cityto bus
select the most
services is appropriate citytask
a challenging bus service for a given
in the developing
city size. due
countries However
to highproviding
populationequitable and income,
density, low efficientspatially
city busseparated
servicesland
is auses
challenging task in thedemand
and ever increasing developing
with
countries due to high population density, low income, spatially separated land uses and ever increasing
the limited resource available. Further, the existing city bus services in developing countries are not well planned, demand with
the limited
results resource problems
in increasing available.ofFurther, the existing
congestion, city bus services
traffic accidents, in developing
air pollution, countries
noise pollution andare not well
energy planned,
consumption.
results in increasing problems of congestion, traffic accidents, air pollution, noise pollution and energy consumption.
⃰ Corresponding author .Tel. +91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562
⃰ Corresponding
E-mail address:author .Tel. +91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562
pka9@yahoo.com
E-mail address: pka9@yahoo.com
2214-241X© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2214-241X© 2017 responsibility
Peer-review under The Authors. of
Published
WORLD byCONFERENCE
Elsevier B.V. ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.379
4590 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 2

It is also observed that the enormous amount of money is required for implementation of new services in a city.
Hence, most of the researchers emphasis an immense need for performance improvement of existing city bus
services. The social and economic impact factors play a critical role for performance improvement of city bus
services. Thus, there is urgent need to develop a comprehensive methodology for comparative evaluation of socio-
economic impact of alternate city bus services in developing countries. A critical literature review indicated that
most of the research studies focused on evaluating the performance of public transport services but fewer studies are
available on evaluation of comparative impact of services from social and economic aspect as well as combined in a
city and justify the alteration in service before its implementation. It is observed that various assessment
methodologies may not be favourable due to absence of data base or incomplete data base or data is available but
not in a comprehensive way. Thus retrieval of that data is very difficult to use for analysis purpose. Thus, there is
need to evaluate the comparative performance of alternate city bus service to existing city bus service to identify
opportunities and deficiencies as the cost of maintaining, expanding and extending city bus service .Therefore, the
main objective of this study is to develop a methodology for comparative performance evaluation of impact of
alternate city bus services from socio-economic aspects. Hence this study presents a comprehensive methodology
for comparative evaluation of socio-economic impact of alternate city bus services. The proposed methodology
consists of four stages. A hierarchical structure for identification of appropriate set of performance indicators to
evaluate socio-economic impact of city bus service is developed in first stage. The next stage served to determine
the relative weight of identified performance indicators in overall socio-economic impact of city bus services. These
relative weights are determined using expert opinion survey. The third stage developed various indices which can be
used to evaluate the condition of identified performance indicators. In the last stage composite socio-economic
impact index of service ‘s’ (CSEIs) is developed which indicates the overall socio-economic impact of city bus
service in Indian city. This methodology also developed comparative composite socio-economic impact index of
service ‘s’ (CCSEIs) which indicates the overall comparative socio-economic impact of city bus service. The
proposed methodology can be utilized using simple and minimal data which can be obtained easily and
economically. The methodology proposed in this study is also illustrated using a case study of BRTS service of
Bhopal city. This paper comprises of seven sections among them this is first one. The first section presents the
objective and need of the study. The second section briefly discusses the literature review carried out so far and its
significant deficiencies. The third section presents the framework for proposed methodology. The fourth section
briefly describes the various stages of proposed methodology. The fifth section evaluates the comparative
performance evaluation of socio-economic impact of alternate city bus service. The proposed methodology is
illustrated using a BRTS service in Bhopal city and analysis results are presented in section six. The last section
overviews the important conclusions drawn based on this study.

2. Literature review

A critical review of the literature carried out on various aspects of evaluation of the performance of public
transport services in developing as well as developed countries. Kanuganti S. et al. [1] discussed that most of the
people in developing countries like India are relatively poor and hence public transport is one of the most common
transportation modes that can be accessed by the urban population. Pticina I. [2] discussed that in the present state of
art main focuses on the efficient use of the existing public transport services and not so much on the construction
and implementation of new transport services. Kanuganti S. et al. [1] discussed that the existing condition of public
transport services is completely different in developing countries like, India as compared to developed countries.
Agarwal P.K. et al.[3] and Kanuganti S. et al. [1] reviewed that in most of the Indian cities, the demand of public
transportation is very high due to increased urbanization and population growth, urban expansion, dispersal of
amenities and activities. Consequently, urban transportation problems like congestion, accidents, environmental
degradation and land sprawl have increased in urban areas. Rocío Cascajo [4] studied that most of the researchers
mainly focused on performance assessment of public transport service on regional and national level, but not in
urban areas. Further, limited methodologies reviewed allows to quantify all the effects such as economic, social and
environmental produced by public transport services in urban areas, so there is necessary need to define a new
comprehensive methodology. Agarwal P.K. et al [5] identified that the major reasons for evaluating the comparative
performance of public transport system are to control cost, impact of service in a city and justify the alteration in
service before its implementation. Mistretta M. Et al. [6] said that most of evaluation methodology will not have any
comparisons of services to identify necessary changes needed to provide more effective and efficient service. Hence,
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4591
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Most of the researchers, Mistretta M. Et al, [6], Yousaf M. Shah [7] , Kanuganti S. [1], Rocío Cascajo [4], and
Agarwal P.K. et al [3,5] discussed that there is urgent need to develop a balanced assessment methodology which
evaluate the impact of alternate public transport service in a city development. Yousaf M. Shah [7] suggested that a
single measure is inappropriate for all situations therefore; multiple performance indicators are needed to evaluate
the impact of public transport service in a city. Mahmoud M. [8] and Das S. and D. Pandit [9] discussed that
identification of appropriate set of performance indicator is a problematic task due to a large number of performance
indicators presented in the literature and the variation in definition of set of indicators. Further most of the
researchers, Hensher D. A. [10], Mahmoud M. [8], Eboli L. [11], and Das S. and Pandit D. [9] concluded that the
number of performance indicator which might be significant in the developed countries might actually be irrelevant
for the developing countries like India. Gandhi S. et al. [12] evaluated that the impact of change in alteration of
BRTS service using Bead tool. Alonso A. et al. [13] identify the performance indicators to analyse the economic,
social and environmental impact of urban passenger transport system. This would help to manage the different
aspects of sustainability from a comprehensive point of view and would also make it easier to benchmark one city’s
performance against another’s. Agarwal P.K. et al. [3] evaluated the impact of public transport service in a city from
the social, economic, transport system effectiveness and environmental point of view. Khasnabis S. [14] and
Agarwal P. K et al [5] notified that evaluation approaches is often relatively straight forward to determine
performance of public transport service but in practice it may be much more difficult to obtain the necessary
information due to absence of data base. Pticina I. [2] said that there are a few researches dedicated to the
development of methodology for evaluating urban public transport service quality. Further, Pticina I. [2] also
discussed that the main problem for evaluating the performance of public transport service is lack of data or data is
not available in comprehensive manner. A critical review of the literature indicated that there are various
deficiencies in the present state of the art of evaluating the comparative performance of alternate public transport
service in developing countries from socio-economic perspective.
• A literature review indicated that most of the research studies focused on evaluating the performance of public
transport services but limited studies are available on evaluation of impact of service from socio-economic
aspect in a city and justify the alteration in service before its implementation. Therefore it may be difficult to
take decision for before implementation of new service, alteration of service, and reduction & expansion of
transport services in a city.
• It is indicated that there is no comprehensive methodology which can evaluate the overall comparative
performance of alternate public transport service under social and economic aspect so as to identify the impact
of alteration of public transport service before its implementation to each separately as well as combined.
• It is indicated that the single measure is inappropriate for all situations therefore; multiple performance
indicators are needed to evaluate the impact of public transport service in a city. However, most of the
performance indicators which might be significant in the developed countries might actually be irrelevant for
the developing countries. Hence, need to develop a balanced assessment methodology which can identify
performance indicators from Indian context and fulfils all the requirements for assessing the impacts produced
by public transport service from socio-economic point of view.
• A review of the literature indicated various assessment methodologies which can used to evaluate the
performance of public transport services from various perspectives. However, these methodologies may not be
favourable due to absence of data base or incomplete data base or data is available but not in a comprehensive
way. Thus retrieval of that data is very difficult to analyse.
Thus, there is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive methodology which can evaluate the overall comparative
impact of alternate city bus services under social and economic aspect each separately as well as combined and can
also be executed with minimal data which are easily available.

3. A framework for proposed methodology

The spatial structure of cities, particularly in developing countries, is highly variegated. Most of the developing
countries the city bus service services are adequately provided in some areas while there are inadequate or no
services provided in other areas. Further, there is variation in socio-economic characteristics of the dwellers from
place to place. Thus the need to evaluate the comparative evaluation of impact of city bus services in developing
countries. Hence, this study presents a comprehensive methodology for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city
bus services. The proposed methodology can be used to evaluate the socio-economic impact of alternate city bus
4592 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 4

services, existing city bus services as well as a new city bus service or any similar service or different services.
Figure 1 presents a framework of proposed methodology for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus
service.

Stage I
A Hierarchical Structure for Identification of Performance
Indicators

Stage II
Determination of Relative Weight of Performance Indicators

Stage III
Evaluation of Condition Indices of Performance Indicator

Stage IV
Development of Socio-Economic Impact Index

Fig.1. Framework for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus service.

The proposed methodology comprises of mainly four stages. A hierarchical structure is developed in first stage
for identification of appropriate set of performance indicators to evaluate socio-economic impact of city bus service.
These performance indicators are arrived at based on study of literature. The second stage served to determine the
relative weight of identified performance indicators which affect the overall, social as well as economic impact of
city bus services in developing countries. These relative weights are determined using expert opinion survey. The
third stage developed various condition indices which can be used to evaluate the condition of identified
performance indicators. These condition indices are developed in such a way so that comparative performance of
alternate city bus services to an existing city bus service can be evaluated from socio-economic aspect. In the last
stage composite socio-economic impact index of service ‘s’ (CSEIs) is developed which indicates the overall socio-
economic impact of bus service in a city. CSEIs of service ‘s’ is developed using condition indices of identified
performance indicators and their relative weight.

4. Evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus service

As discussed earlier, the main objective of this study is to evaluate the socio-economic impact of city bus
services in developing countries. This section briefly describes the details of major stages of proposed methodology.

4.1 Stage I : A hierarchical structure for identification of performance indicators

The main purpose of this stage is to identify the most appropriate performance indicators for evaluating the
socio-economic impact of city bus services in developing countries. However, a large number of performance
indicators presented in the literature so that identification of appropriate indicators is a challenging task. Further
most of the researchers concluded that the number of performance indicators which might be significant in the
developed countries might actually be irrelevant for the developing countries. Thus, the selection of inappropriate
performance indicators gives inadequate or wrong information about the city bus service results in enormous
amount of capital is used for implementation of new city bus service in a city. Therefore, a hierarchical structure is
developed logically to identify the appropriate performance indicators affecting the socio-economic impact of city
bus services in developing countries like India. The developed hierarchical structure is presented in Figure 2. The
overall impact of city bus service is assessed under the two major performance indicators i.e. social impact and
economic impact. Further, social impact of city bus services depends upon impact on city travels, impact on city
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4593
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

society and impact on city environment. Similarly, economic impact of city bus services depends upon impacts on
industry economy and impact on fuel economy. Each of these components is further decomposed into 13 basic
performance indicators (i.e. IF1-IF13), 9 of them are measured by quantitative indices and the remaining four are
measured by qualitative indices, which have been assessed by the socio-economic impact of city bus service.

Socio-Economic Impact of City Bus Service

Social Impact Economic Impact

Impact on City Impact on City Impact on City Impact on Industry Impact on Fuel
Travel Society Environment Economy Economy

Improvement Improvement in Improvement Improvement in

in Traffic Infrastructure in Air Property
Flow Facilities Quality Value Improvement
(IF1) (IF5) (IF8) (IF10) in Energy
Consumption
(IF13)
Improvement
Improvement in Improvement Improvement in
in Traffic
Service in Noise Support for Local
Safety
Equity Quality Industries
(IF2)
(IF6) (IF9) (IF11)

Improvement Improvement in Improvement in

in Service Society Employment
Reliability Cohesion Generation
(IF3) (IF7) (IF12)

Improvement
in Service
Coverage
(IF4)

Fig.2. A hierarchical structure for identification of factors affecting socio-economic impact of city bus service.

4.2 Stage II: Determination of relative weight of identified performance indicator

The objective of second stage is to determine the relative weight of identified performance indicators. The
identified performance indicator may not be equally affects the overall comparative socio-economic impact of city
bus services. Therefore, a system of weights needs to be introduced of each indicator to reflect the influence to
overall socio-economic impact of city bus services. The relative weights of the performance indicators are
determined from expert opinion survey and the rating given by them. It is to be noted that the total numbers of
respondents were 91. N5 is the number of respondents rated extremely significant (5), N4 is the number of
respondents rated very significant (4), N3 is the number of respondents rated average significant (3), N2 is the
number of respondents rated significant to some extent (2) and N1 is the number of respondents rated not at all
significant (1). Table 1 present the methodology for determination of relative weight of major performance indicator
for overall socio-economic impact of city bus service.
4594 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 6

Table 1. Relative weight of major performance indicators for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus services.

S. No Weight of Notation Number of Person Average Relative

Performance indicator of Weight Putting Importance Weight Weight
N5 N4 N3 N2 N1
1 Social Index (SLIs) WSLI 19 28 24 13 7 3.429 0.539
1(a) City Travel Index (CTIs) WCTI 6 37 34 9 5 3.330 0.395
1(b) City Society Index(CSIs) WCSI 3 9 15 38 26 2.176 0.258
1(c) City Environment Index(CEIs) WCEI 8 13 39 27 4 2.934 0.348
Total 8.440 1.000
2 Economic Index (ECIs) WECI 12 16 31 18 14 2.934 0.461
2(a) Industrial Economy Index (IEIs) WIEI 9 27 23 19 13 3.000 0.466
2(b) Fuel Economy Index (FEIs) WFEI 14 33 28 11 5 3.440 0.534
Total 6.440 1.000

Table 2 present the methodology for determination of relative weight of identified basic performance indicators
for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus services.
Table 2. Relative weight of basic performance indicators for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus services.
S. No Weight of Notation Number of Person Average Relative
Performance indicator of Weight Putting Importance Weight Weight
N5 N4 N3 N2 N1
1 Improvement in Traffic Flow (ITFs) WTF 4 7 7 21 52 1.791 0.145
2 Improvement in Traffic Safety (ITSs) WTS 53 29 7 2 0 4.462 0.361
3 Improvement in Service Reliability (ISRs) WSR 22 21 25 17 6 3.396 0.275
4 Improvement in Service Coverage (ISCs) WSC 9 19 22 18 23 2.703 0.219
Total 12.352 1.000

5 Improvement in Infrastructure Facilities (IIFs) WIF 23 48 13 3 4 3.912 0.395

6 Improvement in Service Equity(ISEs) WSE 11 19 28 17 16 2.912 0.294
7 Improvement in Society Cohesion (ISNs) WSN 14 13 39 17 8 3.088 0.312
Total 9.912 1.000
8 Improvement in Air Quality(IAQs) WAQ 32 46 9 4 0 4.165 0.561
9 Improvement in Noise Quality (INQs) WNQ 16 21 31 17 6 3.264 0.439
Total 7.429 1.000
10 Improvement in Property Value (IPVs) WPV 4 9 26 21 31 2.275 0.277
11 Improvement in Support for Local Industries (ISIs) WSI 9 15 23 25 19 2.670 0.326
12 Improvement in Employment Generation (IEGs) WEG 17 16 37 15 6 3.253 0.397
Total 8.198 1.000
13 Improvement in Energy Consumption(IECs) WEC 27 31 18 9 6 3.703 1.000
Total 3.703 1.000

4.3 Stage III: Evaluation of Condition Indices of Performance Indicator

The third stage developed various condition indices which can be used to evaluate the condition of identified
performance indicators. These condition indices are developed in such a way so that the impact of city bus service
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4595
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

can be evaluated from social and economic aspect. Table 3 presents the methodology for evaluation of condition
indices of identified basic performance indicators.
Table 3. Methodology for evaluation of condition indices of basic performance indicators.

S.No. ID Performance Indicator Methodology

1. IF1 Improvement in Traffic Flow ITFs=(AOSs/DOSs)
(ITFs) AOSs=Average operational speed of service ‘s’ (km/hr)
DOSs=Desirable operational speed of service ‘s’ (km/hr)
2. IF2 Improvement in Traffic 𝟓𝟓∗𝐑𝐑𝟓𝟓$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟒𝟒$𝟑𝟑∗𝐑𝐑𝟑𝟑$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟐𝟐$𝟏𝟏∗𝐑𝐑𝟏𝟏
ITSs =
Safety (ITSs) (𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑)∗𝟓𝟓
R5= No of persons rated extremely safe (5), R4= No. of persons rated good safe (4),
R3= No. of persons rated average safe(3), R2 = No. of persons rated safe to some
extent (2), R1 = No. of persons rated not at all safe (1)
3. IF3 Improvement in Service ISRs=1-(TADs/TTTs)
Reliability (ISRs) TADs= Total average delay of service ‘s’ in a trip (min)
TTTs= Total travel time of service ‘s’ in a trip (min)
4. IF4 Improvement in Service ISCs=(TCLs/TCA)
Coverage (ISCs) TCLs= Total corridor length of service ‘s’ (km)
TCA= Total city area (sq. km.)
5. IF5 Improvement in Infrastructure IIFs= Barrier free (Disabled friendly) Infrastructure Score (out of 1.0)
Facilities (IIFs)
6. IF6 Improvement in Service ISEs=NLHs/TLH
Equity (ISEs) NLHs= Number of low income household areas connected to corridor of service ‘s’
TLH= Total low income household areas in the city
7. IF7 Improvement in Society ISNs=(NKAs/TKA)
Cohesion NKAs= Number of key amenities connected to corridor of service ‘s’
(ISNs) TKA= Total No. of key amenities in the city.
8. IF8 Improvement in Air Quality IAQs=1-(TAEs/MAE)
(IAQs) TAES= Total air emission by service ‘s’
MAE= Maximum total air emission by any service
TAEs= AER./ X ECF./
AERPS =Air emission rate for pollutant P, at average speed of service ‘s’
ECFPS =Emission correction factor for pollutant P, at operational speed of service ‘s’
9. IF9 Improvement in Noise 𝟓𝟓∗𝐑𝐑𝟓𝟓$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟒𝟒$𝟑𝟑∗𝐑𝐑𝟑𝟑$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟐𝟐$𝟏𝟏∗𝐑𝐑𝟏𝟏
INQs =
Quality (INQs) (𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑)∗𝟓𝟓
R5= No of persons rated very low noise (5), R4= No. of persons rated fair noise (4),
R3= No. of persons rated average noise (3), R2 = No. of persons rated high noise (2),
R1 = No. of persons rated extremely noise (1)
10. IF10 Improvement in Property IPVs= APVs/MPV
Value (IPVs) APVS= Average property value near the corridor of service ‘s’
MPV= Maximum property value in the city.
11. IF11 Improvement in Support for 𝟓𝟓∗𝐑𝐑𝟓𝟓$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟒𝟒$𝟑𝟑∗𝐑𝐑𝟑𝟑$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟐𝟐$𝟏𝟏∗𝐑𝐑𝟏𝟏
ISIs =
Local Industries (ISIs) (𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑)∗𝟓𝟓
R5= No of persons rated extremely good support (5), R4= No. of persons rated good
support (4), R3= No. of persons rated average support(3), R2 = No. of persons rated
fair support (2), R1 = No. of persons rated not at all support(1)
12. IF12 Improvement in Employment 𝟓𝟓∗𝐑𝐑𝟓𝟓$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟒𝟒$𝟑𝟑∗𝐑𝐑𝟑𝟑$𝟒𝟒∗𝐑𝐑𝟐𝟐$𝟏𝟏∗𝐑𝐑𝟏𝟏
IEGs =
Generation (IEGs) (𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑$𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑)∗𝟓𝟓
R5= No of persons rated extreme employment (5), R4= No. of persons rated good
employment (4), R3= No. of persons rated average employment(3), R2 = No. of
persons rated fair employment (2), R1 = No. of persons rated no employment(1)
13. IF13 Improvement in Energy IECs= 1-(AFCs /TDTs)
Consumption (IECs) AFCs=Average fuel consumption per day per vehicle by service ‘s’
TDTs=Total distance travelled by service ‘s’
4596 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 8

4.4 Stage IV: Development of composite socio-economic impact index

The purpose of this stage is to develop a composite socio-economic impact index of service ‘s’(CSEIs) for
evaluation of overall impact of city bus services. The overall impact of city bus services is assessed under the social
impact and economic impact. The general equation for composite socio-economic impact index of service ‘s’
(CSEIs) is presented in Equation (1).

CSEIs=WSLI*SLIs+WECI*ECIs (1)

Where,

SLIS = Social impact index of service ‘s’

ECIS= Economic impact index of service ‘s’
WSLI = Relative weight of social impact
WECI = Relative weight of economic impact

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (1) it can be written as Equation (2)

CSEIs=0.539*SLIs+0.461*ECIs (2)

4.4.1 Social impact index of service‘s’ (SLIs)

Social impact index (SLIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the social impact of service ‘s’ in a city. The
city travel, city society and city environment affects the social impact of city bus services. Hence, the general
equation for social impact index of service ‘s’ (SLIS) is presented in Equation (3).

SLIs = WCTI*CTIs+WCSI*CSIs+WCEI*CEIs (3)

Where,

CTIs = City travel impact index of service ‘s’

CSIs = City society impact index of service ‘s’
CEIs = City environment impact index of service‘s’
WCTI = Relative weight of city travel impact
WCSI = Relative weight of city society impact
WCEI = Relative weight of city environment impact

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (3) it can be written as Equation (4)

SLIS = 0.395*CTIs+0.258*CSIs+0.348*CEIs (4)

City travel impact index of service ‘s’ (CTIs)

City travel impact index (CTIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the impact in traffic flow, traffic safety,
service reliability and service coverage of service ‘s’ in a city. The general equation for city travel impact index of
service ‘s’ (CTIs) is presented in Equation (5).

CTIs=WTF*ITFs+WTS*ITSs+WSR*ISRs+WSC*ISCs (5)

Where,

ITFs = Improvement in traffic flow of service ‘s’

ITSs = Improvement in traffic safety of service ‘s’
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4597
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9

ISRs = Improvement in service reliability of service ‘s’

ISCs = Improvement in service coverage of service ‘s’
WTF= Relative weight of improvement in traffic flow
WTS= Relative weight of improvement in traffic safety
WSR= Relative weight of improvement in service reliability
WSC= Relative weight of improvement in service coverage

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (5) it can be written as Equation (6)

CTIs=0.145*ITFs+0.361*ITSs+0.275*ISRs+0.219*ISCs (6)

City society impact index of service ‘s’ (CSIs)

City society impact index (CSIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the impact in infrastructure facilities,
service equity and society cohesion of service ‘s’ in a city. The general equation for city society impact index of
service ‘s’ (CSIs) is presented in Equation (7).

CSIs=WIF*IIFs+WSE*ISEs+WSN*ISNs (7)

Where,

IIFs = Improvement in infrastructure facilities of service ‘s’

ISEs= Improvement in service equity of service ‘s’
ISNs= Improvement in society cohesion of service ‘s’
WIF= Relative weight of improvement in infrastructure facilities
WSE= Relative weight of improvement in service equity
WSN= Relative weight of improvement in society cohesion

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (7) it can be written as Equation (8)

CSIs=0.395*IIFs+0.294*ISEs+0.312*ISNs (8)

City environment impact index of service ‘s’ (CEIs)

City environment impact index (CEIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the impact in air quality and noise
quality of service ‘s’ in a city. The general equation for city environment impact index of service ‘s’ (CEIs) is
presented in Equation (9).

CEIs=WAQ*IAQs+WNQ*INQs (9)

Where,

IAQs = Improvement in air quality of service ‘s’

INQs= Improvement in noise equity of service ‘s’
WAQ= Relative weight of improvement in air quality
WNQ= Relative weight of improvement in noise equity

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (9) it can be written as Equation (10)

CEIs=0.561*IAQs+0.439*INQs ( 10 )
4598 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 10

4.4.2 Economic impact index of service ‘s’ (ECIs)

Economic impact index (ECIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the economic impact of service ‘s’ in a
city. The industry economy and fuel economy affects the economic impact of city bus services. Hence, the general
equation for economic impact index of service ‘s’ (ECIs) is presented in Equation (11).

ECIs = WIEI*IEIs+WFEI*FEIs ( 11 )

Where,

IEIs= Industrial economy impact index of service ‘s’

FEIs= Fuel economy impact index of service ‘s’
WIEI= Relative weight of industrial economy impact
WFEI= Relative weight of fuel economy impact

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (11) it can be written as Equation (12)

ECIs = 0.466*IEIs+0.534*FEIs ( 12 )

Industrial economy impact index of service ‘s’ (IEIS)

Industrial economy impact index (IEIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the impact in property value,
support for local industry and employment generation of service ‘s’ in a city. The general equation for industry
economy impact index of service ‘s’ (IEIS) is presented in Equation (13).

IEIs=WPV*IPVs+WSI*ISIs+WEG*IEGs ( 13 )

Where,

IPVs = Improvement in property value of service ‘s’

ISIs = Improvement in support for local industries of service ‘s’
IEGs= Improvement in employment generation of service ‘s’
WPV = Relative weight of improvement in property value
WSI = Relative weight of improvement in support for local industries
WEG = Relative weight of improvement in employment generation

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (13) it can be written as Equation (14)

IEIs=0.277*IPVs+0.326*ISIs+0.397*IEGs ( 14 )

Fuel economy impact index of service ‘s’ (FEIs)

Fuel economic impact index (FEIS) is developed in this study to evaluate the impact in energy consumption of
service ‘s’ in a city. The general equation for fuel economy impact index of service ‘s’ (FEIs) is presented in
Equation (15).

FEIs=WEC*IECs ( 15 )

Where,

IECs= Improvement in energy consumption of service ‘s’

WEC= Relative weight of improvement in energy consumption
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4599
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 11

Now putting the value of relative weight as discussed earlier in Equation (15) it can be written as Equation (16)

FEIs=1.00*IECs ( 16 )

5. Comparative performance evaluation of alternate city bus services

Most of the developing countries including India the city bus services are adequately provided in some areas
while there are inadequate or no services provided in other areas. Further, there is variation in socio-economic
characteristics of the dwellers from place to place. Thus the need to evaluate the comparative evaluation of socio-
economic impact of city bus services in developing countries. The major reasons for evaluating the comparative
impact of city bus service are to control cost, impact of services in a city and justify the alteration in service before
its implementation in a city. Thus, this section presents comparative performance indices which can be used to
evaluate the socio-economic impact of alternate city bus services to an existing city bus service or new city bus
service to any similar service or different city bus services. The value of indices greater than one, equal to one and
less than one indicates the comparative impact of alternate city bus service 1 is better, equal and inferior quality with
respect to service 2.

Comparative composite socio-economic impact Index of service ‘s’ (CCSEIs)

It is proposed that comparative socio-economic impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an
index named as comparative composite socio-economic index of service ‘s’ (CCSEIs). The general equation for
comparative composite socio-economic index of service ‘s’ (CCSEIs) is presented in Equation (17).

CSEI8
CCSEI6 = ( 17 )
CSEI9

Where,
CSEI8 = Composite socio-economic impact index of service 1
CSEI9 = Composite socio-economic impact index of service 2

Comparative social impact index of service ‘s’ (CSLIS)

It is proposed that social impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named as
comparative social impact index service ‘s’ (CSLIS). The comparative social impact index of service ‘s’ is evaluated
using equation (18).

SLI8
CSLI6 = ( 18 )
SLI9

Where,
SLI1= Social impact index of service 1
SLI2= Social impact index of service 2

Comparative city travel impact index of service ‘s’ (CCTIS)

It is proposed that city travel impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named as
comparative city travel impact index of service ‘s’ (CCTIS). The comparative city travel impact index of service ‘s’
is evaluated using equation (19).

CTI8
CCTI6 = ( 19 )
CTI9
 Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 12
4600 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605

Where,

CTI1 = City travel impact index of service 1

CTI2 = City travel impact index of service 2

Comparative city society impact index of service ‘s’ (CCSIS)

It is proposed that city society impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named as
comparative city society impact index of service ‘s’ (CCSIS). The comparative city travel index of service ‘s’ is
evaluated using equation (20).

CSI8
CCSI6 = ( 20 )
CSI9
Where,

CSI1 = City society impact index of service 1

CSI2 = City society impact index of service 2

Comparative city environment impact index of service ‘s’ (CCEIS)

It is proposed that city environment impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named
as comparative city environment impact index of service ‘s’ (CCEIS). The city environment impact index of service
‘s’ is evaluated using equation (21).

CEI8
CCEI6 = ( 21 )
CEI9
Where,

CEI1 = City environment impact index of service 1

CEI2 = City environment impact index of service 2

Comparative economic impact index of service ‘s’ (CECIS)

It is proposed that economic impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named as
comparative economic impact index of service ‘s’ (CECIS). The comparative economic impact index of service ‘s’ is
evaluated using equation (22).

ECI8
CECI6 = ( 22 )
ECI9

Where,

ECI1= Economic impact index of service 1

ECI2= Economic impact index of service 2

Comparative industrial economy impact index (CIEIS)

It is proposed that industrial economy impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index
named as comparative industrial economy impact index of service ‘s’ (CIEIS). The comparative industry economic
impact index of service ‘s’ is evaluated using equation (23).
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4601
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 13

IEI8
CIEI/ = ( 23 )
IEI9

Where,

IEI1 = Industry economy impact index of service 1

IEI2 = Industry economy impact index of service 2

Comparative fuel economy impact index (CFEIS)

It is proposed that fuel economy impact of alternate city bus services can be evaluated using an index named as
comparative fuel economy impact Index of service ‘s’ (CFEIS). The comparative fuel economic impact index of
service ‘s’ is evaluated using equation (24).

FEI8
CFEI6 = ( 24 )
FEI9
Where,

FEIa = Fuel economy impact index of service 1

FEIe = Fuel economy impact index of service 2

6. Analysis and results for evaluation of comparative performance of alternate Bhopal BRTS services.

To illustrate the proposed methodology using a BRTS service in Bhopal city. The comparative performance of
alternate service I i.e. closed BRTS system (corridor with fully dedicated lane) and alternate service II i.e. open
BRTS system (corridor with no dedicated lane) is evaluated during peak hour. The total length of existing BRTS
corridor in Bhopal city is 24 km. The BRTS corridor length considered for analysis is 7.2 km from Halalpura bus
Stand to Roshanpura square and having corridor with partially dedicated lane in a city. The corridor is divided into
six segments in such a way that each segment starts from one intersection and ends at another intersection. The
details of each segment are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Details of BRTS corridor of Bhopal city.

No. of Signal
Length Intersection No. of BRTS
S.No. Description Bus Cycle
(km) Type Lanes Operation
Stops Length
Corridor With
1. S1-Halalpura Bus Stand To Guru Gobind Singh Marg 1.4 3 4-Arm 145 6
Dedicated lane
Corridor With
2. S2-Guru Gobind Singh Marg ToJilapanchayat Bhopal 1.4 2 3-Arm 60 6
Dedicated lane
Corridor
3. S3-Jilapanchayat Bhopal To Imami Gate Square 1.4 2 3-Arm 60 4 Without
Dedicated lane
Corridor
4. S4-Imami Gate Square To Kamla Park 1.2 2 4-Arm 60 4 Without
Dedicated lane
Corridor With
5. S5-Kamla Park To Poly-technique Square 0.8 1 4-Arm 60 6
Dedicated lane
Corridor With
6. S6-Poly-technique Square To Roshanpura Square 1.0 2 4-Arm 100 6
Dedicated lane

The segment conditions mentioned in Table 4 are implemented using BEAD (Bus Rapid Transit System
Evaluation and Design) tool to get the desired input data values for alternate service I and alternate service II for
research purpose. S G Architects & Fazio Engineerware [16] developed BEAD tool which can provide quantified
evaluation of alternative design features of BRTS service. It is a *.xls based interactive tool which allows engineers,
planners, designers and decision makers to make a comparative evaluation against any proposed changes in the
4602 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 14

features of BRTS. The input data for analysis of existing city bus service is collected from field survey and expert
opinion survey. Also some of the input data has been collected from various authorities and operators of city bus
services of Bhopal city. The details of final input data for analysis purpose used in proposed methodology is
presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Details of input data for comparative analysis of socio-economic impact of alternate BRTS services in Bhopal city.

S. Parameter Existing Alternate Alternate

No. Service Service I Service II
(Existing BRTS) (closed BRTS) (open BRTS)
1. Average operational Speed of BRTS service (km/hr) 17.6 22.8 16.2
2. Desirable operational Speed of BRTS service (km/hr) 30 30 30
3. Improvement in traffic safety (from expert rating survey) 0.65 0.82 0.51
4. Total average delay of BRTS service in a trip (min) 3.71 2.91 4.16
5. Total travel time of BRTS service in a trip (min) 30.30 28.39 31.99
6. Total corridor length of BRTS service (km) 24 24 24
7. Total city area (sq. km) 285 285 285
8. Barrier free( Disabled friendly) infrastructure score (user) 0.58 1.0 0.8
9. Number of low income household areas connected to corridor of BRTS 135 135 135
service
10. Total low income household areas in the city 366 366 366
11. Number of key amenities connected to corridor of BRTS service 345 345 345
12. Total No. of key amenities in the city. 1554 1554 1554
13. Air emission rate for pollutant CO per vehicle (gm/km) 3.92 3.92 3.92
14. Air emission rate for pollutant CO2 per vehicle (gm/km) 602.01 602.01 602.01
15. Air emission rate for pollutant HC per vehicle (gm/km) 0.16 0.16 0.16
16. Air emission rate for pollutant NOx per vehicle (gm/km) 6.53 6.53 6.53
17. Improvement in noise quality (from expert rating survey) 0.59 0.86 0.46
18. Average property value near corridor of BRTS service (Rs/sq. feet) 3067 3235 2756
19. Maximum property value in the city (Rs/sq. feet) 4094 4094 4094
20. Improvement in support for local industries (from expert rating survey) 0.62 0.78 0.54
21. Improvement in employment generation (from expert rating survey) 0.59 0.61 0.57
22. Average fuel consumption per day per vehicle by BRTS service (litre) 10.58 8.78 11.25
23. Total distance travelled by BRTS service (km) 36 36 36
(Source: www.mybusbhopal.in, field survey, Bead tool, ARAI, India [15])

The social impact of city bus service depends upon city travel, city society and city environment. The city travel
impact index value represents the impact of city bus service on traffic flow, traffic safety, service reliability and
service coverage in a city. The impact of city bus service on infrastructure facilities, service equity and society
cohesion in a city is evaluated using city society impact index indicates. The city environment impact index
specifies the impact of city bus service on city air quality and noise quality in a city. Further, the industry economy
and fuel economy affects the economic impact of city bus services. The industry economy impact index shows the
impact of city bus service on property value, support for local industries and employment generation. The fuel
economy impact index shows the impact of city bus service on energy consumption. The individual analysis results
of existing BRTS service as well as alternate BRTS services are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Analysis results of performance evaluation of socio-economic impact of alternate BRTS services in Bhopal city.

Existing Service Alternate Service I Alternate Service II

S.No. Performance Index
(Existing BRTS) (Closed BRTS) (Open BRTS)
1 City Travel Impact Index (CTI) 0.579 0.671 0.520
2 City Society Impact Index (CSI) 0.407 0.573 0.494
3 City Environment Impact Index (CEI) 0.293 0.515 0.202
Socio Impact Index (SLI) 0.436 0.592 0.403
4 Industry Economy Impact Index (IEI) 0.644 0.715 0.589
5 Fuel Economy Impact Index (FEI) 0.706 0.756 0.688
Economic Impact Index (ECI) 0.677 0.737 0.642
Composite Socio-Economic Impact Index (CSEI) 0.547 0.659 0.513
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4603
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 15

Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed methodology is capable of analysing the socio-economic impact of any
public transport service from different aspects in depth so as to identify the issues related to each individually for
establishment of transport policies that could potentially improve its shortcomings. Further, this methodology is also
used to evaluate the impact of alteration, expansion and reduction of existing service from socio-economic aspect.

Further, the analysis results of comparative performance of alternate service I (i.e. closed BRTS system) and
alternate service II (i.e. open BRTS system) is compared with existing BRTS services. The analysis results of
comparative social impact of alternate Bhopal BRTS services are presented in Figure 3. The value of all
comparative performance indices of alternate service I are greater than one which indicates closed BRTS system
gives better performance than existing BRTS system. Similarly, all values of comparative performance indices of
alternate service II are less than 1 which indicates open BRTS system gives inferior performance than existing
BRTS system except comparative city society index which is greater than 1. The results obtained are logical as
closed BRTS service is considered better than existing service and open BRTS service is considered inferior than
existing service excluding from city society impact of city bus service.

2,0 Alternate service I over existing service

Alternate service II over existing service
1,8
1,6
1,4
Index value

1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
CCTIs (Travel Impact) CCSIs (Society Impact) CCEIs (Environment Impact)
Comparative social performance indicators of city bus service
Fig. 3. Comparative performance evaluation of social impact of alternate Bhopal BRTS services.

Similarly analysis results of comparative performance of economic impact are presented in Figure 4. The value
of all comparative performance indices of alternate service I are greater than one which indicates closed BRTS
system gives better performance than existing system. Further, all values of comparative performance indices of
alternate service II are less than 1 which indicates open BRTS system gives inferior performance.

1,2 Alternate service I over existing service

Alternate service II over existing service
1,0

0,8
Index Value

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
CIEIs (Industry Economy Impact) CFEIs (Fuel Economy Impact)
Comparative economic performance indicators of city bus service

Fig. 4. Comparative performance evaluation of economic impact of alternate Bhopal BRTS services.
 Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 16
4604 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605

Similarly analysis results of overall comparative socio-economic impact of city bus services are presented in Figure
5. However the overall value of comparative composite socio-economic impact index of alternate service I is 1.205
which represents that on the whole closed BRTS system is performing better than existing BRTS system. Similarly,
the overall value of composite socio-economic impact index of alternate service II is 0.778 represents that on the
whole open BRTS system is performing inferior than existing system. It is logical as in closed BRTS system no
vehicle can enter into the corridor hence its performance should be better. Thus it may be concluded that proposed
methodology logically evaluate the comparative performance of socio-economic impact of alternate city bus
services.

1,6
Alternate service I over existing service
1,4 Alternate service II over existing service
1,2

1,0
Index Value

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
CSLIs (Social Impact) CECIs (Economic Impact) CCSEIs (Socio-Economic Impact)
Comparative overall performance index of city bus service

Fig. 5. Comparative performance evaluation of overall socio-economic impact of alternate Bhopal BRTS service.

Thus analysis results concluded that this methodology can be used to compare socio economic impact of any two
city bus services.

7. Conclusions
Some of the important conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:
• A critical review of the literature indicated that limited studies are available which can evaluate the
comparative impact of alternate city bus services under socio-economic aspect in developing countries.
Further, these studies have limited applications as it is difficult to obtain necessary data required to evaluate
the overall comparative impact of city bus services. Hence, this study proposes a comprehensive
methodology which can evaluate the overall comparative impact of city bus services under socio-economic
aspect and can also be executed with minimal data which are easily available.
• The proposed methodology for evaluation of socio-economic impact of city bus services consists of four
stages. These stages are (i) a hierarchical structure for identification of performance indicators (ii)
determination of relative weight of performance indicators (iii) evaluation of condition indices of
performance indicator (iv) development of composite socio-economic impact index (CSEI) of an alternate
service.
• Stage I of this study develops a hierarchical structure for identification of appropriate performance
indicators from socio-economic aspect in logical way. Social impact is decomposed into 9 basic
performance indicators i.e. traffic flow, traffic safety, air quality, service equity etc. Similarly economic
impact of city bus service is decomposed in 4 basic performance indicators i.e. property value, energy
consumption etc. Further in stage II, relative weight of performance indicator is also determined using
expert opinion survey and the rating given by them. These relative contribution of performance indicators
can be used to determine overall socio-economic impact of city bus services.
 P. K. Agarwal et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4589–4605 4605
Agarwal P.K. et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 17

• The stage III developed various condition indices which can be used to evaluate the performance of
alternate city bus services individually from various aspect of social and economic impact so as to identify
the issues related to each separately. Stage IV of this study developed composite social and economic
impact index which can be used to evaluate the overall socio economic impact of alternate city bus services
in a city.
• Further comparison made in this study indicated that the proposed methodology can be used to evaluate the
comparative performance of individual social as well as economic factors i.e. city travel, city society, city
environment, industry economy and fuel economy. Thus the methodology can be used to suggest
improvement in socio-economic impact of alternate city bus services.
• The methodology proposed in this study is also illustrated using a case study of BRTS of Bhopal city. The
analysis and results indicated that the proposed methodology may be used for analysing the impact of
individual factors on socio-economic aspect of any city bus service. Thus the methodology will be useful to
improve the city bus services by identifying the shortcomings in the services. Further, the proposed
methodology can also be used to analyse the impact of overall comparative socio-economic performance of
any city bus service.
Thus the methodology will also be useful to compare the socio-economic impact of city bus service in
developing countries such that it helps decision makers to take significant decisions before implementation of
alternate city bus services in Indian cities.
References

[1] Kanuganti, S., Subramanian, U., Arkatkar, S.S., Singh, A.P., Sarkar, A.K., 2013. “Quantification of Level-of-Service Index for Bus
Routes in Developing Countries: A Case Study in India,” Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9.
[2] Pticina, I., 2011. “The Methodology of Data Collection about Public Transport Service Quality,” pp.155–164.October.
[3] 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 in Technology, Vol. 2, No.2, 18-25.
[4] Cascajo R., 2005. “Assessment of Economic, Social and Environmental effects of Rail Urban Projects,” Young Researchers Seminar.
The Hague (NL), 11-13 May.
[5] Agarwal, P.K., Gurjar, J., Gupta, V., 2015. “Evaluation of Comparative Performance of Public Transport Services in Indian Cities,”
Accepted in 3rd Conference of the Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG) December,2015
[6] Mistretta, M., Goodwill, J. A., Gregg, R. and DeAnnuntis, C., 2009. “Best Practices in Transit Service Planning,” Final Report Prepared
by Transportation Research Centre, Florida, March.
[7] Yousaf, M. S., 2012. “Developing Key Performance Indicators to assess Urban Transportation Systems,” Master Thesis submitted in
School of Urban Planning McGill University.
[8] Mahmoud, M., Kashyap, A., and Hine, J., 2011. “Bus Transit Service Quality Monitoring in UK: A Methodological Framework,”
Proceedings of the ITRN2011 University College Cork.
[9] Das, S. and Pandit, D., 2013. “Importance of User Perception in Evaluating Level of Service For Bus Transit For A Developing Country
Like India: A Review,” Transport Reviews: A Transnational Tran disciplinary Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, 402–420, April.
[10] Hensher, D.A., Stopher, P., Bullock, P. 2003. “Developing A Service Quality Index in the Provision of Commercial Bus Contracts,”
Transportation Research Part A 37, 499–517.
[11] Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G., 2012. “Performance Indicators for an Objective Measure of Public Transport Service Quality”, European
Transport, Vol. 51, pp. 1–21.
[12] Gandhi, S., Tiwari, G., Fazio, J., 2013. “Comparative Evaluation of Alternate Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Planning, Operation
and Design Options,” Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.9
[13] Alonso, A., Monzón, A., Cascajo, R., 2015. “Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in European cities,” Ecological
Indicators, Volume 48, pp. 578-592.
[14] Khasnabis, S., 2003. “Comparative Study of Two Techniques of Transit Performance Assessment : AHP and GAT,” Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol 128, No. 6, pp.499–508.
[15] The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) 2007. “Draft report on “Emission Factor development for Indian Vehicles,”.
Pune, downloaded from www.cpcb.nic.in/Emission_Factors_Vehicles.pdf
[16] S G Architects & Fazio Engineerware 2012b, BRTS Evaluation and Design Tool (Version1.69) Final Report, Institute of Urban
Transport (India), New Delhi.