Article 3: Performance Evaluation of A Public Transportation System: Analyzing the Case of Dhaka, Bangladesh

Rakibul Ahasan | Ahsanul Kabir 

Abstract

Performance evaluation of public transportation systems is an important prerequisite to making a rapidly growing city livable. Despite the presence of public transportation since the 1960s, few studies talk about the efficiency of transportation systems in cities. The objective of this research is to assess the performance of an existing system. Based on a set of performance measurements identified from the literature, we captured five categories: passengers’ and operators’ perspectives – service efficiency, system efficiency, cost efficiency, utilization efficiency, and network efficiency to evaluate public transit efficiency. The results indicated that the existing service quality in Dhaka is less satisfactory compared to other cities with system, network, and cost efficiency being below average. But utilization efficiency is better, which could result from the overuse of vehicles and workers being involved in operating them. Also, the most concerning issue with the existing transportation system is congestion. In terms of the strengths and weaknesses, we find that the implementation of metro rails, bus route restructuring, and a separate policy for the city’s public transportation system cast some hope in addressing some immediate problems in the rapidly growing city of Dhaka. 

Keywords

Public Transportation; Performance Evaluation; System Efficiency; Service Efficiency; Quality of Service; Dhaka; Bangladesh

About the Authors:

Rakibul Ahasan (MCRP, MSc) is an Urban Planner currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Geography at Texas A&M University, College Station. Before joining here, he worked as a GIS Analyst at Iowa State University GIS Facility. He was involved with the Comprehensive Plan update project for the city of Huxley, Iowa. His research interests encompass urban growth modeling, land-use land cover change analysis, urban growth, transportation interaction, and the impact of transportation infrastructure on urban land change.

Dr. Ahsanul Kabir is an urban planner by training. He has been teaching and researching physical planning, sustainable transport, public transport, and Geo-informatics for the last 25 years at Khulna University, Bangladesh. His research interests include exploring sustainable and effective spatial planning and policy formulation pathways that ensure sustainable interaction between activities. While working in the field of transport and urban planning, he often draws focus on governance, institutional issues, and coordination for development.

Introduction

Urban areas consist of a series of interconnected subsystems, and transportation is an integrated component of such areas, and a driver of urban growth (Berling-Wolff & Wu, 2004). An efficient transportation system is essential to accommodate a growing urban population that ensures mobility for users. Dhaka, one of the most densely populated and fastest-growing megacities, is no exception and requires a public transportation system to efficiently run the city functions and serve its inhabitants (Ahasan, 2018; DTCA & JICA, 2015). Previously, the city was designated as the “traffic capital of the world” for its congested streets (Hoque et al., 2009; Morshed, 2015). The city established its first transportation authority back in the 1960s and currently has a public transit system that is more than two decades old (DTCA & ALG, 2015). The current system cannot meet the ever-increasing demand efficiently (Ahasan et al., 2020; Hasnine, 2011), and is not suitable to accommodate standard bus services or adequately serve all areas (DTCA & JICA, 2015). Additionally, due to a shortage of budget, there weren’t enough efforts to evaluate the system’s performance or find an effective way to address the increased demand with satisfactory service quality (Ahasan et al., 2020). 

There were several structural improvement projects that aimed to resolve the transportation situation, but weren’t enough (e.g., Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study 2010; Dhaka Bus Network and Regulatory Reform Implementation Study 2015, etc.). Most of the earlier studies focused on capacity gaps and introduced new schemes to reduce congestion on the street on a short-term basis. However, there were no attempts to institutionalize the existing transportation system’s performance evaluation practice and improve it based on the results of the evaluation. 

To improve the system, it is first necessary to identify the current system’s deficiencies, which can be achieved through performance evaluation, which can explain how well the system is running and how well it supports the urban structure. The evaluation process includes measurement of performance in-network level, which eventually provides an idea of the continuity and coverage of existing routes, and how accessible those are from the major residential, commercial, and other activity hubs. It also identifies the areas by which the system is lagging from both passenger and operator points of view. Past studies reported that performance measurement techniques vary based on context, scale, and other socioeconomic factors. In general, the motivation behind these techniques is to evaluate the system’s efficiency and performance per the standards practiced (Abreha, 2007; Berhan et al., 2013; Cruz et al., 2012; Eboli & Mazzulla, 2012; Georgiadis et al., 2014; Niyonsenga, 2012; Ryus, 2010). However, most of them apply to developed countries’ cities, which differ in many ways from Dhaka. Even with the city’s rapidly growing nature, Dhaka differs from other megacities in spatial arrangements, economic structure, and socio-economic conditions. 

Thus, this study aims to find a set of performance measurement indicators that will provide contextual findings for Dhaka and evaluate the existing transportation system’s performance, because only using the indicators suitable to developed countries’ cities may not give a realistic visualization for the city. 

Literature Review

Studies have examined the importance of public transit, especially in the context of densely populated cities. These studies have focused on providing options to users while ensuring better mobility and accessibility. With rapid urban population growth, the demand for transportation services is also proliferating, and public transit can help meet this increased demand (Schmöcker et al., 2004; Berg & Ihlström, 2019). Public transportation options are also helpful in reducing congestion on streets by eliminating the need for single-occupancy vehicles (Hensher, 2018; Migliore & Ciccarelli, 2020). Therefore, it is instrumental in low-income countries with limited financial resources. Previous transportation-related studies and analysis also reported the importance of public transportation in the context of Dhaka, Bangladesh. One of the earliest initiatives was in the early 1990s – the Dhaka Urban Transportation Plan (DUTP) which proposed that the city required an efficient public transit system, and recommended the establishment of a coordination authority. The authority, the Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority (DTCA), has prepared policy documents over the years emphasizing the importance of mass transit in the city, and they are currently implementing six Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Metro Rail projects. 

Previous studies defined performance measurement as evaluating how well an organization utilizes resources by comparing the input and output (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2012). It is in the form of capital or logistics supply, i.e., vehicles and infrastructures. The measurement comprises collecting, evaluating, and reporting data related to how well the organization performs its functions and meets its goals and objectives. Performance measurement of the public transportation system helps achieve aims from different viewpoints: evaluating the public transportation system’s overall performance, evaluating management performance, and diagnosing problems. The problems can be inconsistency in expenditure regarding the maintenance of transit vehicles, resource allocation among competing institutions, providing a management control system for monitoring and improving transit services, and other legal and regulatory works (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2011). It also paves the way for techniques that translate into a constant effort to improve services to match standards (Dhingra, 2011). 

It is worth noting the variations in definition of transit performance measures (Bordagaray et al., 2014; Das & Pandit, 2013; Deb & Ahmed, 2018; Friman et al., 2020; Güner, 2018; Ojo, 2019; Park et al., 2020; Quddus et al., 2019). These perspectives guided evaluations on the passenger’s perception of the service, how transit agencies view the system from a business perspective, and the community’s view on the transit’s role in serving broader societal objectives. Several researchers stated three general dimensions of performance measurement of public transportation systems – resource efficiency, resource effectiveness, and service effectiveness (Cruz et al., 2012). However, there is evidence of opposing views among several other researchers regarding these aspects . For example, Cook & Lawrie, 2004; Castillo & Benitez, 2012 in Cruz et al., 2012, added that the measurement and indicators of service quality of the system is also relevant. This has also been agreed upon in other works (Bellizzi et al., 2020; Bordagaray et al., 2014; Cascetta & Cartenì, 2014; Das & Pandit, 2013; Deb & Ahmed, 2018; Friman et al., 2020; Güner, 2018; Ojo, 2019; Quddus et al., 2019). 

Notably, the work of performance evaluation usually varies based on the considered point of view (whose view to consider – user’s or agency’s). A group of researchers performed their work based on the operator’s point of view, while others counted the passengers or communities, while several others considered both (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2012). Performance evaluation can, therefore, provide information on the level of service of the system, the service quality (from the passenger’s point of view) along with the cost-efficiency of the system, and system efficiency and utilization efficiency (agency’s point of view) at the same time. However, it was evident in past works that transit service performance depends significantly upon perspective. From one perspective, some indicators could be considered a performance measure that may not reflect all the system’s stakeholders. Hence, it is important to consider the viewpoints of all the involved actors and past studies used this frequently (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2012; Ojo, 2019; Friman et al., 2020). Researchers consider the customer’s view as the most relevant for evaluating transit performance (Cruz et al., 2012; Friman et al., 2020).

On the other hand, to evaluate the operator’s perspective, past studies reported the use of productivity measures. These measures focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the system using a set of efficiency indicators. It usually considers cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Studies differentiated among efficiency and effectiveness measures based on the input, for example, studies defined cost efficiency – the measure of service output compared to the unit of input; cost-effectiveness – the measure of outcome compared to the unit of input in terms of cost, and service effectiveness – a measure of outcome compared to a unit of input in terms of service. Indicators can help achieve involvement of all stakeholders. The importance of considering the infrastructure (i.e.road network) and vehicle modes (i.e. cost efficiency) was also prevalent in the literature. However, we also found that overlaps between different indicators and individual indicators could represent multiple perspectives. This overlap, and the importance of considering all perspectives in the evaluation process are visible in the framework that we developed based on our findings (Figure 3.1). We incorporated the final set of indicators and the related description in the following section.

Methodology 

We followed a two-step approach for this research, including a review part and a data collection part. We reviewed past studies to identify a set of performance measurement indicators. After the review, we finalized the indicators in consultation with professionals and experts working with the city’s transportation system. Following the indicator selection, we conducted a field survey to collect data from operators and users. We also collected transportation route and network-related data from DTCA. Both the field survey data and secondary data from the institutions were then analyzed using the selected indicators.

Performance Measurement Indicator Identification 
Based on the literature review, we selected indicators to evaluate the transportation service’s performance in Dhaka city considering their contextualization to the location. We also considered both passengers’ and operators’ perspectives. Hence, there are five categories: analyzing system efficiency, service efficiency, network efficiency, cost efficiency, and utilization efficiency of the existing transit system (Table 1). 

Data Collection
In this study, we collected data through a questionnaire survey and institutional survey between June 2015 and July 2017. We designed the user survey questionnaire to capture the quality of service, average travel time, accessibility, comfort, and other service and system-related issues. On the other hand, we collected operating costs, revenue, and resource utilization data from the operators. The institutional survey provided network data, bus stop locations, and other relevant data on public transport operations. 

Data Analysis
To evaluate the performance of the system, we applied calculations using the collected data. The following section reports the equations and techniques we employed in performing the analysis. 

System Efficiency
For this research, we calculated system efficiency by appraising the travel time, walking distance and time, waiting time to board on the bus, and travel cost. We also calculated the transportation affordability index to measure system efficiency. In this study, we defined transportation affordability as the percentage of income spent for travel purposes (equation 1). 

Here, X = Number of trips per month; P= Expense per trip; y= Monthly Income

Service Efficiency
We used service efficiency indicators to capture the users’ perspective and measure the performance of the system. Past studies reported the use of weighted delay index and schedule reliability index for this purpose (Camus et al., 2005). In this study, we defined the weighted delay index based on the comparison between transit-trip delay and the number of late trips due to transit service failure (equation 2). We used a scheduled headway to measure transit trip delay. In contrast, we calculated schedule reliability based on the user’s waiting times before boarding on the transit (equation 3). 

Here, H is the scheduled headway, k is the universal delay value in minutes (0 ≤ k ≤H), and p (k) is the observed probability of delay k. R is expected to take a value between 0 and 1, with a higher value indicating lower reliability. 

Utilization Efficiency
We used average vehicle utilization, passenger per vehicle per day (PPVPD), passenger-kilometer, and vehicle availability to measure how the system is utilizing available resources for measuring utilization efficiency. We calculated vehicle utilization efficiency using the ratio of average working hours to total working hours (equation 4). 

Vehicle availability indicates the percentage of the operational vehicles in revenue-generating works (equation 5). It reflects the effectiveness of the system’s maintenance arrangements. 

Passenger per vehicle per day (PPVPD) is the number of passengers carried by a vehicle divided by the total number of vehicles and the number of operating days (Iles, 2005) (equation 6). It is influenced by the vehicle capacity, average occupancy, route length, no. of trips, average distance traveled by the passenger, headways, and average travel time. 

Network Efficiency
We used the distance between bus stoppages and average network speed to measure the existing system’s netwWe used the distance between bus stops and average network speed to measure the existing system’s network efficiency (equation 7). 

Cost Efficiency
We found that one of the most frequently used cost-efficiency measuring techniques is to calculate the profitability index (equation 8). This helps to examine the operating cost and how well the system is returning the investment. 

Results

Existing Public Transportation Condition 
In public transit, bus services are the second most used mode (4.2% share) for vehicular transportation in Dhaka city after non-mechanized rickshaws (21.8% share) (DTCA, 2015). Private bus operators provide local bus service within the city and in the vicinity alongside the state-owned Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation (BRTC). A total of 304 Buses and 1,194 Minibuses were in operation on 8 Bus Routes and 19 Minibus routes, respectively, in Dhaka in 1992 (DTCA, 2015). In 1994, bus and minibus routes were merged, and the bus routes were restructured, which reduced the ceiling height of the vehicle allowed to operate on specific routes. Since the Dhaka Bus Route Regulatory Reform Implementation Study by DTCA in 2011, there have been no new route permits for minibus and human haulers. Only existing permit-holders for minibus and human haulers can renew. 

As per the Motor Vehicle Ordinance 1983, all motor vehicles need to be registered with the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA). Additionally, vehicles to be used as public transportation need a permit issued for a fixed route with an origin and destination, and a fixed area or zone. Until 2000, there were 1,155 buses and 3,654 minibusses, which increased to 15,552 and 9,341 in 2009, respectively (Table 2). In recent years, the number of operating buses and minibusses has been increasing steadily. At present, the total number of buses operating on Dhaka’s roads is around 22,550, and the number of minibusses is 9,983 (BRTA, 2015). The number of buses under BRTC is not incorporated in the BRTA database as BRTC does not require route permits to conduct its operations. At present, BRTC has a fleet of 974 buses, out of which 125 are double-deckers, and these buses run through 11 routes in and around Dhaka city (BRTC, 2015). 

There is currently a minimum fare (for a distance less than 1 kilometers) of 7 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (~0.09 USD). An additional expense added per km is 0.36 BDT with this minimum fare. By offering a higher quality service, some operators charge higher fares in practice. Most bus companies follow the off-board ticketing process, which later transformed into onboard ticketing to prevent revenue loss and reduce the number of intermediaries. DMRTC, with representatives from bus operators, is responsible for determining the fares of the buses in Dhaka. Capital investments, salvage value, operation, maintenance cost, and profits are considered to fix fare. Additionally, some streets are suitable for smooth operation. According to the latest study by the transportation authority, 12.5% of the entire road network in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area (DMP) area is suitable for bus services (DTCA & JICA, 2015). 

Performance Evaluation of the Existing Public Transportation System 

System Efficiency
It is difficult to identify uniform measures to evaluate a public transportation system’s service quality due to the variation of perception from person to person. However, past studies found that service quality depends on average travel time, average waiting time, distances to the bus stops, travel speed, waiting time, and reliability. The majority of the respondents (56%) selected “moderate” as their opinion on the quality of the service (Figure 3.2a). In Dhaka, people do not prefer to walk when the walking distance is more than one kilometer or if the time taken exceeds 10-15 minutes. The average walking time to reach the bus stops is between 5 to10 minutes, and in most cases, walking distance is below 500 meters (around 70% of the responses). Still, one-third of the people have to make an ingress trip to use public transportation. Usually, the time taken during an ingress trip is between 10 to 30 minutes, with an average fare of BDT 10 to 15 (~0.14-0.20 USD). Almost two-thirds of the passengers (75%) have to wait at the bus stops before boarding the bus (Figure 3.2b). Waiting time varies between 2 to 10 minutes, with an average of 7-8 minutes. It may cross over 20 minutes during peak hours and under certain weather conditions. For Dhaka, the affordability index (equation 1) value has been found to be at 4.3% (assuming the average number of trips per month per person is 40 and the average fare per trip is BDT 22 (~0.23 USD). This value is within the standard accepted range and also within the affordable limit in comparison to other similar cities (e.g., South Africa 10%, India 10.2%, Pakistan 12%, Brazil 7%, Nigeria 15-20%, Cameroon 18%) (Carruthers et al., 2005). However, there are other modes like auto-rickshaws and taxi cabs in Dhaka. These modes cost more than buses (e.g., for a CNG trip, one has to pay BDT 40 for the first 2 kilometers and BDT 10 for subsequent kilometers). Nevertheless, that expense and cost are beyond the scope of this study. That is why the value found is probably not a representation of the real world. 

Service Efficiency
For a trip with a 6 km length, it should usually take less than 30 minutes (Armstrong-Wright & Thiriez, 1987). However, most trips exceed an hour of travel time in Dhaka. Almost half of the trips (43.75%) take more than an hour for a 6 km distance, and around one-third (31.25%) take 50 to 60 minutes (Figure 3.2c). For this research, the average speed of the vehicle and volume-capacity ratio were considered to measure reliability parameters. In the weighted delay index (equation 2), only one out of twenty-three operators showed a perfect score, whereas eight others scored less than 0.2, indicating seamless operation and maintenance. In the case of schedule reliability (equation 3), only four operators have a 50% reliability, whereas most operators have no reliability in maintaining the schedule. This indicates how disorderly the operation and maintenance of the public transport system is. Accidents and casualties caused by buses and minibuses have been lower compared to the total number. These modes accounted for only 72 out of 1,279 casualties and 432 out of 1,401 accidents between 2014 and 2017. In contrast, private vehicles, i.e., motorcycles, private cars/jeep, etc., are responsible for 150 casualties and 345 accidents, referring to the fact that public transport modes are comparatively less accident-prone and safer (Accident Research Institute, 2015). The average travel speed of buses fluctuates with the change in route, route length, the number of trips per day, and also the number of operators operating on that route. Dhaka’s average travel speed has been found to be around 10 Kmph, with a minimum value of 5 Kmph to a maximum of 22 Kmph (Figure 3.2d). The average speed varies based on the origin and destination of the routes. It is found to be higher during long routes which connect areas outside the city. Inside the city, traffic congestion is high, which reduces the vehicles’ speed on the routes that originate and end inside the city. 

Utilization Efficiency
Vehicle-kilometer depends on traffic congestion on the streets, operating speeds, hours of operations per day, and hours while the bus is in operation but not on the streets. For well-operated bus services, the average should be between 210 km to 270 km (Niyonsenga, 2012), although, in reality, the range lies between 150 km to 300 km (Abreha, 2007). In Dhaka city, the value is smaller for routes having both the origin and destination within the city, and high for the routes connecting areas outside the city. The maximum value has been found to be 195 kilometers per day, and the lowest is 53 kilometers resulting in an average of 79 kilometers. Using equation 4, the average utilization rate was found at 88.8%. On the other hand, vehicle availability is the ratio of the number of operational vehicles to the total vehicles, which for Dhaka was 84.85% (equation 5). A higher vehicle availability rate does not actually mean that all of the vehicles are operational. It can be higher due to the improper and overuse of available vehicles and falsified information provided to the regulatory authority. The problem with calculating vehicle availability and utilization in Dhaka is that the number of vehicles operating on the streets is much higher than listed on paper. Operators usually do not want their vehicles to be out of the streets for maintenance or stay idle, no matter whether they are fit for operations or not. There are also questions regarding the actual fleet size. 

Assuming 85% of the fleet are in operation (availability), the range for a bus with a capacity of 80-100 passengers on city services is between 1,000 and 2,000 PPVPD (equation 6). In Dhaka, the average capacity of vehicles is around 60, and PPVPD varies from route to route, with a minimum of 240 to a maximum of 775. Some of these values are close to the standards, but mostly the scenario is of underutilized extremes. Passenger kilometer in the case of Dhaka has been found to be 109,703 per day, the average trip length was found 10.1 km from the field survey, and the average total passenger volume was used for this calculation, which is 2155 passengers per day. 

Network Efficiency
In practice, buses stop everywhere they see passengers, though some defined bus stops are on every route. Average bus stops spacing should not cross 300-400 meters (Niyonsenga, 2012) for an efficient service operation. In the case of Dhaka,the stop spacing is around 1,200 meters (based on the stops recorded in the DMRTC database). On the other hand, the average network speed should be approximately 14-15 Kmph for an efficient operating transportation system, which is below 10 kilometers for Dhaka (equation 7). Both of these parameters indicate a low network quality on the available routes in the city. 

Cost Efficiency 
Operating Cost per Vehicle-Km and Revenue per Vehicle-Km were used to calculate profitability, which refers to cost-efficiency. Though both the revenue and profitability data were found too small and inadequate in amount, it should be mentioned here that the data from the operators regarding cost and revenue is not reliable in the transportation business. Using equation 8, the profitability was found to be around 17%. However, transportation business associates stated that there is always a more substantial profit in transportation services. Otherwise, the owner does not run their buses on the streets. 

In this study, Dhaka’s public transportation system’s overall performance was measured, including network, service, system, utilization, and network efficiency. In service efficiency, apart from vehicle availability and vehicle utilization rate, the rest of the parameters show that the performance is a poor one. Reliability, average bus stop spacing, and profitability also fall within the poor performance zone (Figure 3.2e). In system efficiency, the scenario is slightly better in Dhaka city with excellent performance regarding affordability and safety. However, what is essential to note here is the poor performance in travel time as it influences the overall performance of the system and other aspects of the measurement to a significant level as well. Low scores of vehicle-km and travel time represent the underutilization of a system’s capacity. Moreover, this causes the overall system efficiency to collapse from moderate to below moderate level. 

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper aims to evaluate the efficiency of the public transportation system of Dhaka city. Overall, the performance is lagging in components considered in this study. System efficiency showed a below-average score. Only utilization efficiency represents a good performance score. There are three indicators that fall well between the poor performance zone and the moderate performance zone (Figure 3.2e). Thus, a conclusion can be drawn that the existing system is not operating efficiently with bottlenecks in all components. The system is operating with severe problems in management (system and cost efficiency), operations (service and cost efficiency), and network-level (network efficiency). That is why an educated initiative can be taken for the planned development of Dhaka city’s public transportation. The initiative can vary from the implementation of different forms of mass transit modes, i.e., Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) suggested in the STP and RSTP, or it can be at the management level by introducing a separate policy for public transportation operations (Ahasan et al., 2020; Ahasan et al., 2020). 

Problems with the existing system can be categorized as infrastructure and management-related in general. Infrastructure-related issues include routes not being well distributed and connected. The absence of passenger shade, improper signaling also reinforces the problem. In the case of management factors, the legal and regulatory institutions are not aware of what is happening in practice. The operators reduce and modify the route lengths to suit their operations and for-profit maximization. For example, in the case of Route A-114, which on paper connects Mirpur Zoo to Sayedabaad, it does not operate beyond Motijheel. The operators do not cover the rest of the 3 km distance to avoid competition and congestion in that segment or serve passengers from the Motijheel commercial area (Figure 3.3). 

The empirical data analysis based on the identified criteria brings forward deficiencies within the existing system. Inadequate vehicles and infrastructure quality, as well as disintegrated enforcement authorities, are a few of the major issues. These are some of the most prominent deficient areas in the transportation sector of Bangladesh. All the problems with service efficiency were somehow related to traffic congestion on the streets. If this can be addressed, then the whole system’s efficiency might increase to a different level. The number of public transportation routes is high, but it is not well distributed; instead, the density is high in the central areas. The present scenario of Dhaka city’s transportation situation is not remarkable compared to other similar cities, Delhi (India), for example. Factors like vehicle utilization (84% in Delhi compared to Dhaka’s 88%), passenger trips, lower number of accidents indicated a better state in the case of Dhaka. However, what makes them different is the use of public transportation as the primary mode of transportation (80% in Kolkata, 60% in Mumbai, and around 40% in Delhi compared to 23% in Dhaka). Initiatives like the introduction of Metro rail and BRT, and the average fleet age (4.5 years in Delhi compared to around 15 years in Dhaka) also contributed to the differences in public transportation performance in these cities (Pucher et al. 2004, Dave, 2014). 

The assessment of the efficiency of the public transportation system of Dhaka city gives some unique information regarding how well the system is operating and the hindrances of the existing system. The current system is operating somewhat below the moderate service quality. Only a few indicators were found to be moderate, but the rest of the indicators appeared to be underperforming. To improve the existing performance, initiatives need to be enforced in these underperforming sectors specifically. Past studies reported that congestion does not have a significant relationship with economic growth. Instead, it has a positive correlation with per capita income (Marshall & Dumbaugh, 2020). However, these studies are yet to be replicated and tested in the context of the global south. Mobility is highly dependent on public transport in Dhaka, and single-occupancy vehicles are still less than five percent of total trips. That is why it requires further studies and evaluations, which will lead to a sustainable solution for congestion issues and other underperforming areas of the existing system. This can help the public transportation system of Dhaka to become an efficient one which would be worth using and sustainable in meeting the demand of the city’s present and future residents (Ahasan et al., 2020). The data used in this research is around two years old. However, the network and other institutional information did not change in the past years. At the same time, additional information is still representative of the city’s situation, given that no significant changes and initiatives were undertaken in this period. Future studies could also incorporate other modes of transportation to compare public transit and how different modes of transportation complement this system. Also, the operator’s and users’ survey was selective and limited due to the public’s time constraints and availability to respond to an extensive questionnaire and sensitive topic. Future studies could be better addressed by narrowing down the routes and using more strategic approaches with the survey.

References

Abreha, D. A. (2007). Analysing public transport performance using efficiency measures and spatial analysis: The case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ahasan, R. (2018). An Assessment of Potential change in Mobility and Accessibility of Dhaka Dwellers by the Implementation of Metro Rail (MRT-6). Master of Urban and Rural Planning Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Khulna University.

Ahasan, R., Kabir, A., & Hoda, M. N. (2020). Evolution of transportation institutions and policy provisions in Dhaka city from 1960-2017.

Ahasan, R., Kabir, A., & Nirzhar, Y.R. (2020). Forecasting the impact of metro rail implementation on mobility and accessibility: Case of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Book of abstracts 2020, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) Annual Conference 2020.

Accident Research Institute, 2015. Accident Database, Bangladesh University of Engineering Technology (BUET).

Armstrong-Wright, A., & Thiriez, S. (1987). Bus services: reducing costs, raising standards (No. WTP68, p. 1). The World Bank.

Bangladesh Road Transport Authority. (2015). BRTA Registration Records, Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation (BRTC).

Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation. (2015). BRTC Registration Records, Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation (BRTC).

Bellizzi, M. G., dell’Olio, L., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2020). Heterogeneity in desired bus service quality from users’ and potential users’ perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 365-377.

Berg, J., & Ihlström, J. (2019). The Importance of Public Transport for Mobility and Everyday Activities among Rural Residents. Social Sciences, 8(2), 58.

Berhan, E., Beshah, B., & Kitaw, D. (2013). Performance analysis on public bus transport of the city of addis ababa. International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications, 5(2150-7988), 722-728.

Berling-Wolff, S., & Wu, J. (2004, Jan). Modeling urban landscape dynamics: A review. Ecological Research, 19(1), 119-129.

Bordagaray, M., dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecín, P. (2014). Modelling user perception of bus transit quality considering user and service heterogeneity. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 10(8), 705-721.

Camus, R., Longo, G., & Macorini, C. (2005). Estimation of transit reliability level-of-service based on automatic vehicle location data. Transportation research record, 1927(1), 277-286.

Carruthers, R., Dick, M., & Saurkar, A. (2005). Affordability of public transport in developing countries. The World Bank.

Cascetta, E., & Cartenì, A. (2014). A quality-based approach to public transportation planning: theory and a case study. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 8(1), 84-106.

Cruz, L., Barata, E., & Ferreira, J. P. (2012). Performance in urban public transport systems: a critical analysis of the Portuguese case. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.

Das, S., (2009). Prospect of Introducing BRT System as a Solution of Mass Transit Problem in Dhaka Metropolitan City. Unpublished BSc. Thesis, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bangladesh University of Engineering Technology (BUET).

Das, S., & 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, 33(4), 402-420.

Dave, P., (2014). Check-Up of India’s Heart – Delhi: A Diagnosis of the Capital’s Public Transport. [Online] Available at: http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/pratik-dave/240681/health-check-india-s-heart-delhi-cardiac-diagnosis-national-capital-s-public-tran Deb, S., & Ahmed, M. A. (2018). Determining the service quality of the city bus service based on users’ perceptions and expectations. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12, 1-10.

Deb, S., & Ahmed, M. A. (2018). Determining the service quality of the city bus service based on users’ perceptions and expectations. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12, 1-10. 

Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority, & Advanced Logistics Group (ALG). (2015). Dhaka Bus Network and Regulatory Reform Implementation. Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority (DTCA).

Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority, & Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2015). The Project on the Revision and Updating of the Strategic Transport Plan for Dhaka. Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority (DTCA).

Dhingra, C. (2011). Measuring public transport performance: Lessons for developing cities. Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document, 9(11).

Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2010). How to Capture the Passengers’ Point of View on a Transit Service through Rating and Choice Options. Transport Reviews, 30(4), 435-450.

Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2012). Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. European Transport\Trasporti Europei(51).

Friman, M., Lättman, K., & Olsson, L. E. (2020). Public transport quality, safety, and perceived accessibility. Sustainability, 12(9), 3563.

Georgiadis, G., Politis, I., & Papaioannou, P. (2014). Measuring and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of bus public transport systems. Research in transportation economics, 48, 84-91.

Güner, S. (2018). Measuring the quality of public transportation systems and ranking the bus transit routes using multi-criteria decision making techniques. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(2), 214-224.

Hasnine, M. (2011). Evaluation and development of bus based public transport in Dhaka city. Proceedings of 4th Annual Paper Meet and 1st Civil Engineering Congress. Retrieved February,

Hensher, D. A. (2018). Tackling road congestion What might it look like in the future under a collaborative and connected mobility model? Transport Policy, 66, A1-A8.

Hoque, M. M., Rahman, M. A., Islam, S., & Saha, D. (2009). Achieving sustainable transport in metro Dhaka: The role and integration of non-motorized transport. 11th TPMDC Transportation Planning and Implementation Methodologies for Developing Countries, 2009, 10-12.

Iles, R. (2005). Regulation of Public Transport Services’, Public Transport in Developing Countries (pp. 403-443). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Marshall, W. E., & Dumbaugh, E. (2020). Revisiting the relationship between traffic congestion and the economy: a longitudinal examination of U.S. metropolitan areas. Transportation, 47(1), 275-314.

Migliore, M., & Ciccarelli, M. (2020). The Role of the Integrated Public Transport Network for Reducing the Congestion in the City of Palermo. In Urban and Transit Planning (pp. 297-303). Springer.

Morshed, A. (2015). Rethinking the roots of Dhaka’s traffic congestion. The Daily Star.

Niyonsenga, D. (2012). Assessing public transport supply for Kigali, Rwanda University of Twente.

Ojo, T. K. (2019). Quality of public transport service: An integrative review and research agenda. Transportation Letters, 11(2), 104-116.

Park, Y., Mount, J., Liu, L., Xiao, N., & Miller, H. J. (2020). Assessing public transit performance using real-time data: spatiotemporal patterns of bus operation delays in Columbus, Ohio, USA. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 34(2), 367-392.

Pucher, J., Korattyswaroopam, N., & Ittyerah, N. (2004). The crisis of public transport in India: overwhelming needs but limited resources. Journal of public transportation, 7(4), 1.

Quddus, M., Rahman, F., Monsuur, F., de Ona, J., & Enoch, M. (2019). Analyzing bus passengers’ satisfaction in Dhaka using discrete choice models. Transportation Research Record, 2673(2), 758-768.

Ryus, P. (2010). A methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison in the public transportation industry (No. 141). Transportation Research Board.

Schmöcker, J.-D., Bell, M. G. H., & Lam, W. H. K. (2004). Special issue: Importance of public transport. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 38(1), 1-4.