Public Transport

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 457–485 | Cite as

Sustainable benchmarking of a public transport system using analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy logic: a case study of Hyderabad, India

  • Pradeep Chaitanya JastiEmail author
  • V. Vinayaka Ram
Case Study and Application


To achieve a well-balanced sustainable public transport system in an Indian scenario, a thorough performance assessment and benchmarking of existing systems in conventional and sustainable dimensions is necessary. Although institutionalisation of sustainable benchmarking of public transport systems is habituated across the globe, it is not largely practised in India. Based on this, we aim at developing a comprehensive mode-specific benchmarking framework for the urban bus system under Indian conditions with a case study of Hyderabad city. The developed framework consists of 29 evaluators structured into eight indicator groups. As the significance of these indicator groups and evaluators varies in the framework, the same has been determined by an expert opinion survey by applying multi-criteria decision-making techniques such as ‘analytic hierarchy process’ and ‘direct weighting.’ The assessment revealed that the overall performance of the urban bus system is approximately 70%. The parameters associated with the sectors of ‘passenger information systems’ and ‘social sustainability’ were found to underperform and required improvement. A better performance was observed among the service- and quality-oriented sectors. The associated intangibility in weighting and ranking during the process of benchmarking was addressed through the application of a fuzzy logic technique, and the ‘overall normalised rate of performance’ of the urban bus system was determined to be 74%. Based on these factors, the present study achieves a successful development and application of mode-specific benchmarking of public transport systems in the Indian context.


Sustainable benchmarking Public transportation Performance evaluation AHP Expert opinion Fuzzy logic 



The authors thank the management of HMDA for their willingness to share the data of their ‘Comprehensive Transportation Study’ and their diligence in maintaining a high-quality data set. The authors thank Dr. Bandhan Bandhu Majumdar, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, for his valuable advice on the application of the AHP technique for conducting an expert opinion survey.


  1. Balachandra P, Reddy BS (2013) Benchmarking Bangalore City for sustainability—an indicator-based approach. The Center for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning Indian Institute of Science: Bangalore, India, 2012Google Scholar
  2. Bickford G (2013) South African cities network-literature review on public transport and mobility in municipalities.
  3. Bongardt D, Schmid D, Huizenga C, Litman T (2011) Sustainable transport evaluation: developing practical tools for evaluation in the context of CSD process. Document 7, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruun E, Vanderschuren M (2017) Assessment methods from around the world potentially useful for public transport projects. J Public Transp 20(2):103–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehler R, Pucher J (2011) Making public transport financially sustainable. Transp Policy 18:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buzási A, Csete M (2014) Sustainability indicators in assessing urban transport systems. Period Polytech Transp Eng 43(3):138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Derrible S, Kennedy C (2010) Evaluating, comparing, and improving metro networks, application to plans for Toronto, Canada. J Transp Res Board 2146:43–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2007) Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. J Public Transp 10(3):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2012) Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. Eur Transport 51:1–21Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (2004) BESTRANS-Benchmarking of Energy and Emission Performance in Urban Public Transport Operations. Final Report, Project funded by the European Commission under the SAVE programmeGoogle Scholar
  11. Fu L, Xin Y (2007) A new performance index for evaluating transit quality of service. J Public Transp 10(3):47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gahlot V, Swami B, Parida M, Kalla P (2013) Availability and accessibility assessment of public transit system in Jaipur City. Int J Transp Eng 1(2):81–91Google Scholar
  13. Gavade RK (2014) Multi-criteria decision making: an overview of different selection problems and methods. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol 5(4):5643–5646Google Scholar
  14. Georgiadis G (2012) The role of benchmarking in public transport: the case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Proced Soc Behav Sci 48:2577–2587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henning T, Essakali MD, Jung EO (2011) Through transport research support (TRS), Department for International Development (DFID), A framework for urban transport benchmarking.
  16. HMDA (2012) “Working paper on public transport passenger estimation” of comprehensive transportation study for Hyderabad metropolitan study areaGoogle Scholar
  17. HMDA (2013) “Draft final report (DFR): volume-I” of comprehensive transportation Study for Hyderabad Metropolitan Study AreaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jasti PC, Ram VV (2016) Integrated and sustainable service level benchmarking of urban bus system. Transp Res Proced 17(2016):301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasti PC, Ram VV (2018) Integrated performance assessment and service level benchmarking of urban bus system using fuzzy logic. Eur Transp 69:1 (ISSN 1825-3997) Google Scholar
  20. Kanuganti S, Subramanian U, Arkatkar SS, Singh AP, Sarkar AK (2013) Quantification of level-of-service index for bus routes in developing countries: a case study in India. J Eastern Asia Soc Transp Stud 10:1347–1366Google Scholar
  21. Kinsella J, Caulfield B (2011) An examination of the quality and ease of use of public transport in Dublin from a newcomer’s perspective. J Public Transp 14(1):69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kittelson and Associates, Inc (2003) A guidebook for developing a transit performance-measurement system, TCRP Report 88. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Litman T (2014) Well measured developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
  24. Litman T (2018) Evaluating public transit benefits and costs, best practices guidebook. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
  25. Mamun MS, Lownes NE (2011) A composite index of public transit accessibility. J Public Transp 14(2):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martens K (2015) Accessibility and potential mobility as a guide for policy action. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2499:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishra M, Welch TF, Jha MK (2012) Performance indicators for public transit connectivity in multi-modal transportation networks. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 46(7):1066–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MoRTH (2016) Government of India, “Steps Taken To Improve Public Transport in Cities”.
  29. MoUD (2010) SLB for urban transport-government of India. Service level benchmarks for urban transport at a glance.
  30. MoUD and CEPT University, Ahmedabad (2013) SLB in urban transport for Indian Cities.
  31. National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) (2004) benchmark rankings for transit systems in the United States, State of Florida Department of Transportation. Technical Report No NCTR-527-03.
  32. Olivková I (2015) Model for measuring passenger satisfaction and assessing mass transit quality. J Public Transp 18(3):52–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patrick C-HT, Mulley C (2013) Benchmarking the efficiency performance of international metro systems. Proc East Asia Soc Transp Stud 9(2013):1–14Google Scholar
  34. Paz A, Maheshwari P, Kachroo P, Ahmad S (2013) Estimation of performance indices for the planning of sustainable transportation systems. Adv Fuzzy Syst 2013:601468Google Scholar
  35. Prasertsubpakij D, Nitivattananon V (2012) Evaluating accessibility to Bangkok Metro Systems using multi-dimensional criteria across user groups. IATSS Res 36:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaidya OS (2014) Evaluating the performance of public urban transportation systems in India. J Public Transp 17(4):174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wedley WC (1993) Consistency prediction for incomplete AHP matrices. Mathl Comput Model 17(4/5):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBITS Pilani, Hyderabad CampusHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Projects DivisionMMRCLMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations