Research Article

Transportation Research Record

2021, Vol. 2675(3) 17–32
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Efficiency Based Evaluation of Public Transportation Research Board 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Transport and Paratransit Systems with sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198120980322

a View to Integrating Transportation journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Nandan H. Dawda1, Hardik Gajera2, Gaurang J. Joshi1,

Shriniwas S. Arkatkar1, and Sanjay Kumar M. Dave2

Abstract
Rapid urbanization, increasing population, and a booming economy have stimulated growth in Indian cites, resulting in higher
levels of dependence on private vehicles. This has raised serious issues over the sustainability of transport infrastructure in
cities. Public transportation (PT) systems can help achieve sustainable transportation. But they face competition from inter-
mediate public transport (IPT) or Paratransit. The existing PT and IPT systems, therefore, need to re-plan their operations to
complement each other and deliver a wider network of services. To achieve this, an evaluation of both PT and IPT systems at
microscopic levels is needed to facilitate their possible integration in a coordinated multimodal transportation system. The
present paper attempts to evaluate the public and paratransit systems in the city of Surat in the Indian state of Gujarat using
a data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique in DEAP software at the individual and system level. The operations, route
design, and cost efficiency of both systems are evaluated to understand how well the existing set-up caters to demand. The
arithmetic mean of operations, route design, and cost efficiencies of 26 routes of PT system were worked out to be 0.89,
0.94, and 0.69, while that of the 13 routes of the IPT system were 0.92, 0.97, and 0.88 respectively. The system investigation
shows that analytically, only 8% of IPT routes were inefficient in all the three aspects, compared with 42% of PT routes. The
performance of each route was analyzed, appropriate suggestions made, and the potential of these systems for designing an
integrated transport system highlighted.

Rapid urbanization, increases in population, and thriving
economic growth are stimulating growth in Indian cites.
It is estimated that the urban population of India will rise
to 40% of the country’s total population by 2030 from
the current 30% (1). At present the country has approxi-
mately 458 cities with a population of more than 0.1 mil-
lion inhabitants (2). These urban areas contribute nearly
63% of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is
likely to increase to 75% by 2030. If these areas fail to
function efficiently, they have the potential to constrain
India’s economic growth (1). The rapid development of
Indian cities in conjunction with improvements in the
quality of life have increased the affordability of private
and IPT modes of transport. This can be seen in the form
of increased transport externalities such as traffic conges-
tion, delays, more accidents, and poor air quality. This
has ultimately raised questions over the sustainability of
the transportation infrastructure (3, 4).
Traditionally, transport policies were geared toward
balancing demand with supply. However, in response to
calls for sustainability, the outlook of transportation
policies has undergone a paradigm shift, with more
emphasis laid on the movement of passengers instead of
vehicles (5). It is well known that public transportation
systems can mitigate the dis-benefits associated with pri-
vate vehicles like cars and two-wheelers and, therefore,
contribute toward sustainability goals (6). To encourage
and promote public transportation, various policies such
as the Smart Cities Mission (89 cities), the Atal Mission
for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation
(AMRUT), the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of
Electric Vehicles (FAME), the Green Urban Transport
Scheme (GUTS), and Move-in India (MII) have been
introduced by the government over the last decade (7).
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
Corresponding Author:
Shriniwas S. Arkatkar, sarkatkar@gmail.com
18
Conventionally, public transport (PT) in Indian cities
is provided by bus-based systems such as city buses, bus
rapid transit (BRT) systems, rail-based systems such as
metro rail, suburban rail, tram systems, and privately
operated shared mobility in the form of paratransit or
intermediate public transport (IPT) systems (8). Unlike
in developed countries, the evolution of the public trans-
portation systems in India is found to be largely unplanned
and unrelated to the size and population of a given city.
This can be seen in the non-uniform distribution of transit
ridership. Presently, only 63 of the 458 Indian cities with
more than 0.1 million population have adequate formal city
bus systems. Out of these 63 cities, only 15 have a rail-based
or bus-based system as a mass transit system (2). The aver-
age modal share of public transportation systems in the
case of Tiers I and II together, and Tier III cities is approxi-
mately 33% and 4%, respectively. Looking at diversity,
bus modal share in these cities varies from 1% in Surat to
43% in Bangalore (8).
Even after the implementation of different policies to
promote public transportation systems, the mode shares
of these systems in small and medium-sized cities, that is,
cities with populations less than 1 million, is found to be
dismally low (3). In such cities, paratransit modes form
the major mode of transportation alongside private
modes. For the majority of Indian cities, the modal share
of paratransit is observed to be nine times more than that
of public transport which shows the user-dependence on
paratransit systems (8). As a result, transportation modes
face contradicting and competing objectives. To attain
sustainability, the bus and paratransit systems in cities,
therefore, need to plan their operations such that they
complement each other and deliver a wider network of
services. To achieve this, it is necessary to evaluate both
public and paratransit systems at the microscopic levels
to facilitate their possible integration into a coordinated
multimodal transportation system.
Furthermore, to evaluate the existing condition of the
public transport of a city, performance measures are an
essential tool (9) for understanding the users’ perceptions
of the transit service, the business perspective of the oper-
ator, the role of the transit service (9), and how efficient
and effective the system is (10, 11). Effectiveness implies
the provision of bus services with minimum travel cost
and time, whereas efficiency deals with the delivery of the
services at minimum operating cost without impeding the
daily travel of the people (12). Several attempts have been
made to develop performance measures for transit ser-
vices based on different aspects of passengers, operating
agencies, and communities.
Traditionally, the performance of the system can be
assessed by either of two methods: (a) comparison to
standards or well established benchmarks; or (b) calculat-
ing relative efficiency within the routes (13). The Transit
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
Capacity and Quality Service Manual (TCQSM) is the
widely accepted standard available for measuring the per-
formance of transit services. A comparison of public
transport with the established standard fails to provide
in-depth insights in relation to suitable policy alternatives
to make the system more efficient (14). Against this back-
drop, the second approach (calculating relative efficiency
within routes) seems to be more effective in evaluating
the public transportation system. Several methods are
available to measure and assess the performance of pub-
lic transportation systems. These methods are designated
either as parametric or non-parametric (13). Most
researchers (15–18) have evaluated the system by para-
metric tests. However, assumptions in relation to the
functional form of the production or cost function are a
major drawback to the parametric approach. This has
motivated researchers to adopt non-parametric methods.
Among these methods, various techniques like data
envelopment analysis (DEA) (19, 20), Stochastic Frontier
Analysis (SFA) (21, 22), mixed DEA-SFA (23), and so
forth are proposed. It is well known that DEA has been
widely used to measure the efficiencies and effectiveness
of public transit systems, especially Bus Rapid Transit
Systems (BRTS) (24).
The application of DEA for measuring the perfor-
mance of transit services can be categorized into four
stages: bus stop, route, corridor, and system. Researchers
(11, 25–30) have estimated efficiency scores of the vari-
ous transit system operating agencies as a whole using
conventional DEA models while (31–34) evaluate the
efficiency of the sub-units/routes/corridor of transit sys-
tems, while (35) evaluated the efficiency of the bus stop/
terminal or interchange.
DEA is a non-parametric approach and a linear pro-
gramming technique to measure relative efficiencies of a
set of peer units called decision-making units (DMUs).
The basic assumption is that each DMU requires certain
inputs to produce its desirable output. A DMU’s perfor-
mance is directly compared against the best DMU avail-
able. Furthermore, inputs and outputs may have very
different units. This has become a popular and powerful
approach largely because of its ability to model multiple
input and output relationships. Initially, it was developed
based on the original work of Farrel in 1957 and was
later popularized by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes as
the CCR model in 1974. Later, Banker developed an effi-
ciency frontier structured by both constant and decrease
returns to scale. It is used to empirically measure the pro-
ductive efficiency of DMUs by comparing them to the
best practice of a DMU or combination of DMUs. This
model is called the Bankers Charnes and Cooper (BCC)
model (36). Based on its simplicity and robustness, the
present paper adopted the DEA technique for the effi-
ciency measurement of the system.
Dawda et al 19

The comprehensive review related to route evaluation

of transit services reveals that parameters such as trans-
fers between routes, number of stops, service reliability,
waiting time, travel time, number of vehicles, operational
and maintenance costs, and fuel costs are mostly used as
an input parameter while vehicle-kilometer, passenger-
kilometer, transit ridership, vehicle speed, revenue, seat
availability rate, and route directness are the common
output parameters. This input-output matrix is used to
measure several efficiencies such as operational, schedule
design, service and delivery, cost, route design, and com-
fort and safety, and so forth (37). The present study,
therefore, uses DEA analysis for measuring the perfor-
mance of both public and paratransit systems at an indi-
vidual system level. In the case of paratransit, which is
thought of as an ‘‘Informal transport system’’ in develop-
ing countries, the evaluation of systems is carried out
either by assessing their physical and operational charac-
teristics, evaluating the perception of paratransit users,
or by measuring the service quality attributes of para-
transit users (38–42).
The detailed review of the performance of public and
paratransit service reveals that there is limited reporting
on the performance evaluation of IPT and city bus sys-
tems operating in mixed traffic conditions using DEA Figure 1. Flow chart of analysis.
Note: IPT = intermediate public transport; PT = public transportation
analysis. No such attempts have been made to evaluate
systems; DEA = data envelopment analysis; BCC = Bankers Charnes and
the paratransit as the whole system such as the formal Cooper model.
bus transport system. Also, these systems were evaluated
independently without discovering their potential to form
an integrated transport system. Methodology
With this motivation, the present paper attempts
to evaluate the public and paratransit system of the The overall methodology used for analyzing the perfor-
city of Surat in the state of Gujarat in India using a DEA mance of PT and IPT system is shown in Figure 1.
technique at the individual and system levels. As an
important outcome, the study suggests some policy inter-
Identification of Indicators and Model
ventions for possible integration under a coordinated
multimodal system perspective as a goal to achieve sus-
Specification
tainability. Operational efficiency, route design effi- For the present study, each PT and IPT route is treated
ciency, and the cost efficiency of both systems were as a DMU and six BCC-DEA models are developed to
evaluated simultaneously to understand how well the evaluate their route, cost, and operational efficiencies.
existing setup is catering to the present travel demand. The route efficiency gives an idea of the supply and
The performance of each route within the system was demand relationship. The cost efficiency represents the
analyzed and appropriate suggestions were made. Lastly, economic performance at the route level and provides a
the potential of these systems for designing the proposed comprehensive assessment of ridership productivity and
integrated transport system was assessed. The rest of the financial performance. Operational efficiency provides
paper is structured as follows. The next section explains information about how effective the present schedule is.
the methodology adopted for the study followed by the Table 1 (Column 1) shows the measures used for the
identification of indicators and model specifications. We identification of efficiencies of PT and IPT routes.
then illustrate the study area and data collection. Route Moreover, associated input and output parameters,
evaluation of PT and IPT systems for single and multiple along with their units, are given in Columns 2, 3, 4, and
efficiency measures using the DEA technique is then 5 of Table 1, respectively. Finally, Column 6 shows the
explained. This is followed by a comparative analysis of orientation of the model.
PT and IPT system. We conclude with findings, policy The input and output parameters used can be
interventions, and concluding remarks. explained briefly as:
20 Transportation Research Record 2675(3)

Model orientation (6)

Route Length: the total distance between the origin
and destination of the route. It was derived for all the

Output oriented
Input oriented

Input oriented
DMUs.
Number of stops: this parameter can be used to show
the total number of places from where passengers can
enter or exit the system. The number of stops on a
route plays a significant role in the performance of a
IPT model

route as at every stop the vehicle stops, causing delay

passenger); 1/route directness

and increased travel time.

(travel time by private mode/

travel time by transit or IPT)
Output parameters (5)

Number of vehicles: represents the total number of

Ridership (passengers/day);

Seat availability rate (seats/

Revenue generated (INR)

transit units/auto-rickshaws (IPT units) serving on a

vehicle-km (km/day)

particular route. For the PT system, the data were

taken from the operator while for the IPT system, the
total IPT units on each route were determined by
extracting 16 h of videography survey carried out at
designated IPT stops on the route.
Ridership: defined as the total number of passengers
using the service per day (passengers/day). For the PT
system, automatic passenger count (APC) data were
maintenance cost (INR)
Route length (km); no. of

obtained from the operator. In the case of the IPT

stops (numbers); no. of

No. of stops (numbers);

Input parameters (4)

system, a revealed preference survey of operators was

IPT units (numbers)

average frequency

conducted to estimate the ridership.

operational and
Fuel cost (INR);

Vehicle-km: describes the supply of transit services. It

is defined as the sum of the distance traveled by all
vehicles running on a particular route. For both
(TU/h)
City bus model

modes, it can be obtained by the product of multiply-

ing numbers of transit units/auto-rickshaw by the
numbers of trips in total route length.
Operational and maintenance cost (O&M): includes
Revenue generated (INR)
Output parameters (3)

(travel time by private

day); vehicle-km (km/

fuel cost, operator’s salary (in the case of PT systems),

Ridership (passengers/

mode/travel time by
1/route directness
Seat availability rate
(seats/passenger);

and the maintenance cost. In the case of a PT system,

transit or IPT)

the cost of the salaries paid to the drivers and ticket

collectors employed for each bus on a particular route
Note: INR = Indian rupees; IPT = intermediate public transport; TU = transit units.

and the total cost of fuel for all transit units operating
on a particular route were obtained from the city bus
day)

operator. For the IPT system, the stratified random

sampling technique was adopted to carry out the
revealed preference survey of IPT operators at specific
Table 1. Description of the Model for IPT and City Bus

maintenance cost (INR)

Route length (km); no. of
stops (numbers); no. of

(TU/h); peak frequency

transit units (numbers)

No. of stops (numbers);

Input parameters (2)

stops on each route to derive the maintenance and

off-peak frequency

fuel cost. The number of IPT operators to be sur-

operational and

veyed on each route was decided based on the number

Fuel cost (INR);

of IPT units running on it. Considering the possibility

of exaggeration in the responses of IPT operators,
(TU/h)

instead of asking discrete values, a specific range of

maintenance and fuel costs was proposed to them.
The proposed ranges of O&M were derived from a
pilot survey of IPT operators. Based on the survey,
Cost efficiency
measure (1)

the single value of total maintenance and fuel cost for

Route Design
Efficiency

Operational
efficiency

efficiency

the entire route was calculated using the weighted

average method.
Revenue generated: the total income generated on a
particular route. The passenger demand data and fare
structure are combined to determine the total revenue
Sr. no.

generated for the PT system while, in the case of an

1

3
Dawda et al 21

IPT system, the revenue was obtained using a

revealed preference survey of IPT operators.
Frequency: defined as the number of transit units
passing through a given point on a transit route in
one direction per hour. For the evaluation, three
types of frequency values—peak-hour frequency,
average frequency, and off-peak hour frequency—
were used as inputs.
Seat availability rate: the ratio of the total number of
seats available to the total number of passengers tra-
veling during peak hours.
Route directness: estimated as the ratio of the travel
time by city bus or IPT to the travel time for the same
route in private mode (automobile). The smaller the
ratio, the better the service. However, in the present
study the inverse of this parameter is used to assist
the DEA model. The value of ‘1/route directness’ is,
therefore, used: the greater the value, the better the
performance of the system. Figure 2. IPT and PT network of Surat city.
Note: IPT = intermediate public transport; PT = public transportation
systems.
Study Area
Surat is one of the fastest-growing cities in India. It is with the existing city bus network. The unplanned net-
located on the west coast. It has been experiencing rapid work is so well established that the IPT units serve pas-
growth in population with a growth rate of 55.29% over
sengers at predefined stops. Thus, instead of acting as a
the last 10 years (43). The average annual growth rate is
feeder network, the IPT network coincides with the pub-
4.5%. The population in 2011 was 4.5 million with a
lic transport network. Figure 2 shows the IPT and PT
density of 13,680 persons/km2. At present, the vehicular
routes of the study area.
population in Surat city is 2.4 million with an annual
For the current study, 26 operational city bus routes
growth rate of 35% (44). About 90% of all vehicles are
and 13 selected IPT routes (which overlap with the routes
private such as two-wheelers and four-wheelers. The
of PT system) were evaluated in all the three aspects of
public transport mode share is less than 1%, against the
cost, operations, and route design. The data collection
desired share of 40% to 60% (45).
method is presented below.
Surat’s present public transportation system consists
of 37 routes (28 routes of city bus services and nine
routes of the BRT system) with a fleet size of 358 buses
Data Collection
(238 minibuses running on city bus services and 120 stan-
dard buses plying the BRT corridor). The total network To quantify the inputs, the operational schedule of buses,
coverage of the city bus system was calculated by assum- automatic vehicle count data, infrastructure details, and
ing a buffer of 500 m along the routes using Arc-GIS fare matrices were collected from transit operators.
software. It was observed to be 276.13 km2 (46). The city Further, data were used to decode the input parameters:
has also had IPT service for some decades. Presently, vehicle-kilometer, frequency, number of buses on each
there are about 89,000 registered auto-rickshaws/IPT route, route length, number of stops, daily transit rider-
units with an 11% mode share (44). IPT operates in two ship, salary paid to the operators, seat availability rate,
different ways in the city: (i) fixed routes with fixed fares and fuel cost.
based on distance; and (ii) flexible routes with varying For the IPT system, a survey of operators was carried
fares based on distance as well as the time of the day. out on each route to obtain the parameters such as
The share of IPT units operating on fixed routes is more monthly income, maintenance and fuel cost, vehicle-km,
dominant compared with the flexible route services. The number of stops, and route length. Videography surveys
absence of an efficient bus service has resulted in the shift were carried at each predefined fixed stop on all the
of trips from buses to IPTs on point-to-point services. routes for one day (16 h) to obtain data including the
Around 0.77 million passenger trips are undertaken by number of auto-rickshaws/IPT units, frequency, and pas-
IPT (47). Presently, the IPT network, which has evolved sengers. To determine the route directness for both sys-
in response to demand over the years, is overlapping tems, a performance box survey was carried out on all
22
the routes for both morning and evening peak hours.
The input and output data for all the selected routes are
shown in Table 2.
Route Evaluation of IPT and PT Systems
using DEA BCC Model
The DEA model can be either input oriented or output
oriented. The input-oriented model provides information
about excess supply compared with the best frontier. The
main aim of the input-oriented model is to minimize
inputs whereas the output-oriented model determines the
potential of inefficient routes to maximize the output.
BCC model is adopted in the present study to determine
the cost, route design, and operational efficiencies. The
reason for choosing the BCC model along with the CCR
model is that it makes the variable returns to scale (VRS)
assumption, which means that efficiency may increase or
decrease with a change of size in input or output. The
VRS assumption is more appropriate for transit lines
with higher variability of productivity. Mathematically,
the BCC model can be expressed as follows:
Ps
ur Yrj
Minimize uo = Pmr = 1
i = 1 vm Xij
Subjected to constraints
Xm
i=1
lj xij ł uxio i = 1, 2, . . . :m;
X
s put with a constant level of current input). If the optimal
lj yrj ø yro r = 1, 2, . . . :::, s;
r=1
X26
j=1
lj = 1,
lj ø 0 j = 1, 2, . . . ::, 26
Ps
ur Yrj
Maximize uo = Pmr = 1
i = 1 m Xij
v by considering efficiency scores. For routes having effi-
Subjected to constraints
Xm
i=1
lj xij ł xio i = 1, 2, . . . :m;
Xs
r=1
lj yrj ø uyro r = 1, 2, . . . :::, s;
X26
l = 1,
j=1 j
lj ø 0 j = 1, 2, . . . ::, 26
where
ur = decision variable representing the weight for output r,
vm = decision variable representing the weight for input m,
J = index of decision-making units, j = 1, . . ., n,
I = index of input, i = 1, . . ., m,
R = index of output, r = 1, . . ., s,
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
Xij = the ith input for DMUj,
Yrj = the rth output for DMUj,
xio = amount of input i used by DMUo,
yro = amount of output j produced by DMUo,
lj = the nonnegative scalars (weights) for DMUj, and
u : = the optimal output level.
The above equations are theoretical forms of input
and output-oriented DEA BCC models. The DEA tech-
nique determines the efficiency scores of a single route by
comparing its performance with the most efficient route
of the system. In this method, each route is denoted as
DMU and the term DMUo is used to represent the
DMU under evaluation. The term xio and yro are the ith
input and rth output of the DMUo. The DEA model
attempts to create the most efficient DMU for a given
DMUo, whose productivity is dependent on the linear
combination of frontier DMUs’ input and output.
The objective function 1) attempts to maximize the
level of output for the DMU under consideration.
Constraint 2) sets the limit of input to no more than the
observed amount of input. Constraint 3) specifies the
output level is at least as good as that of DMUo.
Constraint 4) ensures that the DEA model’s VRS status
which shows the sum of all scalars is equal to unity.
ð1Þ
Constraint 5) describes non-negativity restriction for lj .
As per the VRS method, u = 1 is always a feasible
solution to the DEA model. If u = 1 turns out to be the
optimal solution, then DMUo is efficient (as the model is
ð2Þ unable to find a virtual DMU with a higher level of out-
ð3Þ solution u is greater than 1, then the DEA model has
identified a DMU that can perform better than DMUo
which indicates that DMUo is inefficient. An efficiency
ð4Þ score (u) between 0.6 and 1 means fairly efficient. An effi-
ciency score (u) less than 0.6 indicates an inefficient sys-
ð5Þ
tem. A scale to classify the efficiency score was used,
according to Lao and Liu (48). The ranks were obtained
ð6Þ
ciency score ‘‘unity,’’ the ranking was done based on the
peer counts (this indicates the number of times an effi-
cient route acts as a reference for the inefficient routes).
ð7Þ Table 3 shows the efficiency scores of each route in all
three aspects. To evaluate the internal performance of
ð8Þ the system, it becomes necessary to understand how the
efficiency scores vary for each route. The evaluation of
ð9Þ each route based on a single efficiency measure for both
systems is explained below.
ð10Þ
The public transport system operates with a service
motive while the paratransit system operates with a profit
motive. As an outcome, the public transit system runs
throughout the city to make it more accessible as well as
available. Many of the routes would, therefore, have
lower efficiency scores and can be termed as inefficient
with reference to better performing routes. If the routes
Dawda et al 23

Table 2. Input and Output Data of PT and IPT System

Intermediate public transport

Inputs Outputs
* * * ** ** * * *
Route no. I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-8 O-1 O-2 O-3** O-4* O-5

IPT-1 4 6 1199 0.117 0.259 75 47960 57552 1.799 0.6 0.74

IPT-2 5 8 1244 0.283 0.181 78 87080 139328 0.933 0.6 0.76
IPT-3 8 8 1435 0.263 0.224 90 86100 129150 1.375 0.6 0.68
IPT-4 3 4 1412 0.115 0.278 88 84720 56480 1.747 0.5 0.72
IPT-5 2 3 1981 0.081 0.534 124 63392 39620 3.677 0.75 0.67
IPT-6 4 6 1907 0.279 0.297 119 114420 137304 1.692 0.6 0.74
IPT-7 3 5 1607 0.118 0.386 100 38568 57852 2.32 1 0.76
IPT-8 3 4 971 0.079 0.18 61 38840 38840 1.112 0.75 0.47
IPT-9 2 2 1246 0.041 0.307 78 39872 19936 1.76 0.75 0.70
IPT-10 4 5 1500 0.152 0.297 94 45000 75000 1.568 1 0.72
IPT-11 4 4 2363 0.168 0.412 148 94520 82705 3.249 0.75 0.89
IPT-12 4 4 1368 0.148 0.157 86 95760 72778 1.177 0.6 0.59
IPT-13 3 4 2350 0.229 0.351 147 84600 112800 2.291 1 1.02

City bus transport system

Inputs Outputs
* * * * * * * * *
Route no. I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 O-1 O-2 O-3* O-4* O-5

3 25 13.3 12 6959 11333 5 6 24933 1824 25375 1.16 1.05

102 32 7.7 6 5125 8267 3 5 9166 1334 10786 4.37 0.81
104 22 9.5 9 6378 8933 4 6 25247 1644 29697 1.87 1.17
105 28 12.3 9 6576 9733 4 6 6140 1705 7229 7.98 0.64
106 28 13.3 12 9488 10000 4 5 15071 1824 17726 1.68 0.85
107 37 14.3 14 12474 14267 5 8 62083 3249 73020 0.98 0.70
108 35 19.9 9 8943 10667 3 4 33713 2198 39659 0.89 0.66
109 21 15 9 7789 8800 4 5 28563 1986 33600 1.38 0.56
112 23 10.7 9 6385 9067 3 6 26258 1761 30891 1.83 0.47
116 33 13.7 10 8137 11067 4 5 20140 1987 23695 2.05 0.90
117 32 11 7 5409 8933 2 4 15491 1458 18220 2.08 0.88
118 29 15 9 8067 9867 3 4 27659 2095 32538 1.13 0.78
126 29 10.2 9 6913 9867 4 6 20919 1752 24609 2.29 1.00
153 18 6.5 5 3237 5733 3 4 7162 814 8431 4.57 0.69
202 26 8.2 7 4808 8133 4 6 14660 1215 17249 3.30 1.06
204 29 10.3 8 6120 9200 4 5 15130 1509 17800 2.58 1.10
205 58 14 12 11150 15733 3 6 26326 2908 30965 1.80 0.89
206 31 14 4 4036 6800 2 3 4885 1073 5747 4.18 0.78
209 27 9.9 9 7201 9600 4 6 16661 1798 19604 2.84 1.28
212 25 4.6 10 6785 10000 4 6 23160 1824 27244 2.07 1.00
254 39 14.6 9 6424 11200 3 4 14834 1647 17455 2.09 0.68
402 26 11.5 9 6009 9467 4 5 17182 1604 20213 2.36 0.84
403 19 6.9 5 3964 5867 4 5 9727 994 11445 4.13 0.41
410 42 19.9 6 4851 9600 2 3 4387 1274 5163 4.40 0.70
506 33 15 4 3008 7067 2 3 9166 745 10786 2.16 0.76
658 23 17.2 9 7127 9067 3 4 20587 1888 24214 1.54 0.70

Note: IPT = intermediate public transport; PT = public transportation systems.

*
I-1, number of stops; I-2, route length; I-3, number of auto-rickshaws/number of transit units; I-4, fuel cost; I-5, operation and maintenance cost; I-6, off-
peak frequency; I-7, peak hour frequency; I-8, average frequency; O-1, PAX/day; O-2, vehicle-km; O-3, revenue; O-4, seat availability rate; O-5, route
directness.
**
Values in millions (INR).
24 Transportation Research Record 2675(3)

Table 3. Route Design, Cost, and Operational Efficiency of PT and IPT Systems

PT models
Route design efficiency Cost efficiency Operational efficiency
Route number u1 u2 Rank u1 u2 Rank u1 u2 Rank

3 0.804 0.867 20 0.623 0.69 15 0.85 0.892 15

102 0.913 1 6 0.36 0.456 20 0.852 0.862 17
104 0.842 1 8 0.795 0.953 3 1 1 3
105 0.803 0.863 23 0.188 0.212 25 1 1 6
106 0.804 0.867 20 0.346 0.42 23 0.765 0.84 20
107 1 1 1 1 1 13 0.426 0.559 26
108 1 1 7 0.758 0.849 8 0.667 0.805 23
109 1 1 3 0.746 1 6 0.555 0.857 18
112 0.856 0.982 13 0.826 0.98 5 0.523 0.919 12
116 0.839 0.871 19 0.497 0.532 21 0.782 0.815 22
117 0.855 0.913 16 0.575 0.686 10 1 1 4
118 0.979 1 10 0.689 0.797 7 0.829 0.893 14
126 0.828 0.896 17 0.608 0.683 17 0.772 0.826 21
153 0.685 1 11 0.445 1 2 1 1 1
202 0.731 0.874 18 0.613 0.79 12 0.899 0.905 13
204 0.793 0.867 22 0.497 0.581 16 0.983 0.984 9
205 1 1 9 0.474 0.481 22 0.674 0.683 25
206 1 1 4 0.243 0.387 18 1 1 2
209 0.854 0.931 15 0.465 0.535 14 1 1 5
212 1 1 5 0.686 0.765 9 0.814 0.875 16
254 0.754 0.784 26 0.464 0.525 24 0.666 0.769 24
402 0.76 0.849 24 0.575 0.662 19 0.773 0.857 19
403 0.831 1 2 0.493 1 4 0.788 0.947 10
410 0.806 0.813 25 0.182 0.225 26 1 1 7
506 0.744 1 12 0.613 1 1 0.974 1 8
658 0.917 0.945 14 0.58 0.699 11 0.784 0.933 11

IPT models
Route design efficiency Cost efficiency Operational efficiency
Route number u1 u2 Rank u1 u2 Rank u1 u2 Rank

IPT-1 0.581 0.853 13 0.88 0.963 6 1 1 2

IPT-2 1 1 1 0.653 0.678 13 0.987 1 6
IPT-3 0.925 0.945 10 0.78 0.8 10 0.782 0.797 10
IPT-4 1 1 8 0.797 0.871 7 0.885 0.895 9
IPT-5 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 5
IPT-6 1 1 2 0.723 0.731 11 0.669 0.687 13
IPT-7 0.552 0.893 11 0.804 0.829 9 0.985 1 7
IPT-8 0.58 1 5 0.783 1 3 1 1 4
IPT-9 0.769 1 4 0.951 1 5 1 1 1
IPT-10 0.673 0.881 12 0.67 0.684 12 0.942 1 8
IPT-11 1 1 9 1 1 1 0.67 0.788 12
IPT-12 1 1 3 0.953 1 2 0.749 0.792 11
IPT-13 1 1 6 0.83 0.834 8 0.971 1 3

Note: IPT = intermediate public transport; PT = public transportation systems. Digits in bold represent the rank of each PT & IPT route under evaluation.

are found to be inefficient, this means that it consumes
more input compared with frontier routes having a simi-
lar output.
Route Evaluation Based on Single Efficiency Measure
Route Design efficiency: For the PT system, 12 of the 26
PT routes were found to be fully efficient. The four
routes, numbers 112, 117, 209, and 658, had efficiency
scores close to unity while the remaining 10 routes dis-
played low-efficiency scores between 0.6 and 1 which
indicates the need for some policy interventions. On the
evaluation of these routes in detail, the two main causes
of route inefficiency were identified as: (i) the number of
buses plying those routes was higher compared with an
average number of buses operating on more efficient
Dawda et al
routes, suggesting a need to shift the buses from these
routes to other profitable routes based on passenger
demand and; (ii) the length of these routes was much
longer compared with route length on other profitable
routes. Thus, to address this issue, it is recommended
that the route length be reduced based on the passenger
demand profile of bus stops. In the case of the IPT sys-
tem, the efficiency scores of nine routes out of a total of
13 were unity, and four routes had efficiency scores near
unity. Therefore, no specific recommendation is sug-
gested for the IPT system.
Cost efficiency: The cost efficiency model shows that
the PT system is more inconsistent as only five routes
were found to be efficient. Eleven routes with an effi-
ciency score of more than 0.6 can be made efficient by
increasing the use of existing transit units. If the number
of trips made by a bus per day is increased, the frequency
of the services will increase, and the waiting time will be
reduced at each bus stop en route. This will result in
increased revenue generation. But because 10 routes had
a score of less than 0.6 reveals a huge imbalance between
the cost incurred and revenue generated. For these
routes, the allocation of the number of buses and trips
made by each bus needs to be analyzed so that the cost
efficiency can be enhanced. For the IPT system, five
routes had a score of unity. Also, the other routes exhib-
ited higher efficiency scores compared with the PT sys-
tem. Specifically, routes 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13 which
operate in the Central Business District (CBD) area had
lower efficiency scores. The IPT units of these routes
operate in a congested stream with low speed, resulting
in higher fuel costs which cause inefficiency.
Operational efficiency: In the case of the PT system,
seven routes were found to be fully efficient. Route 107
has the lowest operational efficiency score of 0.559 but is
cost-effective (efficiency score of 1) and route design is
also equally efficient (efficiency score of 1). Inefficient
operation of routes is mainly because the frequency of
buses in peak and off-peak periods is quite high com-
pared with passenger demand. For all 19 inefficient
routes, except routes 107 and 108, supply (seats offered)
was observed to be more than double the actual demand
(passenger demand). Based on this relationship, it is sug-
gested that the reduction of peak hour frequency/increase
in headway would reduce the gap between demand and
supply and ultimately make these routes more efficient.
(49–53) In the case of IPT, eight routes on the system
had efficiency scores of unity and five routes scored in
the range of 0.6–1. It was observed that IPT units are
available to the users in a range of 24 s (Route no. IPT
11) to 59 s (Route no. IPT 8) which indicates the higher
availability of the IPT units on all the inefficient routes.
Therefore, it is suggested that shifting the IPT units from
inefficient routes (Route nos. 3, 4, 6, 11, 12) to efficient
25
routes (Route nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13) should be done
(54–56).
In subsequent sub-sections, route evaluation based on
multiple efficiency measures is presented comprehensively.
Route Evaluation Based on Multiple Efficiency
Measure to Integrate PT and IPT System
The discussion above is based on the particular efficiency
measure taken into consideration, that is, cost or opera-
tional efficiency, or route design efficiency. However, to
integrate PT and IPT, it becomes essential to understand
the performance of both systems with all possible scenar-
ios of efficiency. In that context, therefore, the routes are
summarized into eight different cases in the form of pos-
sible combinations based on the efficiency measures
shown in Table 4. These eight combinations of efficiency
measures have taken into consideration of all possible
scenarios in practice. The matrix consists of eight rows
and six columns. Columns 2, 3, and 4 of Table 4 show
efficiency measures. Column 5 gives the findings and
Column 6 details the recommendations for each scenario
of a combination of efficiency measures. The different
rows of Table 4 show the different cases for which a
combination of efficiency measures is evaluated.
Discussing the extreme cases, 8% PT and 23% IPT
routes were efficient in all aspects, while 42% PT and
8% IPT routes were inefficient in all aspects. This estab-
lishes that passengers are choosing IPT services as a pre-
dominant mode on routes which are also served by PT.
One of the strategies to make PT operations more effi-
cient would be to review the quality of PT services from
a rider’s perspective and propose an integrated network
of PT and IPT for the entire city. Eventually, it may
result in a greater role for IPT in feeding the bus service
rather than competing with the transit (68, 69).
Comparison of Efficiency across PT
and IPT Systems
Furthermore, to compare the PT and IPT systems with
each other, the radar diagram was plotted demonstrating
route, operation, and cost efficiency scores as shown in
Figure 3, a and b. The value inside the bracket represents
the rank of the route based on all three aspects.
The radar diagram shows the values of efficiency from
0 to 1 originating from the innermost concentric circle to
the outermost concentric circle. Figure 3, a and b, reveals
that the IPT system performs better than the PT system
in all aspects as values closer to unity are seen more in
the case of the IPT system. The arithmetic means of oper-
ation, route design, and cost efficiency scores for the PT
system are 0.89, 0.94, and 0.69 whereas, for the IPT sys-
tem, they are 0.92, 0.97, and 0.88 respectively. This
26
Table 4. Eight Cases of Combination of Efficiency Measure
Operational Cost Route design Findings
Case I:  The exact tradeoff has occurred
Only operationally P O O between frequency and seat
efficient availability, the number of stops, and
route directness.
 Inequity between transit units and
ridership, route length, and vehicle-
kilometer.
Case II:  The number of transit units and route
Operationally O P P lengths are provided suitably in the
inefficient context of observed ridership and
required vehicle -km.
 Excess frequency and number of stops
are witnessed with reference to
passenger demand and route
directness.
Case III:  The cost incurred for maintaining and
Only cost-effective O P O operating the transit unit is closely
equal to the revenue generated.
 Need to optimize the input and
output parameters involved in
operations and route design.
Case IV:  This reflects an imbalance between the  Plans like provision of night
Inefficient in P O P revenue generated and the cost
cost prospective incurred by the operator on transit
units.
 All the inputs that is, number of stops,
frequency, route length are very well
adjusted in comparison to outputs:
passenger demand, route directness,
and vehicle-km.
Case V:  Optimal relations between input-
Effective in route O O P output parameters, that is, transit
design only units and ridership, route length, and
vehicle-kilometer is achieved.
 The inappropriate tradeoff has
occurred between frequency and seat
availability, the number of stops, and
route directness.
Case VI:  Frequency and number of stops are
Inefficient in route P P O optimized but the route length and
design only number of transit units need to be
reduced.
Case VII:  The routes following, in these cases
Efficient in all aspects P P P are the best performing and they can
be considered as an ideal route in
relation to input allocation and output
generation. For any system DEA
selects efficient routes as a frontier
DMU.
Case VIII:  These are the routes that reduce the
Efficient in no aspects O O O overall efficiency of the system. The
operators of transit services need to
prepare an optimal mix of the supply
and demand to increase efficiency.
Note: ‘‘P’’ indicates efficient and ‘‘O’’ indicates inefficient. DEA = data envelopment analysis; DMU = decision-making units.
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
Recommendations
 Policy interventions like
interlining of transit units
(57), skip stops operations
of bus services (58, 59) and
designing of truncated
routes (60) are suggested.
 Actions like an increment in
the headway of buses,
timetable development
incorporating the passenger
demand variations (61), and
transit signal priority (62)
can make the system more
effective.
 Actions like route
rationalization (63),
reduction in allocated transit
units, and provision of
accelerated transit services
between high demand
origins and destinations (58,
64) are recommended.
haulage services (46), and
revising vehicle and crew
scheduling (65) are advised.
 The reduction of peak and
off-peak hours frequency
would increase efficiency
(66).
 Maximizing the use of transit
units shall result in a hike in
efficiency (67).
 These are the best
performing routes.
Therefore, no modifications
are required to be made.
 It is recommended that all
supply and demand
parameters be audited and
modified considering the
frontier DMUs’ supply-
demand characteristics.
Dawda et al
Figure 3. (a) Efficiency scores and ranks of routes of PT system, and (b) efficiency scores and ranks of routes of the IPT system.
Note: IPT = intermediate public transport; PT = public transportation systems.
indicates that both systems provide shared mobility ser-
vices, while still performing various roles in addressing to
the city’s mobility needs. The major reason for the varia-
tion of system efficiency is that PT services are run to
provide mobility to the maximum number of citizens in
the city with no profit motive, whereas the IPT services
operate with a commercial motive of maximizing revenue
for the operations.
The PT system operates in the city at both peak and
off-peak hours and thus performs poorly in operational
efficiency indicators. By contrast, the IPT systems run
on high passenger demand corridors and can vary their
routes dynamically (in response to demand). Because of
this added advantage, they can serve more passengers
and generate higher revenues, giving them greater opera-
tional efficiency. Additionally, fares on the IPT system
were higher compared with the PT system. The average
fare charged per kilometer by IPT mode was found to be
Rs.2.62/km while in the case of PT mode, it was Rs.1.1/
km. As a result, the average ratio of revenue generated
to O&M cost per day estimated for both the PT and IPT
system was 2.15 and 14.63 respectively. This means that
the revenue generated compared with maintenance and
fuel cost for IPT as a whole is much higher than for the
PT system. This makes IPT a cost-effective service com-
pared with the PT system. Even from the users’ perspec-
tive, the provision of a high frequency of services by the
IPT system makes it effective in relation to route design.
The major shortcoming in the present transport sys-
tem is that both systems operate independently and, as a
result, IPT creates unhealthy competition with formal
public transport. Both PT and IPT systems are crucial in
developing sustainable urban mobility services in Indian
cities. It is, therefore, necessary to understand how both
systems cater to passenger demand.
27
Major Findings
The microscopic evaluation of both systems at the route
level draws our attention to the following findings. To
get a better idea of the performance of both systems, the
average of all three efficiency scores of the PT and IPT
routes are written in brackets along with the route
number.
 The present study reveals that the IPT system is
more efficient compared with the PT system as
most of the routes were efficient according from
both passengers’ and operators’ perspectives. As a
result, the IPT system is competitive with the PT
system. It is, therefore, recommended that the IPT
network be designed in congruence with the exist-
ing PT system in such a way that paratransit aug-
ments passenger demand in peak hours.
 Two routes of PT (Route nos. 106 [0.709] and 206
[0.795]) and IPT (Route nos. 3 [0.84] and 12 [0.93])
cater to passenger demand in the southwest part
of the city. It is observed that because of shorter
route lengths, fewer stops, and the higher fre-
quency provided by IPT system, passengers pre-
ferred to travel by IPT rather than by PT. Because
of this, the total demand of PT routes is less com-
pared with IPT routes plying the same stretch of
road. As a result, the efficiency scores for PT
routes were found to be less compared with IPT
routes.
 Five PT routes (Route nos. 102 [0.77], 112 [0.96],
212 [0.88], 202 [0.85], and 118 [0.89]) along with
one IPT route (Route no.10) serve the northern
part of the city. The detailed assessment of these
routes shows that, out of 31.9 km of total route
length, 20 km has more than two routes
28
overlapping. As a result, these routes struggle for
passenger demand and create internal competition
for each other. This causes varying efficiency
scores for all the five PT routes mentioned above.
 optimize the operations of both modes. Based on the case
Two PT routes (Route nos. 107 [0.85] and 108
[0.88]) and IPT (Route nos. 1 [0.93] and 7 [0.90])
provide services to the northwestern part of the
city. Despite a 100% overlap of the IPT routes on
PT routes, both systems works well and can sat-
isfy the urban travel demand in these areas. Still
the efficiency scores of IPT routes were found to
be higher than those of the PT routes.
 One PT route (Route no. 3 [0.816]) is a combina-
tion of six IPT routes (Route nos. 2 [0.89], 4
[0.922], 5 [1], 6 [0.806], 8 [1], and 12 [0.93]) of
shorter trip lengths along the same stretch of road
serving passengers in the central part of the city.
Despite such an overlap, each of the routes caters
to significant passenger demand compared with
seats supplied and has higher efficiency scores.
 There are radial routes serving the different parts
of the city in all directions: PT route no. 109
(0.952) and IPT route nos. 5 (1) and 13 (0.94) in
the east; PT route no. 116 (0.73) and IPT route
no. 2 (1) in the south; PT route no. 209 (0.82) and
IPT route no. 9 (1) in the southeast; PT route no.
153 (1) and IPT route no. 11 (0.92) in the north-
east. These run parallel in such a way that IPT
routes operate up to a certain length, whereas PT
routes provide connectivity to the outer suburban
areas, meaning that both PT and IPT routes cater
to significant passenger demand.
Policy Interventions
Over time, the PT and IPT systems in the city have
evolved in such a way that they either complement or
compete with each other in certain areas of the city.
Based on the evaluation of these systems using both sin-
gle and multiple efficiency measures, along with the eva-
luation within and across the systems, the following
policy interventions are recommended.
Formalization of the Paratransit System
The IPT system has evolved as a dominant mode of
urban transport in Indian cities, generating ample
employment opportunities. This mode focuses on the
individual advantage catering to the high demand of pas-
senger growth. Based on lessons learned from developing
countries such as Turkey and some Africa countries, a
regulatory framework in relation to routes of operation
is required to formalize the IPT system (70).
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
The Operational Integration of Paratransit and City
Bus Routes in Relation to Timetable Development
The policy of integrating IPT with PT is necessary to
study of countries such as Thailand and Bangladesh,
integrating the routes of both systems based on the pas-
senger demand requirements and considering IPT routes
while scheduling the PT system could help increase the
efficiency of both the systems. The detailed investigation
of origin and destination patterns of urban travelers and
the availability of the IPT mode as a feeder system at
major locations needs to be carried out to integrate the
PT as well as the IPT systems (68, 70, 71).
Development of an Integrated Information System (IIS)
The inclusion of the formalized fixed IPT routes should
be incorporated into the existing city bus application.
Transit maps, trip planners, real-time information of
upcoming transits, fare by each mode of travel, and alter-
native modes of travel are the type of information that
should be made available in mobile applications to facili-
tate trip planning of urban commuters. ‘‘Hong Kong e-
Transport’’ in Hong Kong, ‘‘TRANS Link’’ in Australia,
and ‘‘TFL Journey planner’’ in London are examples of
some successful mobile applications for public transport
trip planning.
Formulation of an Urban Metropolitan
Transport Authority
The creation of the Urban Metropolitan Transport
Authority (UMTA) will help the city to cater to the
mobility needs of its citizens more efficiently. It will inte-
grate all modes at functional, financial, social, and policy
levels and regulate the operations of all the shared trans-
port systems to attain sustainability (72, 73). The suc-
cessful functioning of UMTAs has been seen in cities
such as London, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Designing Interchanges and Multimodal Hubs
The development of physical interchanges such as trans-
port hubs and center points with embedded exchange
facilities such as an islands, interchanges, and covert
walkways is recommended at important locations of the
city. This will make it easier for passengers to transfer
from one mode to another and provide accessibility as
well as connectivity. King’s Cross Station in London,
Union Station in Los Angeles, Penn Station in New
York City, and Finch Station in Toronto are the exam-
ples of some successful multimodal hubs worldwide.
Dawda et al
Introduction of an Integrated Fare System
Fare integration is a unique feature of multimodal trans-
port systems. This suggests the need to develop a unique
fare payment e-mobility card such as the Oyster Card in
London, the Octopus Card in Hong Kong, and the EZ
Card in Singapore. The past literature reveals that an
integrated fare collection system results in an increase in
passenger trips and reduces travel time (74).
Concluding Remarks
In most Indian cities, the two important modes of urban
transportation are PT and IPT systems. However, inte-
gration between them is non-existent across different
routes which leads to conflict and the inefficiency of the
PT system. To understand and integrate these two modes
and their distribution across different routes in a city,
proper evaluation of the modes needs to be conducted.
The present study sought to conduct a microscopic eva-
luation of these modes. To evaluate the existing PT and
IPT system, three efficiency measures—route, cost, and
operation—were analyzed separately. Further, they were
analyzed together with eight scenarios. Finally, efficiency
across PT and IPT systems was also probed with the help
of a radar diagram. Some of the conclusions based on
the present study are given here:
 In response to the absence of efficiency evaluation
models for PT and IPT systems together, the pres-
ent paper proposes a framework for evaluating
both systems using DEA techniques. The pro-
posed methodology can be used to evaluate the
efficiency of the multiple modes of public trans-
port (metro, city bus, BRTS, tram, LRT, BRT,
and IPT) together. It will help operators as well as
city planners to understand how their public tran-
sit is running and offer possible solutions for cre-
ating an integrated transport system. This
framework was demonstrated using a case study
in Surat where the IPT and PT networks overlap
significantly.
 Route evaluation based on single efficiency mea-
sures may not be accurate because other measures
will be neglected. However, when all efficiency
measures are taken into consideration, route effi-
ciency can be analyzed more comprehensively.
Therefore, eight different scenarios are given in
the present study, taking into account all possible
combinations of efficiency measures.
 The present work provides an insight into the eva-
luation of multiple public transport modes which
together could pave the way to integrated policy
formulation.
29
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: Dawda and Joshi; data collection:
Dawda and Gajera; analysis and interpretation of results:
Arkatkar, Dawda, Dave; draft manuscript preparation: Dawda,
Gajera, Joshi, Arkatkar, and Dave. All authors reviewed the
results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Agarwal, D. O. P., M. S. Rathi, M. K. Kalra, M. M.
Gupta, M. S. Pal, M. A. Lakshmi, M. S. Bhattacharya,
and M. A. Mishra. Review of Urban Transport in India.
Institute of Urban Transport, Delhi, 2014.
2. Bhandari, A., S. Juyal, H. Maini, A. Saxena, and , A. Sri-
vastava. Moving Forward Together: Enabling Shared Mobi-
lity in India. NITI Aayog, 2018.
3. Singh, S. K. Review of Urban Transportation in India.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005,
pp. 79–97.
4. Adhikaria, A., S. Basu, I. Biswas, A. Banerjee, and P. P.
Senguptae. A Route Efficiency Analysis using Shannon
Entropy-Based Modified DEA Method and Route Char-
acteristics Investigation for Urban Bus Transport in India.
Infor: Information Systems and Operational Research, Vol.
56, No. 3, 2018, pp. 332–359.
5. NUTP. National Urban Transport Policy, 2014. Ministry
of Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi, 2014.
6. Hendy, P., and A. Flausch. Public Transport Trends. UTPI
Awards, Milan, 2015.
7. Flausch A. India Should Focus on Public Transport in Cities
in Coming 10 Years - Secretary General at UTTP Brussels.
UITP, India, 2017.
8. Gadepalli, R., C. Fabianski, J. Pourbaix, and J. Singh.
Regulatory Frameworks for Integrated Shared Mobility
Governance in India. UITP, India, 2018.
9. Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. A Methodology for Evaluat-
ing Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objec-
tive Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View.
Transport Policy, Vol. 18, 2011, pp. 172–181. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.007.
10. Kramer, F. A. Public Management in the 1980s and
Beyond. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Politi-
cal and Social Science, Vol. 466, No. 1, 1983, pp. 91–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716283466001006.
11. Chu, X., G. J. Fielding, and B. W. Lamar. Measuring
Transit Performance using Data Envelopment Analysis.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol.
30
26, No. 3, 1992, pp. 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-
8564(92)90033-4.
12. Fielding, G. J. Transit Performance Evaluation in the
U.S.A. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-
tice, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1992, pp. 483–491. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0965-8564(92)90029-7.
13. Hawas, Y. E., B. Khan, and N. Basu. Evaluating and
Enhancing the Operational Performance of Public Bus Sys-
tems using GIS-Based Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal
of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012, pp. 19–44.
14. Gajera, H., N. Dawda, S. Dave, G. Joshi, and S. Arkatkar.
Evaluating Operational Performance of City Bus Transit
Service using TCQSM Guidelines: A Case Study of Surat
City. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 1361–1381. https://doi.org/
10.11175/easts.13.1361.
15. Hendrickson, C. A Note on Trends in Transit Commuting
in the United States Relating to Employment in the Cen-
tral Business District. Transportation Research Part A:
General, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1986, pp. 33–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0191-2607(86)90013-0.
16. Karlaftis, M. G., and P. S. McCarthy. Subsidy and Public
Transit Performance: A Factor Analytic Approach. Trans-
portation, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1997, pp. 253–270. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A: 1004956532174.
17. Boschken, H. L. Behavior of Urban Public Authorities
Operating in Competitive Markets: Policy Outcomes in Mass
Transit. Administration & Society, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2000,
pp. 726–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953990 022019308.
18. Obeng, K., and G. A. Azam. Allocative Distortions from
Transit Subsidies. International Journal of Transport Eco-
nomics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1995, pp. 15–34.
19. Pina, V., and L. Torres. Analysis of the Efficiency of Local
Government Services Delivery. An Application to Urban
Public Transport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, Vol. 35, No. 10, 2001, pp. 929–944.
20. Garcı́a-Meca, E., and J. P. Sánchez-Ballesta. Corporate
Governance and Earnings Management: A Meta-Analysis.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17,
No. 5, 2009, pp. 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8683.2009.00753.x.
21. Barnum, D., and J. M. Gleason. Technical Efficiency Bias
in Data Envelopment Analysis Caused by Intra-Output
Aggregation. Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 14, 2007,
pp. 623–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500461647.
22. Barnum, D. T., S. Tandon, and S. McNeil. Comparing the
Performance of Bus Routes after Adjusting for the Environ-
ment using Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Trans-
portation Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 2, 2008, pp. 77–85.
23. Karlaftis, M. G., and D. Tsamboulas. Efficiency Measure-
ment in Public Transport: Are Findings Specification
Sensitive? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2012, pp. 392–402. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.10.005.
24. Zhu, J. Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation
and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spread-
sheets. Operational Research, Vol. 1, Springer, New York,
NY, 2009.
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
25. Tongzon, J. Efficiency Measurement of Selected Australian
and Other International Ports using Data Envelopment
Analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-
tice, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2001, pp. 107–122.
26. Tone, K., and T. Sawada. An Efficiency Analysis of Public
versus Private Bus Transportation Enterprises. Operational
Research, Vol. 9, 1991, p. 365.
27. Obeng, K. The Economic Cost of Subsidy-Induced Techni-
cal Inefficiency. International Journal of Transport Econom-
ics, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 3–20.
28. Nolan, J. F. Determinants of Productive Efficiency in
Urban Transit. Logistics Transport Review, Vol. 32, No. 3,
1996, pp. 319–342.
29. De Borger, B., K. Kerstens, and A. Costa. Public Transit
Performance. What Does One Learn from Frontier Stud-
ies? Transportation Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1–38.
30. Oh, M. Y., S. S. Kim, and M. J. Kim. Analyzing Efficiency
in the Seoul’s Urban Bus Industry using Data Envelopment
Analysis. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Vol.
20, No. 2, 2002, pp. 59–68.
31. Swami, M., and M. Parida. Comparative Appraisal of
Metro Stations in Delhi using Data Envelopment Analysis
in a Multimodal Context. Journal of Public Transportation,
Vol. 18, No. 3, 2015, p. 3. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-
0901.18.3.3.
32. Seth, C., K. Triantis, and D. Teodorović. Performance
Evaluation of Bus Routes: A Provider of Passenger Per-
spective. Transport Research Part E: Logistics and Trans-
portation Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2007, pp. 453–478.
33. Lao, Y., and L. Liu. Performance Evaluation of Bus Lines
with Data Envelopment Analysis and Geographic Informa-
tion Systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
Vol. 33, No. 4, 2009, pp. 247–255.
34. Sun, D. J., S. Chen, C. Zhang, and S. Shen. A Bus Route
Evaluation Model Based on GIS and Super-Efficient Data
Envelopment Analysis. Transportation Planning and Tech-
nology, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2016, pp. 407–423. https://doi
.org/10.1080/03081060.2016.1160582.
35. Sun, L., J. Rong, and L. Yao. Measuring Transfer Effi-
ciency of Urban Public Transportation Terminals by Data
Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, Vol. 136, No. 4, 2010, pp. 314–319.
36. Banker R. D., A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper. Some Models
for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data
Envelopment Analysis. Manage Science, Vol. 30, No. 9,
1984, pp. 1078–1092.
37. Karim, Z., and J. Fouad. Measuring Urban Public Trans-
port Performance on Route Level: A Literature Review.
Proc., MATEC Web of Conferences, Rabat, Morocco, Vol.
200, 2018, pp. 1–9.
38. Nguyen-Hoang, P., and R. Yeung. What Is Paratransit
Worth? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-
tice, Vol. 44, No. 10, 2010, pp. 841–853. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tra.2010.08.006.
39. Behrensa, R., D. McCormick, R. Orero, and M. Ommeh.
Improving Paratransit Service: Lessons from Inter-City
Matatu Cooperatives in Kenya. Transport Policy, Vol. 53,
2017, pp. 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.09.003.
Dawda et al
40. Kheang, P. V. Characteristics and Perceptions of Paratran-
sit Users in Phnom Penh. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society
for Transportation Studies, Vol. 11, 2013, pp. 1451–1466.
41. Joewono, T. B., and H. Kubota. User Perceptions of Pri-
vate Paratransit Operation in Indonesia. Journal of Public
Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2007, p. 5.
42. Rahman, F., T. Das, M. Hadiuzzaman, and S. Hossain.
Perceived Service Quality of Paratransit in Developing
Countries: A Structural Equation Approach. Transporta-
tion Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 93, 2016,
pp. 23–38.
43. Census of India. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India. https://censusindia.gov.in/. Accessed March 12,
2018.
44. Regional Transport Office. Government of Gujarat.
https://cot.gujarat.gov.in/statistics-surat-en.htm. Accessed
July 29, 2019.
45. Ministry of Urban Development. Comprehensive Mobility
Plan (2008) – Comprehensive Mobility Plan and Bus Rapid
Transit System Plan. Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India, New Delhi, 2008. https://smartnet.
niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/file_1016201405372097.
pdf. Accessed December 15, 2020.
46. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine; Transportation Research Board; Transit Cooperative
Research Program; Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; Parsons
Brinckerhoff; KFH Group, Inc.; Texas A&M Transporta-
tion Institute. TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013.
47. Service Level Benchmark of Urban Transport. Ministry of
Urban Devlopment. http://utbenchmark.in/UsersidePages/
CityProfile.aspx?City=6. Accessed July 27, 2019.
48. Lao, Y., and L. Liu. Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems Performance Evaluation of Bus Lines with Data
Envelopment Analysis and Geographic Information Sys-
tems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 33,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com
penvurbsys.2009.01.005.
49. Ardila, A. How Public Transportation’s Past Is Haunting
Its Future in Bogotá, Colombia. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2007. 2038: 9–15.
50. Ardila, A. Limitation of Competition in and for the Public
Transportation Market in Developing Countries: Lessons
from Latin American Cities. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2008. 2048: 8–15.
51. Tang, S., and H. K. Lo. The Impact of Public Transport
Policy on the Viability and Sustainability of Mass Railway
Transit – The Hong Kong Experience. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2008,
pp. 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.022.
52. Feng, S., X. Shen, and B. Hu. Over-Supply in Public Trans-
portation: Case Study of Bus and Metro Lines in Harbin
City, China. Promet - Traffic & Transportation, Vol. 28,
No. 5, 2016, pp. 471–477. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v28i
5.1936.
31
53. Dandapat, S., M. F. Cheranchery, and B. Maitra. Is Fare
Increment Desirable for Ensuring Operational Viability of
Private Buses? Transport Policy, Vol. 59, 2017,
pp. 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.010.
54. Arora, A. Integrating Intermediate Public Transport Within
Transport Regulation in a Megacity: A Kolkata Case Study.
Shakti Sustainable Engery and Foundation, Kolkata, 2016.
55. Prabhu, A. D., S. Madhu, L. Ramamurthy, and D. Dha-
nuraj. Study on Paratransit Sector in Chennai. Civitas
Urban Solutions for City Connect Foundation Chennai
(CCCF), Chennai, India, 2011.
56. Lave, R. E., and J. W. Billheimer. Paratransit Integration,
State-of-Art Report. Transportation Research Board, 1978.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00107.pdf.
Accessed December 15, 2020.
57. Gkiotsalitis, K., Z. Wu, and O. S. Cats. Bus Allocation to
Short-Turning and Interlining Lines. Presented at 98th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2019.
58. Vuchic, V. R. Skip-Stop Operation as a Method for Tran-
sit Speed Increase. Traffic Quarterly, Vol. April, 1973,
pp. 307–327.
59. Zhang, H., S. Zhao, Y. Cao, H. Liu, and S. Liang. Real-
Time Integrated Limited-Stop and Short-Turning Bus
Control with Stochastic Travel Time. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 2017, 2017, p. 9. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2017/2960728.
60. Daganzo, C. F., and Y. Ouyang. Public Transportation Sys-
tems: Principles of System Design, Operations Planning and
Real-Time Control. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singa-
pore, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1142/10553.
61. Wu, W., R. Liu, and W. Jin. Integrating Bus Holding Con-
trol Strategies and Schedule Recovery: Simulation-Based
Comparison and Recommendation. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 2018, 2018, p. 13. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/9407801.
62. Lin, Y., X. Yang, N. Zou, and M. Franz. Transit Signal
Priority Control at Signalized Intersections: A Comprehen-
sive Review. Transportation Letters, Vol. 7, No. 3,
2015, pp. 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1179/1942787514Y
.0000000044.
63. Chakraborty, P. NMC to Rationalize Routes to Cut Losses
in City Bus Ops. The Times of India, June, 2018.
64. Hafezi, M. H., and A. Ismail. Balancing between Headway
and Frequency Scheduling for Bus Service. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 97–98, 2011, pp. 669–673.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.97-98.669.
65. Rodrigues, M. M., C. C. de Souza, and A. V. Moura. Vehi-
cle and Crew Scheduling for Urban Bus Lines. European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 170, No. 3, 2006,
pp. 844–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.06.035.
66. Vuchic, V. R. Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Eco-
nomics. J. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2005.
67. Directorate of Urban Land Transport. Davanagere City
Bus Service Evaluation Report. Directorate of Urban Land
Transport, 2013. http://www.urbantransport.kar.gov.in/
projects_query.html. Accessed December 15, 2020.
68. Tangphaisankun, A., T. Okamura, F. Nakamura, and R.
Wang. A Study in Integrating Paratransit as a Feeder
32
System into Urban Transportation and Its Effects on
Mode Choice Behavior: A Study in Bangkok, Thailand.
Proc., 12th WCTR Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 2010,
pp. 1–22.
69. Ferro, P. S., and R. Behrens. From Direct to Trunk-and-
Feeder Public Transport Services in the Urban South: Ter-
ritorial Implications. Journal of Transport and Land Use,
Vol. 8, No. 1, 2015, pp. 123–136. https://doi.org/
10.5198/jtlu.2015.389.
70. Kalpakcı, A., and N. K. Ünverdi. Integration of Paratran-
sit Systems with Inner-City Bus Transport: The Case of
Izmir. Public Transport, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2016, pp. 405–426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-016-0136-9.
71. Shen, C.-W., and L. Quadrifoglio. Evaluation of Zoning
Design with Transfers for Paratransit Services. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2012. 2277: 82–89.
Transportation Research Record 2675(3)
72. Dawda, N., G. Joshi, S. Arkatkar, and N. Vasudevan.
Multimodal of Lateral Transport System: A Case Study of
Successful Cities Worldwide. In Innovative Research in
Transportation Infrastructure – Lecture Notes in Intelligent
Transportation and Infrastructure (D. Deb, V. Balas, R.
Dey, and J. Shah, eds.), Springer, Singapore, 2019,
pp. 101–110.
73. Schalekamp, H., and R. Behrens. Engaging Paratransit on
Public Transport Reform Initiatives in South Africa: A
Critique of Policy and an Investigation of Appropriate
Engagement Approaches. Research in Transportation Eco-
nomics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2010, pp. 371–378. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.047.
74. Sharaby, N., and Y. Shiftan. The Impact of Fare Integra-
tion on Travel Behavior and Transit Ridership. Transport
Policy, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tranpol.2012.01.015.