Transit Shift Response Analysis Through Fuzzy Rule Based-Choice Model: A Case Study of Indian Metropolitan City

  • Ashu S. Kedia
  • D. Sowjanya
  • P. S. Salini
  • M. Jabeena
  • Bhimaji Krishnaji Katti
Original Article


The productivity of most of the public transport services has greatly reduced due to the absence of appropriate transit planning strategies. The efficacy of public transport system is undoubtedly governed by transit accessibility, and provision of transit supply and service facilities by transport organizations. If a transit system, and its operations prove to be inefficient, its patronage shifts towards private mode or para-transit, resulting in an uneconomical and environmentally degraded system. Therefore, the identification of attributes influencing consumers’ choice of transit system becomes an important aspect in urban context. The conventional Logit modelling approach, based on the theory of random utility maximization has been attempted by many. Moreover, the approach possesses certain limitations in addressing the uncertainty lying in humans’ choice decisions and ambiguous expressions made by travellers for the available options. Whereas, Fuzzy Logic, an Artificial Intelligence technique works on the principle of simple and logical ‘If-Then’ rules, framed to predict the preferred choice through approximate reasoning. The study precisely attempts to analyze the transit choice behaviour of urbanites, with the help of fuzzy rule based transit choice model, considering Surat, a fast developing Indian metropolitan city in the state of Gujarat as the study area. Walking distance to a bus stop, waiting time at a bus stop, and bus schedule reliability are observed to be the governing accessibility attributes, and thus are considered further for model development. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis showing the impacts of accessibility attributes on transit shift is carried out as an application of the developed model.


Transit shift Fuzzy logic Mode choice Metropolitan area Socio-economics 



Authors thank all the respondents of Household Interview Surveys conducted in Surat city for giving their precious feedbacks without which it would not have been possible to conduct this study. In addition, authors also acknowledge the opportunity to present the research work that forms the basis of this article at the 3rd Conference of the Transportation Research Group of India, held at Kolkata (India) from 17 to 20 December, 2015.


  1. 1.
    Registrar General, I. (2011) Census of India 2011: provisional population totals-India data sheet. Office of the Registrar General Census Commissioner, India. Indian Census BureauGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahluwalia MS (2011) Prospects and policy challenges in the twelfth plan. Econ Political Weekly 46(21):88–105Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badami MG, Haider M (2007) An analysis of public bus transit performance in Indian cities. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 41(10):961–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tiwari G (2003) Transport and land-use policies in Delhi. Bull World Health Organ 81(6):444–450Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pucher J, Korattyswaroopam N, Ittyerah N (2004) The crisis of public transport in India: overwhelming needs but limited resources. J Public Transp 7(3):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vedagiri P, Arasan VT (2009) Estimating modal shift of car travelers to bus on introduction of bus priority system. J Transp Syst Eng Inf Technol 9(6):120–129Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang Y, Wang Z, Li Z, Staley SR, Moore AT, Gao Y (2013) Study of modal shifts to bus rapid transit in Chinese cities. J Transp Eng 139(5):515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gebeyehu M, Takano S (2007) Diagnostic evaluation of public transportation mode choice in Addis Ababa. J Public Transp 10(4):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patankar VM, Kumar R, Tiwari G (2007) Impacts of bus rapid transit lanes on traffic and commuter mobility. J Urban Plann Dev 133(2):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Litman T, Burwell D (2006) Issues in sustainable transportation. Int J Global Environ Issues 6(4):331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokal D (2010) Disaggregate mode shift behaviour study with respect to bus rapid transit system: a case study of Patna. Dissertation, S.V. National Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fatima E, Kumar R (2014) Introduction of public bus transit in Indian cities. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holland, R. (2000). Fuzzy logic model of mode choice. In: Proceedings of seminar k of the European transport conference 2000, held Homerton college, Cambridge, UK, 11–13 September 2000-transport modelling. Volume P445Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pulugurta S, Arun A, Errampalli M (2013) Use of artificial intelligence for mode choice analysis and comparison with traditional multinomial logit model. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 104:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fatpure G (2013) Public transit choice, modelling for different economic groups through SP data information by ANN Approach—a case study of Surat. Dissertation, S.V. National Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jassbi JJ, Alavi SH, Serra PJ, Ribeiro RA (2007). Transformation of a Mamdani FIS to First Order Sugeno FIS. In FUZZ-IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang L-X, Mendel JM (1992) Generating fuzzy rules by learning from examples. Syst Man Cybern IEEE Trans 22(6):1414–1427MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teodorović D (1999) Fuzzy logic systems for transportation engineering: the state of the art. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 33(5):337–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mizutani K, Akiyama T (2000) A logit model for modal choice with a fuzzy logic utility function. In: Second international conference on transportation and traffic studies (ICTTS), Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Postorino MN, Versaci M (2002) A fuzzy approach to simulate the user mode choice behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 13th Mini-EURO Conference, Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tai HP, Akiyama T, Okushima M (2003) Development of combined modal split and traffic assignment model with fuzzy logic. In: Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol 4Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vythoulkas PC, Koutsopoulos HN (2003) Modeling discrete choice behavior using concepts from fuzzy set theory, approximate reasoning and neural networks. Transp Res C Emerg Technol 11(1):51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar M, Sarkar P, Madhu E (2013) Development of fuzzy logic based mode choice model considering various public transport policy options. Int J Traffic Transport Eng 3(4):408–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dell’Orco M, Ottomanelli M (2012) Simulation of users’ decision in transport mode choice using neuro-fuzzy approach. In Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2012, pp 44–53, Springer.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarkar A, Sahoo G, Sahoo UC (2012) Application of fuzzy logic in transport planning. Int J Soft Comput 3(2):1. doi: 10.5121/ijsc.2012.3201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pedrycz W (1994) Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets Syst 64(1):21–30MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashu S. Kedia
    • 1
  • D. Sowjanya
    • 1
  • P. S. Salini
    • 1
  • M. Jabeena
    • 1
  • Bhimaji Krishnaji Katti
    • 1
  1. 1.Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of TechnologySuratIndia

Personalised recommendations