arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Fixed-route or demand-responsive transit? An evaluation framework for transit service structures using dual-perspective indicators

Sadia Tasnim & Moataz Mohamed

Journal of Public Transportation2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2026.100161article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

This study proposes an evaluation framework to assess fixed-route transit (FRT) and demand-responsive transit (DRT), examining performance through real-world operational data. The framework is based on a concise set of key performance indicators (KPIs) synthesized from the literature that represent the perspectives of transit users and providers. The developed framework is applied to a real-world case study, where the same area was served by FRT and DRT. The service evaluation returned a mixed message on the performance of FRT and DRT services. The results show that operational cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per passenger kilometre travelled (PKT) in FRT are 80% lower than DRT indicating that FRT could move more passengers per kilometre at both lower cost and emissions compared to DRT within the case study. Overall, the proposed framework offers a practical solution for planners to evaluate transit options for communities in diverse spatiotemporal environments.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2026.100161

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sadia2026,
  title        = {{Fixed-route or demand-responsive transit? An evaluation framework for transit service structures using dual-perspective indicators}},
  author       = {Sadia Tasnim & Moataz Mohamed},
  journal      = {Journal of Public Transportation},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2026.100161},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Fixed-route or demand-responsive transit? An evaluation framework for transit service structures using dual-perspective indicators

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.