Integrated and Sustainable Benchmarking of Metro Rail System Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Logic: A Case Study of Mumbai

Abstract

Intra-city mobility affects the well-being of city dwellers and the quality of urban life. A highly sophisticated and sustainable mass rapid transit system is key to facilitating such mobility. Metro Rail is one such successful system suitable for Indian conditions. A network of around 425 km is under operation and about 700 km is under fast track implementation in various cities (MoHUA in Annual report 2017–2018, Government of India, 2018). On the other hand, Metro Rail is an expensive form of urban transport, so any non-viability can leave the public transit agencies and the government in huge debt towards repaying the loans with which the system has been funded. In this context, achieving viability and long-term sustainability becomes mandatory for metro systems; such viability can be achieved by thorough performance assessment and benchmarking of the system in conventional and sustainable dimensions. Though institutionalization of benchmarking is practiced globally, few such efforts have been attempted in India. This study attempts to develop a mode-specific benchmarking framework for metro systems, structuring nine performance indicators (criteria) and 34 evaluators (sub-criteria) with a case study of Mumbai. Multi-criteria decision making techniques such as the analytic hierarchy process and direct weighting are engaged to incorporate a priority-based weighting system into the benchmarking framework. As the performance is benchmarked against set targets (absolute benchmarking), vagueness associated with the scaling/ranking is addressed through the fuzzy logic approach. Finally, the rate of performance of the Mumbai Metro Rail system is determined as 75% with acceptable results in the service, quality and societal sectors, though much improvement is needed in the sector of multimodal integration.

Keywords

Sustainable benchmarking / Public transportation / Metro rail system / Urban rail transit / Performance evaluation / Analytic hierarchy process / Expert opinion / Fuzzy logic

References

[1] MoRTH (2016) Government of India, steps taken to improve public transport in cities. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=147463. Accessed 4 Aug 2019

[2] MMRDA “Final report-executive summary of comprehensive transportation study” for Mumbai Metropolitan Region, 2008, Mumbai: MMRDA

[3] MRVC (2018) Overview of the existing Mumbai suburban railway. http://www.mrvc.indianrailways.gov.in/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,294,302

[4] MMRDA Basic transport and communications statistics for Mumbai Metropolitan Region, 2017, Mumbai: MMRDA

[5] MMRDA, PIU (2018) Mumbai metro master plan. https://mmrda.maharashtra.gov.in/metro-piu. Accessed 4 Aug 2019

[6] MoUD (2010) Service level benchmarks for urban transport at a glance. SLB for Urban Transport—Government of India

[7] MoUD and CEPT (2013) Service level benchmarking in urban transport for Indian cities

[8] MoUD (2014) National urban transport policy, 2014. Government of India

[9] MoHUA (2017) Appraisal guidelines for metro rail project proposals. Government of India

[10] MoHUA (2017) Metro rail policy, 2017. Government of India

[11] Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2003) A guidebook for developing a transit performance measurement system. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 88

[12] Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2013) TCRP report 165: Tran-sit capacity and quality of service manual, third edition. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

[13] 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

[14] Paz A, Maheshwari P, Kachroo P, Ahmad S. Estimation of performance indices for the planning of sustainable transportation systems. Adv Fuzzy Syst, 2013

[15] Alter CH. Evaluation of public transit services: the level-of-service concept. Transp Res Rec, 1976, 606: 37-40.

[16] Balachandra P, Reddy BS. Benchmarking Bangalore city for sustainability—an indicator-based approach, 2013, Bangalore: The Center for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning, Indian Institute of Science

[17] Bickford G. Literature review on public transport and mobility in municipalities. S Afr Cities Netw, 2013, 2: 2013

[18] Buehler R, Pucher J. Making public transport financially sustainable. Transp Policy, 2011, 18: 126-138

[19] Bongardt D, Schmid D, Huizenga C, Litman T (2011) Sustainable transport evaluation: developing practical tools for evaluation in the context of the CSD process. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany and Federal Environmental Agency, Germany Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document #7

[20] Bruun E, Vanderschuren M. Assessment methods from around the world potentially useful for public transport projects. J Public Transp, 2017, 20(2): 6

[21] Fu L, Xin Y. A new performance index for evaluating transit quality of service. J Public Transp, 2007, 10(3): 4

[22] Martens K. Accessibility and potential mobility as a guide for policy action. Transp Res Rec, 2015, 2499: 18-24

[23] Kittelson & Associates, Inc. et al. (2003) A guidebook for developing a transit performance-measurement system. TCRP report 88, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

[24] Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2011) Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. European Transport\Trasporti Europei, Issue 51, Paper no. 3. ISSN 1825-3997

[25] Jasti PC, Ram VV. Integrated and sustainable service level benchmarking of urban bus system. Transp Res Procedia, 2016, 17(2016): 301-310

[26] Jasti PC, Ram VV (2018) Integrated performance assessment and service level benchmarking of urban bus system using fuzzy logic. European Transport\Trasporti Europei, Issue 69, Paper no. 1. ISSN 1825-3997

[27] Mishra S, Welch TF, Jha MK. Performance indicators for public transit connectivity in multi-modal transportation networks. Transp Res Part A Policy Practice, 2012, 46(7): 1066-1085

[28] Derrible S, Kennedy C. Evaluating, comparing, and improving metro networks, application to plans for Toronto, Canada. J Transp Res Board, 2010

[29] Litman T (2014) Well measured: developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. www.vtpi.org. Accessed May 2014

[30] Litman T. Measuring transportation: traffic, mobility and accessibility. ITE J, 2003, 73(10): 28-32.

[31] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (2017) 130, Standard for fixed guideway transit and passenger rail systems

[32] MoUD (2013) Report of the sub-committee on rolling stock for metro railways. Government of India

[33] Stefano de Luca Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transp Policy, 2014, 33(2014): 110-124

[34] Lee GK, Chan EH. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc Indic Res, 2008, 89(1): 155-168

[35] Khasnabis S, Chaudhry BB. Prioritizing transit markets using analytic hierarchy process. J Transp Eng, 1994, 120(1): 74-93

[36] Huang W, Shuai B, Sun Y, Wang Y, Antwi E. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach using entropy-TOPSIS method to evaluate urban rail transit system operation performance: The China case. Transp Res Part A, 2018, 111(2018): 292-303.

[37] Vaidya OS. Evaluating the performance of public urban transportation systems in India. J Public Transp, 2014, 17(4): 2014

[38] Patrick C-HT, Mulley C (2013) Benchmarking the efficiency performance of international metro systems. In: Proceedings of the Eastern Asia society for transportation studies, vol 9. Sydney

[39] Kanuganti S, Subramanian U, Arkatkar SS, Singh AP, Sarkar AK. Quantification of level-of-service index for bus routes in developing countries: a case study in India. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud, 2013, 10: 1347-1366.

[40] Gavade RK. Multi-criteria decision making: an overview of different selection problems and methods. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol, 2014, 5(4): 5643-5646.

[41] Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol, 1977, 15(3): 234-281

[42] Saaty TL. The analytic hirereachy process, 1980, New York: McGraw Hill

[43] Wedley WC. Consistency prediction for incomplete AHP matrices. Math Comput Modell, 1993, 17(4/5): 151-161

[44] MoHUA (2018) Annual report 2017–2018. Government of India