eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

eTransportation
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/etransportation

Scenario-Based Multi-criteria decision analysis for rapid transit

systems implementation in an urban context
^ natas Augusto Manzolli a, Joa
Jo ~o a, c, d, *, Carlos Henggeler Antunes a, b
~o Pedro Trova
a
INESC Coimbra, University of Coimbra, DEEC, Polo II, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal
b
University of Coimbra, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Polo II, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal
c
Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, IPC-ISEC, DEE, 3030-199, Coimbra, Portugal
d
University of Sherbrooke, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The disorderly growth in large urban centers has led to several problems such as pollution, traffic and
Received 16 September 2020 precarious infrastructure. Adequate public policies to support urban mobility are key to promote sus-
Received in revised form tainable development in cities. Developing adequate solutions for public urban transportation has a
22 November 2020
strong impact on quality of life, public security and health. In this setting, rapid transit systems emerge as
Accepted 24 December 2020
Available online 29 December 2020
a very effective option. Among the various solutions in this transportation category, three alternatives are
the most currently implemented in the world, namely Metro, Light Rail Transit (LRT), and Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT). With recent developments in battery technology, electric buses have become attractive
Keywords:
Urban transportation
solutions to be applied in mass transportation. In this way, a BRT solution powered by electric vehicles
Rapid transit system emerges as a promising alternative to enhance the quality of urban mobility and sustainability of large
Multi-criteria decision support cities. This paper presents a study based on multi-criteria decision analysis using the PROMETHEE
Scenario-based planning (PReference ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation) method to compare this solution
Electric mobility with the more traditional rapid transit options. The analysis has been made for four scenarios (baseline,
environmental, economic, and economic-environmental), to account for different perspectives. The re-
sults indicate that: a) Metro appears as the best solution in a baseline scenario, b) Bus-based transit
systems are the best solution in face of economic aspects; c) the electric-based transportation systems
considered in this study perform almost the same in an environment based scenario, and d) Metro and e-
BRT are the best solutions for an economic-environmental scenario. These findings suggest that bus-
based electrical systems are a viable alternative in urban areas in the foreseeable future, in contrast to
other rapid transit systems. The framework developed in this work can be instrumental in assisting
planning decisions and prioritizing actions to improve public collective mobility in urban areas.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction respond to such problems, actions to increase the efficiency of this

sector combined with the implementation of electric-based trans-
Accelerated and disorganized levels of urbanization, private portation have become more prominent in the last decade [3].
motorization, and poor road network planning can be mentioned as Although other resources can be used to improve the trans-
the main contributors to problems such as traffic jams, poor air portation conditions in large cities, there is a consensus that public
quality, lack of parking spots, accidents, and noise pollution in large collective systems should be placed as a priority in public policy
city centers [1]. In addition, the transportation sector is one of the [4,5]. However, large investments are necessary for this purpose,
major fossil fuel consumers e contributing to around 14% of the and decision-makers (DM) must assess the alternatives thoroughly,
total greenhouse gases (GHG) global emission per year [2]. Thus, to considering multiple evaluation aspects of the merits of potential
solutions.
The necessity to evaluate the performance of transportation
* Corresponding author. INESC Coimbra, University of Coimbra, DEEC, Polo II, services has driven the development of Multi-criteria Decision
3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal. Analysis (MCDA) studies, enabling to assess different courses of
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.A. Manzolli), joao.trovao@ action considering multiple evaluation aspects and perspectives of
~o), [email protected] (C. Henggeler Antunes).
usherbrooke.ca (J.P. Trova

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2020.100101
2590-1168/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

analysis. Some of those works seek the solution to urban mobility consumption; therefore, it is a more sustainable solution
through the performance enhancement of multimodal trans- than similar internal combustion engine alternatives [15].
portation systems [6,7]. Several studies were performed to high- Metro systems have gained popularity over the years, having
light and identify the advantages of wider deployment of public begun to be implemented on a large scale from the 1970s
transportation in major urban areas, including the reduction of onwards. Nowadays, a total of 228 systems are operating on
GHG emissions, the improvement of air quality, the reduction of all five continents, including 761 lines and a total combined
noise pollution, the enhancement of quality of life, better energy length of 16,678 km. In addition, this transportation service
utilization [8e10]. Some studies propose different MCDA ap- is also responsible for carrying approximately 120 million
proaches and indicators to compare distinct public transportation passengers a day. Since it is a means of transport with high
alternatives [11e13]. The present paper contributes to these studies implementation costs, it is a more appropriate mobility so-
by developing a MCDA framework to assess four different types of lution for large urban centers with high demographic
rapid transit systems (Fig. 1), based on a multi-scenario approach. density.
This framework is replicable to assist decision-aid processes in b) The LRT mode of operation is through railcars set on rails
sustainable mobility options to be used in large urban centers. The normally powered by electric wires. To facilitate locomotion
analysis framework assesses the different alternatives considering and increase the speed of the system, the lines are built
economic, environmental, and technical criteria. In addition, four separately from the traffic on most of the routes. This system
different scenarios (baseline, environmental, economic, and implementation has increased in recent years, mainly
economic-environmental) have been designed in order to enable because this transport system is very effective in reducing
different analysis perspectives. The comparison of different types of traffic and allowing urban areas to be remodeled in a less car
technological solutions is carried out using the PROMETHEE dependent manner [16]. In terms of passenger volume,
(PReference ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evalu- construction time, and implementation price, the LRT has
ation) method, allowing for the consideration of different kinds of slightly lower values than a Metro system. Then, these sys-
impacts, as well as avoiding difficult measurement unit conversions tems are often implemented on a larger scale than Metro
[14]. systems in urban environments in the past two decades.
Some aspects of each technology are summarized in the c) BRT is a mode of transportation that incorporates the flexi-
following (see Table 6 for data information): bility of buses and the speed of rail transit. The traffic of the
buses is made through a dedicated lane, which makes
a) Metro systems have as the main purpose to provide frequent, possible a quicker, safer, and more reliable bus service.
safe and comfortable journeys for a high number of pas- Moreover, the BRT incorporates features mainly used in un-
sengers. Among the four evaluated alternatives, this system derground systems, such as off-board fare collection,
presents the highest passenger density per square meter. platform-level boarding, and articulated vehicles [17].
Besides, such systems carry more people with less energy Therefore, BRT is a very efficient and cost-effective transport

Fig. 1. Example of transportation systems under evaluation in this work: a) Mass Rapid Transit (Metro) e London (United Kingdom); b) Light Rail Transit (LRT) e Lyon (France); c)
ns (France).
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) e Curitiba (Brazil); and d) Electric Bus Rapid Transit (e-BRT) e Amie

2
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

solution, which is becoming very popular. Nowadays a total defined using expert opinion regarding the sustainability of each
of 173 systems are operating worldwide, with a total com- vehicle option. An aggregation method based on Intuitionistic
bined length of 5196 km, and carrying approximately 34 Fuzzy Choquet Integral (IFCI), Group Decision Making (GDM) and
million passengers a day. It is important to mention that this TOPSIS techniques was developed to derive a ranking. The study in
type of transport is more present in emerging countries. For Ref. [25] applies a Spatial Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
instance, the first BRT system in the world was implemented (SMCA) approach to the evaluation of an integrated plan for public
in the city of Curitiba (Brazil). Due to its success, the system transportation systems and land use development. The framework
has been spread along, first in the country and after in Latin- relies on designing and evaluating alternative rail-network, com-
America. Nowadays, the system implemented in Bogota  bined with other transportation systems, to provide improvements
(Colombia) is the biggest in the world, carrying 2.4 million in socio-economic and environmental requirements for the in-
passengers per day [18]. This system is also gaining fast habitants of the Klang Valley region, Malaysia. The work in Ref. [26]
prominence in Asia, mainly in China. The city of Guangzhou, aims to classify and analyze the literature applying MCDA methods
for example, owns one of the most technologically advanced on the evaluation of road transportation fuels and vehicles,
and fast BRT systems globally. unveiling a set of forty evaluation criteria used for that purpose. The
d) e-BRT systems are designed as a common BRT system, with results also indicate that the process of criteria selection partly
the difference that they are powered by electric buses. suffers from a lack of scientific foundation and standardization, for
Therefore, the mode of operation of such systems is different which the authors propose a criterion selection process using the
from its diesel counterpart since such vehicles must be Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology as a
charged. This system is becoming more widespread, not only guiding reference.
in emerging nations, but also in developed ones that are The PROMETHEE family of methods has been extensively
trying to increase the variety of electrified transportation applied in different fields, including decision support in the
systems [19]. In addition, e-BRT is used on a large scale in assessment of transportation systems. The work in Ref. [27] pre-
urban centers considering expanding their suburban lines. sents an evaluation of twenty land transportation infrastructure
projects using the PROMETHEE methods and the GAIA (Geomet-
LRT and Metro are the most common rail systems; however, rical Analysis for Interactive Aid) visual modeling as evaluation tool.
those alternatives present costly and time-consuming imple- The evaluation criteria are divided into economic, environmental
mentation in most cases. The BRT system has low-cost imple- and social criteria categories, comprising eighteen benefits and cost
mentation but is a transportation system based on fossil fuel sub-criteria. The work in Ref. [28] presents a study that seeks the
powered vehicles. On the other hand, with significant technological minimization of travel buses dead kilometers,1 using a Fuzzy AHP
developments, especially in terms of battery capacity, electric ve- and PROMETHEE approaches. To rank the best locations to mini-
hicles (EVs) are currently becoming feasible and sustainable solu- mize that indicator, the criteria were chosen according to distance
tions for mass urban transportation [20]. The study of [21] states from the city center, the total capacity of the bus fleet, and the
that in less than 10 years the world fleet of electric buses will be strategical location outside residential areas. The study in Ref. [29]
bigger than the diesel-powered one on a global scale. In this sce- studies a multi-instrumental policy package for the Belgian gov-
nario, the e-BRT systems are becoming very popular globally. Thus, ernment to be used in public transit planning. The paper proposes a
the present work aims to assess whether this technology is framework to reduce environmental externalities by encouraging
competitive when compared to the most traditional rapid transit people to make a more sustainable vehicle choice. To reach this
systems. objective, the study presents a MCDA policy scenario, dividing the
The choice of sustainable transportation solutions is closely available different policy instruments (i.e., regulatory, economic,
associated with economic, environmental and quality of service transport supply instruments) to be assessed by the criteria, which
aspects, for which MCDA approaches are relevant due to the need are classified into economic, environmental, technical, and social
to consider these multiple, conflicting and incommensurate aspects aspects. The methodology is based on an integrated AHP-
of evaluation of the merits of potential solutions. Therefore, rele- PROMETHEE approach, to enable the evaluation of the identified
vant studies using MCDA approaches to address sustainable policy instruments for which their strong and weak points are
transportation solutions for public transportation can be found in identified and ranked.
the literature. The work in Ref. [22] presents a study related to the The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. This
technological development of buses with new alternative fuels (i.e., introduction section presents the context and motivation of the
electricity, fuel cell, and methanol). The methodology is based on an study and offers a brief overview of the literature regarding similar
MCDA approach to determine the best alternatives. A survey to studies. The methodological framework is presented in Section 2.
experts from different decision-making groups was performed to The description of the main characteristics of the MCDA study is
establish the evaluation criteria. The Analytical Hierarchy Process presented in Section 3. The main findings of the analysis are pre-
(AHP) method was used to determine the relative weights of the sented and discussed in Section 4. The paper concludes in Section 5,
evaluation criteria. The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by with an overall analysis of the results and directions for future
Similarity to Ideal Solution) and VIKOR (Multicriteria Optimization research.
and Compromise Solution) methods were applied to determine the
best compromise alternative fuel mode. The work in Ref. [23]
2. Methodological framework
proposes a MCDA decision-making process using AHP and TOPSIS
in the context of the electrification of a bus fleet in the center of
In real-world situations, the decision-aid process generally in-
Ankara. Six potential electric bus alternatives were evaluated under
volves selecting the most suitable option (or a reduced set for
seven criteria. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed to
further screening), ranking options from the most to the least
determine the stability of the results under different scenarios.
Public transportation studies have also resorted to MCDA ap-
proaches for decision support in different settings. The work in 1
Dead kilometers or dead mileage is a term used in public transit to refer to a
Ref. [24] evaluates different public bus technologies as urban situation when a vehicle operates without carrying or accepting passengers, usually
transportation alternatives. The set of evaluation criteria was on the first trips of the day, incurring extra costs for the operator.

3
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

desirable (possibly admitting ties), or sorting the options into or- much alternative ai performs better than alternative aj on cri-
dered categories of merit, considering multiple evaluation criteria. terion gk.
MCDA deals with complex problems, which are characterized by


multiple, conflicting, and incommensurate criteria/objectives of dk ai ; aj ¼ gk ðai Þ  gk aj (1)
different nature as economic, environmental, quality of service, etc.
Thus, the decision aid process requires structuring and analyzing
the potential actions (alternatives) and criteria [30]. There are  Step 2: A preference function Pk is used to transform dk(ai, aj)
several methods to deal with MCDA problems underlying distinct into a preference degree Fk. There are different shapes of pref-
methodological principles, such as the AHP, VIKOR, TOPSIS, erence functions, allowing the DM to define an indifference
PROMETHEE, ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalite ), threshold qk and a preference threshold pk for each criterion gk
and others [31]. (see Table 1).
The choice of the method to implement the multi-criteria
 

Fk ai ; aj ¼ Pk dk ai ; aj k ¼ 1; …; m (2)
analysis proposed in this paper emerged from a comprehensive
evaluation of the desirable properties in the context of rapid
transit systems. The first characteristic that should be highlighted
 Step 3: The global preference index p(ai, aj) is defined to quantify
is the need to evaluate the selected criteria in quantitative (e.g.
the global preference of ai over aj. This index is defined as the
speed) and qualitative (e.g. comfort) metrics. Secondly, the set of
aggregation of all preference degrees Fk by considering the
alternatives under analysis is more adequately dealt with by
weights wk associated with each criterion gk, which are defined
means of a non-necessarily complete or transitive binary relation,
by the DM.
which can be captured by outranking relations [32]. Thus, the
evaluation method must take such characteristics into account in
 X
m

the analysis. Finally, we propose a multi-scenario approach for the p ai ; aj ¼ Fk ai ; aj  wk c ai ; aj 2A; (3)
evaluation of the alternatives. For this purpose, the method must k¼1
allow for the variation of the weights, interpreted as the voting
power of each criterion, to study a set of specific scenarios in a
 Step 4: This step provides the outranking flow score. For this
consistent framework. To meet the aforementioned requirements,
purpose, a simultaneous quantification of how much ai is
the PROMETHEE method was selected as the evaluation tool.
preferred over all other alternatives x in the set A and how much
Initially developed by Prof. Jean-Pierre Brans and his co-workers,
these alternatives x are preferred over ai is carried out. As a
this family of methods has been enriched by the work of other
result, 4þ(ai) represents the positive outranking flow and 4 -(ai)
researchers [33e35]. The PROMETHEE method is a multi-criteria
represents the negative outranking flow for alternative ai.
decision support approach based on the exploitation of an out-
ranking relation, characterized by the limited degree to which a 1 X
disadvantage on a particular viewpoint (criterion) may be 4þ ðai Þ ¼ pðai ; xÞ
n  1 x2A
compensated by advantages on other viewpoints [36]. Moreover,
(4)
the capability of evaluating the performance of alternatives ac-
 1 X
cording to each criterion in absolute terms, the independence 4 ðai Þ ¼ pðx; ai Þ
n  1 x2A
towards scales (also allowing evaluation criteria measured in
qualitative scales), and the possibility of modeling different types
of preference parameter functions, can be highlighted as partic-  Step 5: The combination of the two partial outranking flow
ular features for selecting this method as the evaluation tool in our scores results in the complete outranking flow score 4(ai) for
study. alternative ai.

4ðai Þ ¼ 4þ ðai Þ  4 ðai Þ (5)

2.1. A brief description of the PROMETHEE method

The PROMETHEE family of outranking methods includes

PROMETHEE I for the partial ranking of alternatives and PROM- 3. Main perspectives of the MCDA study
ETHEE II for the complete ranking of alternatives. There are other
versions such as PROMETHEE III (ranking based on intervals), This section presents an MCDA-based analysis framework to
PROMETHEE IV (ranking of the alternatives with continuous viable assess rapid transit alternatives for public transportation. Fig. 2
solutions), PROMETHEE V (problems with segmentation con- describes the process flow applied in the analysis.
straints), PROMETHEE VI (human brain representation), and the The initial step is devoted to structuring the alternatives to be
visual interactive module GAIA [37]. However, version II is more analyzed and selecting the relevant evaluation criteria. The second
frequently used in the literature, and it will be applied as a decision step is focused on collecting reliable data to run the MCDA method.
support tool in this work. For the sake of comprehensiveness, the An exhaustive search in articles, public transportation company
outranking process of the PROMETHEE II method will be briefly websites, and reports was made to gather the most relevant and
detailed in the following. up-to-date information for the study [15e30]. The third step is
Let A ¼ {a1, …, an} be the set of alternatives and G ¼ {g1, …, gm} dedicated to developing the most suitable scenarios in which the
the set of evaluation criteria. For each criterion gk, k ¼ 1, …, m, the MCDA study is performed, which will be detailed in the results
performance of alternative ai, i ¼ 1, …, n, is evaluated against section. The last step consists in generating and evaluating the
alternative aj, j ¼ 1, …, n. complete ranking of alternatives to determine the best actions for
each one of the proposed scenarios. The Visual PROMETHEE Multi-
 Step 1: the preference of the alternative ai over aj is assessed by criteria Decision Aid Software (www.promethee-gaia.net) was used
measuring the difference of their performance on each criterion to obtain the results. This tool allows the user to structure, visualize
gk. This comparison results in dk(ai, aj), which indicates how and analyze decision-making problems.
4
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Table 1
Preference function shapes.

Generalized criterion Definition Parameters


0 dk  0 e
Pk ðdk Þ ¼
1 dk > 0


0 dk  qk qk
Pk ðdk Þ ¼
1 dk > qk

8
>
> 0 dk  0 pk
>
>
<d
k
Pk ðdk Þ ¼ 0  dk  pk
>
> pk
>
>
:
1 dk > pk

8
>
> 0 dk  qk pk , qk
>
>
<
1
Pk ðdk Þ ¼ qk  dk  pk
> 2
>
>
>
: 1 dk > pk

8
>
> 0 dk  qk pk , qk
>
>
<d  qk
k
Pk ðdk Þ ¼ qk  dk  pk
> pk
>  qk
>
>
:
1 dk > pk

8
>
> 0 dk  0 sk
<
Pk ðdk Þ ¼ dk 2
>
> 
: 2
1  e 2sk dk > qk

Source: [36].

Fig. 2. MCDA process flow scheme.

5
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Fig. 3. Tree of fundamental objectives.

3.1. Evaluation criteria concept is defined as the reasons why the DM cares about the de-
cision and, more importantly, how the available alternatives should
The evaluation criteria are divided into three categories: Eco- be evaluated [48]. Its operationalization consists of a procedure that
nomic, Environmental and Technical. A Social category was requires the involvement of the DM, in general assisted by an an-
considered in a preliminary phase of this work, but it was then alyst with technical expertise. It is necessary to discover the points-
discarded as it is more related to the location where the rapid of-view of the DM instead of looking only at the singular charac-
transit system will be implemented than to the system itself. teristics of each alternative. The present work addresses these
However, in situations where the location of implementation is factors through a review of the literature of MCDA studies in the
previously known, it becomes critical to introduce social criteria in transportation field [16e23,49e51]. The study framework is repli-
the analysis. The criterion categories encompass: cable by other actors to help the decision-making process in
different contexts. Fig. 3 presents the tree of fundamental objec-
 Economic: Providing cost-effective solutions for public trans- tives. The shaded boxes represent the ones that were chosen to be
portation is a significant concern to make the best possible the criteria for the evaluation model.
utilization of private and public investments. Table 2 summarizes this structuring phase, presenting the cri-
 Environmental: Choosing environmentally friendly trans- terion name, definition, measurement scale (quantitative or quali-
portation solutions to be implemented in cities is crucial for tative), and preference direction (maximization or minimization).
improving population welfare while mitigating externalities. The selected criteria aim to encompass the most relevant di-
 Technical: Technical factors are indispensable for the analysis, as mensions to assess the operation phase of rapid transit systems.
they provide valuable information related to the operation of a Criteria as emissions related to the construction phase or pollution
rapid transit system, namely regarding quality of service. related to battery disposal were not considered. This MCDA eval-
uation model is flexible to accommodate the consideration of these
After identifying the criterion categories, the work focused on aspects in a future study.
the structuring of the hierarchy of fundamental objectives. This As mentioned previously, the PROMETHEE method allows to

6
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Table 2
Description of the criteria.

Ref. Criteria Definition

g1 Implementation Costs (minimize) Average cost to build a rapid transit system per kilometer ($/km)
g2 Operation Costs (minimize) Average cost to operate a rapid system ($/km).
g3 Fleet Renewal Rate (maximize) Time to renew the fleet of a rapid transit system (years).
g4 Sound Pollution (minimize) How much a rapid transit vehicle impacts the environment in terms of noise (qualitative e see Table 3).
g5 Air Quality (maximize) How much a rapid transit vehicle impacts the environment in terms of air pollution (qualitative e see Table 3).
g6 Total Emissions (minimize) Emitted well-to-wheel (WTW) CO2 per kilometer by each vehicle (gCO2/km).
g7 Comfort (maximize) How comfortable a rapid transit vehicle is (qualitative e see Table 3).
g8 Average Waiting Time (minimize) Average time needed to wait to take a ride (minutes).
g9 Punctuality (minimize) How punctual a rapid transit system is (qualitative e see Table 3).
g10 Passengers per Hour in Peak Direction Number of passengers per hour in peak hours that can be carried in one direction of the line.
(maximize)
g11 Average Speed (maximize) Average speed that a rapid transit vehicle can reach (km/h).
g12 Traffic Interference (minimize) How much a rapid transit system impacts the traffic after been implemented (qualitative e see Table 3).
g13 City Environment Interference (minimize) How much a rapid transit system impacts a city environment (i.e., traffic, streets, ground) while been implemented
(qualitative e see Table 3).
g14 Implementation time (minimize) Time needed to implement a rapid transit system in a city (years).

include the evaluation criteria measurement in qualitative terms.  Environmental based

Table 3 presents the qualitative scale definitions and their values.
Table 4 introduces the alternatives selected for the MCDA This scenario highlights the criteria related to environmental
analysis: an e-BRT, a typical diesel BRT, a Metro, and an LRT system. factors. For this purpose, the weight of the Environmental category
Those systems are the most common and prominent public was set to 60% and the weights of g4, g5 and g6 are equal (20% each).
transportation alternatives in cities. Each alternative was consid- The preference function of g6 was set as “Linear” (see Table 1). The
ered to be comparable in capacity and length with the other al- preference threshold was set to 25% and the indifference threshold
ternatives. Other possible choices could be also considered; to 2%.
however, as the present work is addressing rapid transportation
options to be used in city traffic, they were not further contem-  Economic and Environmental based
plated (i.e. train, trolleybus, bus).
Fig. 4 introduces the Visual PROMETHE user interface with the This scenario highlights the criteria related to economic and
information about alternatives and criteria. environmental factors together. The weight of the Economic and
Environmental category was set to 60% and the weights of g1, g2, g3,
g4, g5 and g6 are equal (10% each). The preference functions of g1, g2,
g3, g6 were set as “Linear” (see Table 1). The preference threshold
3.2. Scenario definition was set to 25% and the indifference threshold to 2%.
Table 5 summarizes the information for the four scenarios
The MCDA study considers four different scenarios to offer a regarding the preference function, thresholds, and weights.
broader scope for the analysis. These scenarios are Baseline, Eco-
nomic based, Environmental based, and Economic & Environ- 4. Results and discussion
mental based. The selected scenarios address distinct perspectives
for the analysis concerning sustainable solutions for urban The data used for the analysis has been collected to be as much
mobility. up-to-date and consistent as possible (Table 6), although some
diversity has been found between different sources. To cope with
 Baseline the data diversity, average values were chosen in order to promote
a more careful analysis. Moreover, given the range of criteria
The baseline scenario was set to be a reference for the other selected for this study, in some cases the data can be distinct for
scenarios. Therefore, the weights are equal across criteria and the different real-world scenarios. This fact, however, does not make
preference functions for all criteria are set up as “Usual” (see the results obtained in this MCDA study less valuable since its
Table 1). outcomes aim to illustrate the insights that the model and the
methodology could offer to a DM. In a real-world situation, a DM
 Economic based could use the same analysis framework presented in this study and
exploit the results obtained with different sets of data and prefer-
This scenario highlights the criteria related to economic factors. ence information parameters to reach sound recommendations.
For this purpose, the weight of the Economic category was set to
60%, and the weights of g1, g2 and g3 are equal (20% each)3. More- 4.1. PROMETHEE complete ranking results
over, the preference function of g1, g2 and g3 were set as “Linear”
(see Table 1). The preference threshold was set to 25% and the The PROMETHEE complete ranking is presented in a flow table
indifference threshold to 2%. representation, showing the positive, negative, and complete out-
ranking flow scores.
3
The weights, preference thresholds, and indifference thresholds values were a) Baseline Results
chosen to be plausible for the characterization of the different scenarios. The values
presented are typical for the characteristics of our problem, based on other
PROMETHEE studies [26e28]. However, it is important to note that these values can The results indicate that the Metro option performs better than
be changed by the DM in order to shape his/her preferences in different scenarios. the other rapid transit systems, in the baseline scenario. LRT and e-
7
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Table 3 Moreover, the main weakness of a diesel BRT is the environmental

Qualitative scales and their reference values. impact associated with the internal combustion engine.
Definition Scale Value

Very Bad 1
b) Economic-based Results
Bad 2
Average 3 In an economic-based scenario, the result states that diesel BRT
Good 4 performs much better than the other rapid transit systems, fol-
Very Good 5
lowed by e-BRT. The Metro system presents results slightly worse
than the e-BRT. The LRT presents the worst results among all the
alternatives. The flow results are shown in Table 8.
BRT reached close scores, and BRT presented the worst result. The These results indicate that the BRT systems (electric and diesel)
flow results are shown in Table 7. are the best options in the economic scenario. This outcome is
The results highlight that if a DM does not have any limitation in driven by the low-cost implementation and maintenance as both
terms of capital, ground interference, or implementation time, the alternatives have these main characteristics. The Metro’s perfor-
Metro alternative performs much better than the other options. mance is close to the electric BRT. Although it has higher

Table 4
Description of the alternatives.

Ref. Alternative Description

a1 e-BRT A Bus Rapid Transit system operated with an electric bus vehicle.
a2 BRT A Bus Rapid Transit system operated with a diesel bus vehicle.
a3 Metro A Mass Rapid Transit system.
a4 LRT A Light Rail Transit system.

Fig. 4. Visual PROMETHEE user interface.21.

Table 5
Overview of the preference functions, thresholds and weights for the scenarios.

Baseline Economic Environmental Economic and Environmental

Preference function Usual Linear Linear Linear

Preference threshold e 25% 25% 25%
Indifference threshold e 2% 2% 2%
Weights e g1, g2, g3 (20% each) g4, g5, g6 (20% each) g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6 (10% each)

8
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Table 6
Data to perform the MCDA study.

e-BRT BRT Metro LRT

Implementation Costs (US$/km) (millions) 15 [41] 8.2 [41] 129 [42] 34.8 [38]
Operation Costs (US$/km) 3.73 [43] 2.94 [52e54] 6.78 [52e54] 9.7 [52e54]
Fleet renewal rate (years)a 10 30 40 40
Sound Pollution Very Low High Low Low
Air quality Good Bad Good Good
WTW emissions (gCO2/km) 720 [19,55] 1222 [19,55] 703 [56] 690 [39]
Comfort Good Average Good Good
Waiting Time (minutes) Up to 3 [45] Up to 3 [45] Up to 2 [42] Up to 5 [38]
Punctuality Average Average Good Good
pphpdb 16,000 [40] 16,000 [40] 50,000 [42] 19,000 [44]
Average Speed (km/h) 26 [47] 24 [47] 33 [42] 28 [38]
Traffic Interference Average Average Very Low Average
City Environment Interference Low Low Very High Average
Implementation Time (years) 2 [46] 1 [46] 8 [54] 5 [54]
a
The fleet renewal rate for the e-BRT alternative is related to the battery lifespan time (around 8e10 years).
b
Passengers per hour in peak direction.

Table 7 Table 9
Flow Table Results for the Baseline scenario. Flow Table results for the Environmental based scenario.

Ranking Action 4 4þ 4- Ranking Action 4 4þ 4-

1 Metro 0.2143 0.5238 0.3095 1 LRT 0.2303 0.4788 0.2485

2 LRT 0.0238 0.4048 0.3810 2 Metro 0.2182 0.4848 0.2667
3 e-BRT 0.0000 0.3810 0.3810 3 e-BRT 0.1836 0.4667 0.3030
4 BRT - 0.2381 0.3095 0.5476 4 BRT - 0.612 0.1576 0.7697

Table 8 Table 10
Flow Table results for the Economic based scenario. Flow Table results for the Economic and Environmental based scenario.

Ranking Action 4 4þ 4- Ranking Action 4 4þ 4-

1 BRT 0.1480 0.5344 0.3864 1 Metro 0.1505 0.4505 0.3000

2 e-BRT 0.0217 0.4439 0.4223 2 e-BRT 0.1019 0.4167 0.3148
3 Metro - 0.016 0.4258 0.4424 3 LRT -0.013 0.3531 0.3667
4 LRT - 0.153 0.3576 0.5106 4 BRT -0.238 0.3278 0.5667

implementation and maintenance costs, the Metro system com- fossil fuel-powered engine.
pensates it with better environmental performance and a high fleet
renewal rate. The LRT is the worst option in the economic scenario. d) Economic-Environmental based Results
In this analysis, the operation cost of an LRT system is almost two
times higher than the BRT and almost four times higher than a In this combined economic-environmental analysis, the Metro
diesel BRT. Also, the LRT’s maintenance costs are the highest of all appears as the best alternative, followed closely by the e-BRT. The
alternatives. flow results are shown in Table 10.
In a scenario where the economic and environmental factors are
c) Environmental-based Results considered, the results show that all three electric-powered sys-
tems present good performance. This result is driven by the
The LRT presents better performance when the environmental different characteristics of each alternative. The e-BRT presents
criteria are highlighted. The Metro and e-BRT systems also show better economic evaluation, the LRT presents better environmental
good results, following closely. The diesel BRT is the worst alter- evaluation, and the Metro presents the best technical evaluation.
native in the environmental scenario. The flow results are shown in This result is also significant to indicate that the e-BRT is a feasible
Table 9. solution for urban transportation when compared to other more
The LRT alternative presents a good performance on environ- well-established alternatives.
mental criteria, mainly due to its lower emissions in the operation
phase. The Metro system also has good environmental perfor- 4.2. Result summary
mance; however, its high associated costs push its performance
slightly lower. The results indicate that the electrical traction of the In this subsection, the main outcomes of the MCDA study are
e-BRT plays an important role in terms of environmental perfor- discussed. Fig. 5 presents a graph representation of the results,
mance, as it provides zero local emissions and very low global contrasting each one of the four scenarios. The actions are dis-
emissions, depending on the electricity mix. For comparison, the played by nodes and arrows are used to indicate the outranking
diesel counterpart presents the worst results, mostly because of its relations.
The results of the analysis indicate that the Metro appears as the
front-runner alternative, ranking in the first position in two of four
2
The comma (”,“) is by default the character used in the VISUAL PROMETHEE scenarios (Baseline and Eco-Environmental). This alternative just
software to indicate the decimals. has a slight bad performance in the economic scenario, due to its
9
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

Fig. 5. Graph results for the four different scenarios.

high implementation costs. Concerning the other alternatives, the process, namely to assist urban planning decisions to improve the
e-BRT appears as the most cost-effective option, being in the second quality of public collective transport. Table 11 summarizes the
place in two scenarios (Economic and Eco-Environmental scenario) ranking results for each one of the scenarios considered.
and almost performing equivalently to the LRT alternative (in the
Baseline and Environmental scenarios). This result indicates that 5. Conclusions
rapid transit systems powered by electric bus fleets can be already
considered a feasible alternative to be implemented in urban cen- This paper presented an MCDA study to evaluate different rapid
ters as a sustainable and fast transport solutions. Furthermore, this transit systems. The objective of the study was to determine the
system can become a prevalent means of transport in the future, as most suitable transportation alternative in urban areas by evalu-
the price of such vehicles tends to drop even more in the next years. ating the alternatives in terms of economic, environmental, and
It is important to emphasize, however, that these findings were technical criteria, according to different perspectives of analysis
obtained using the input data including the preference information modeled through scenarios.
parameters required by the PROMETHEE method. Thus, different The PROMETHEE method was used as the decision aid tool. The
DMs may obtain different results. The aim is offering a consistent fourteen evaluation criteria were divided into three categories, and
evaluation framework that can be instrumental in the decision aid four alternatives were chosen to be assessed (e-BRT, BRT, Metro,

Table 11
Scenario ranking comparison.

Scenario

Alternative Economic Environmental Economic and environmental Baseline

Metro 3 2 1 1
LRT 4 1 3 2
e-BRT 2 3 2 3
BRT 1 4 4 4

10
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

and LRT). To improve the evaluation process, four different sce- doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.067.
[6] Keyvan Ekbatani M, Cats O. Multi-criteria appraisal of multi-modal urban
narios were established: baseline, economic-based, environ-
public transport systems. Transp res procedia, 10, 2015; 18th euro work gr
mental-based, and economic-environmental. An extensive transp EWGT 2015, 14-16 july 2015, vol. 31; 2015. p. 14e6. Delft, Netherlands.
literature review was carried out to develop the scenarios, define [7] Mishra S, Welch TF, Jha MK. Performance indicators for public transit con-
the entities under evaluation, and collect up-to-date and accurate nectivity in multi-modal transportation networks. Transp Res Part A Policy
Pract 2012;46:1066e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.04.006.
data. [8] Geng Y, Ma Z, Xue B, Ren W, Liu Z, Fujita T. Co-benefit evaluation for urban
In a baseline scenario, the Metro alternative appears as the best public transportation sector - a case of Shenyang, China. J Clean Prod 2013;58:
option. Considering economic factors, the BRT systems (electric and 82e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.034.
[9] Tseng CH, Chen LL, Shih YH. Quantifying the environment and health co-
diesel) appear to be better alternatives. This result is driven by low benefits of low-emission vehicles in Taiwan. J Integr Environ Sci 2015;12:
implementation and maintenance costs presented by such vehicles. 39e48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2014.980747.
The diesel BRT performs even better than the electric counterpart, [10] Takeshita T. Assessing the co-benefits of CO2 mitigation on air pollutants
emissions from road vehicles. Appl Energy 2012;97:225e37. https://doi.org/
as its maintenance cost is slightly lower and mainly because its 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.029.
implementation costs are lower. Concerning the environmental [11] Camargo Pe rez J, Carrillo MH, Montoya-Torres JR. Multi-criteria approaches
evaluation, the three electric transit systems perform very closely, for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review. Ann Oper Res
2014;226:69e87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1681-8.
with the LRT presenting a slightly better result. The last scenario [12] Barbosa SB, Ferreira MGG, Nickel EM, Cruz JA, Forcellini FA, Garcia J, et al.
(economic and environmental based) finds the Metro as the best Multi-criteria analysis model to evaluate transport systems: an application in
option. Furthermore, the analysis points out that electrical buses- Florianopolis, Brazil. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 2017;96:1e13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.11.019.
based systems can be a feasible alternative to be used in urban
[13] Barfod MB, Leleur S. Multi-criteria decision analysis for use in transport de-
areas in a foreseeable future, replacing the diesel alternatives and cision making. DTU Transp Compend 2014;75. https://doi.org/10.1007/
other rapid transit systems, as a more cost-effective solution. s40477-013-0040-y.
For future research, a case study will be introduced to make a [14] Neves LP, Martins AG, Antunes CH, Dias LC. A multi-criteria decision approach
to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency. Energy Pol 2008;36:
critical assessment of the MCDA model and methodological 2351e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.032.
approach in practice, with actual decision-makers. Furthermore, [15] Su S, Tang T, Wang Y. Evaluation of strategies to reducing traction energy
the evaluation will be enhanced by adding criteria related to consumption of metro systems using an Optimal Train Control Simulation
model. Energies 2016;9:1e19. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9020105.
emissions in the construction phase or pollution related to battery [16] Baker DM, Lee B. How does Light rail transit (LRT) impact gentrification?
disposal. Finally, a comparison of different MCDA methods applied Evidence from fourteen US urbanized areas. J Plann Educ Res 2019;39(1):
to the framework presented in this work for an actual case study is 35e49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17713619.
[17] Levinson H, Zimmerman S, Clinger J, Rutherford G. Bus rapid transit: an
expected to be carried out. overview. J Public Transp 2002;5:1e30. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-
0901.5.2.1.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [18] Ballesteros PC. Transmilenio en Cifras - estadísticas de oferta y demanda del
Sistema Integrado de Transporte Público. 2018.
[19] Mahmoud M, Garnett R, Ferguson M, Kanaroglou P. Electric buses: a review of
^ natas Augusto Manzolli: Investigation, Methodology, Soft-
Jo alternative powertrains. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:673e84. https://
ware, Writing - original draft. Joa ~o Pedro Trova
~o: Resources, doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019.
[20] Pagliaro M, Meneguzzo F. Electric bus: a critical overview on the dawn of its
Conceptualization, Validation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, widespread uptake. Adv Sustain Syst 2019:1800151. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Writing - review & editing. Carlos Henggeler Antunes: Resources, adsu.201800151.
Conceptualization, Validation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, [21] Guida U, Abdulah A. ZeEUS eBus Report #2 - an updated overview of electric
buses in Europe. 2017.
Writing - review & editing.
[22] Tzeng GH, Lin CW, Opricovic S. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses
for public transportation. Energy Pol 2005;33:1373e83. https://doi.org/
Declaration of competing interest 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014.
[23] Hamurcu M, Eren T. Electric bus selection with multicriteria decision analysis
for green transportation. Sustain Times 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests. su12072777.
[24] Büyüko € zkan G, Feyziog lu O, Go€çer F. Selection of sustainable urban trans-
Acknowledgments portation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral
approach. Transport Res Transport Environ 2018;58:186e207. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005.
This work was partially supported by projects UIBD/00308/ [25] Sharifi MA, Boerboom L, Shamsudin KB, Veeramuthu L. Spatial multiple
2020, and by the European Regional Development Fund through criteria decision analysis in integrated planning for public transport and land
use development study in Klang Valley , Malaysia. ISPRS Tech Comm II Symp
the COMPETE 2020 Programme, FCT e Portuguese Foundation for 2006:85e94.
Science and Technology and Regional Operational Program of the [26] Kügemann M, Polatidis H. Multi-criteria decision analysis of road trans-
Center Region (CENTRO2020) within projects SUSPENSE (CENTRO- portation fuels and vehicles: a systematic review and classification of the
literature. Energies 2019;13:157. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010157.
01-0145-FEDER-000006) and MAnAGER (POCI-01-0145-FEDER- [27] Anagnostopoulos K, Giannopoulou M, Roukounis Y. Multicriteria evaluation of
028040), and by grant no. 950e230672 from Canada Research transportation infrastructure projects: an application of PROMETHEE and
Chairs Program. GAIA methods. Adv Transp 2003;14:599e608. https://doi.org/10.2495/
UT030591. WIT Press.
€
[28] Alp ON, Demirtaş N, Baraçli H, Tuzkaya UR. Fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE meth-
References odology to select bus garage location: a case study for a firm in the urban
passenger transport sector in istanbul. Trends Dev Mach Assoc Technol 2011:
[1] Liu M, Balali V, Wei H-H, Pen~ a-mora FA. Scenario-based multi-criteria prior- 5e9.
itization framework for urban transportation projects. Am J Civ Eng Architect [29] Turcksin L, Bernardini A, Macharis C. A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach
2015;3:193e9. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-3-6-1. for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle
[2] IEA. World. Energy outlook 2019. 2019. Paris. fleet. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2011;20:954e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[3] Kunith A, Mendelevitch R, Goehlich D. Electrification of a city bus net- j.sbspro.2011.08.104.
workdan optimization model for cost-effective placing of charging infra- [30] Roy B. Paradigms and challenges. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 2016;233:
structure and battery sizing of fast-charging electric bus systems. Int J Sustain 19e39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_2.
Transp 2017;11:707e20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1310962. [31] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making
[4] Miller P, de Barros AG, Kattan L, Wirasinghe SC. Public transportation and to sustainable energy planning - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2004;8:
sustainability: a review. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;20:1076e83. https://doi.org/ 365e81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007.
10.1007/s12205-016-0705-0. [32] Bouyssou D, Vincke P. Ranking alternatives on the basis of preference re-
[5] Yatskiv I, Budilovich E. A comprehensive analysis of the planned multimodal lations: a progress report with special emphasis on outranking relations.
public transportation HUB. Transp Res Procedia 2017;24:26e7. https:// J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 1997;6:77e85. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-

11
 ~o and C. Henggeler Antunes
J.A. Manzolli, J.P. Trova eTransportation 7 (2021) 100101

1360(199703)6:2<77::AID-MCDA144>3.0.CO;2-I. systems of various cities in India. Int J Sci Technol Eng 2016;2:185e91.
[33] Doan NAV, De Smet Y. An alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROM- [46] Bocarejo JP, Portilla I, Perez MA. Impact of Transmilenio on density, land use,
ETHEE II rankings. Omega (United Kingdom) 2018;80:166e74. https:// and land value in Bogota . Res Transport Econ 2013;40:78e86. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.08.017. 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.030.
[34] Campos ACSM, Mareschal B, De Almeida AT. Fuzzy FlowSort: an integration of [47] Maeso-Gonz alez E, Pe rez-Ceron P. State of art of bus rapid transit trans-
the FlowSort method and Fuzzy Set Theory for decision making on the basis of portation. Eur Transp Res Rev 2014;6:149e56. https://doi.org/10.1007/
inaccurate quantitative data. Inf Sci 2015;293:115e24. https://doi.org/ s12544-013-0113-1.
10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.024. [48] Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectivesepreferences and
[35] Calders T, Van Assche D. PROMETHEE is not quadratic: an O(qnlog(n)) algo- value tradeoffs, vol. 39. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press;
rithm. Omega (United Kingdom) 2018;76:63e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830390206.
j.omega.2017.04.003. [49] Jones S, Tefe M, Appiah-Opoku S. Proposed framework for sustainability
[36] De Smet Y. Beyond multicriteria ranking problems: the case of PROMETHEE. screening of urban transport projects in developing countries: a case study of
In: Doumpos M, Rui Figueira J, Greco S, Zopounidis C, editors. New perspect. Accra, Ghana. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 2013;49:21e34. https://doi.org/
Mult. Criteria decis. Mak. Springer; 2019. p. 95e115. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.003.
978-3-030-11482-4. [50] Hamurcu M, Eren T. Electric bus selection with multicriteria decision analysis
[37] Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M. PROMETHEE:A for green transportation. Sustain Times 2020;12:2777. https://doi.org/
comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J 10.3390/su12072777.
Oper Res 2009;200:198e215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021. [51] Zegras C, Sussman J, Conklin C. Scenario planning for strategic regional
[38] Abbas S, Ciszewski R, Ehrlich D, Trochelman G. Bus rapid transit shows transportation planning. J Urban Plann Dev 2004;130:2e13. https://doi.org/
promise, vol. 11; 2001. Texas. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2004)130:1(2).
[39] De Lijn. CO2-emissions of vehicles Report. https://www.delijn.be/en/ [52] Deng T, Nelson JD. Recent developments in bus rapid transit: a review of the
overdelijn/organisatie/zorgzaam-ondernemen/milieu/co2-uitstoot-voertui- literature. Transp Rev 2011;31:69e96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.
gen.html. [Accessed 29 November 2019]. 2010.492455.
[40] GLOBAL BRT DATA. Peak Load (passengers per hour per direction) n.d. https:// [53] Zhang M. Bus versus rail: meta-analysis of cost characteristics, carrying ca-
brtdata.org/indicators/systems/peak_load_passengers_per_hour_per_ pacities, and land use impacts. Transport Res Rec 2009:87e95. https://doi.org/
direction. [Accessed 29 November 2019]. 10.3141/2110-11.
[41] Deng T, Ma M, Wang J. Evaluation of bus rapid transit implementation in [54] Cervero R. Bus rapid transit (BRT): an efficient and competitive mode of public
China: current performance and progress. J Urban Plann Dev 2013;139: transport. IURD Work Pap 2013-01 2013:1e36.
226e34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000150. [55] Dreier D, Silveira S, Khatiwada D, Fonseca KVO, Nieweglowski R, Schepanski R.
[42] Wavestone. World’s best driverless metro lines 2017. 2017. Well-to-Wheel analysis of fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for
[43] Nurhadi L, Bore n S, Ny H. A sensitivity analysis of total cost of ownership for conventional, hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid-electric city buses in the BRT
electric public bus transport systems in Swedish medium sized cities. Transp system in Curitiba, Brazil. Transport Res Transport Environ 2018;58:122e38.
Res Procedia 2014;3:818e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.10.015.
Elsevier. [56] Li Y, He Q, Luo X, Zhang Y, Dong L. Calculation of life-cycle greenhouse gas
[44] Bruun E. Bus rapid transit and Light rail - comparing operating costs with a emissions of urban rail transit systems: a case study of Shanghai Metro.
parametric cost model. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2005;1927:11e21. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;128:451e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105192700102. 2016.03.007.
[45] Galande RR, Pawade PY. Comparison of prior implementation studies of BRT

12