2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications
Sustainability Model of E-Jeepney Operations in Paranaque, Metro Manila
Ma. Janice J. Gumasing, Kyra Patricia V. Tadina, Nelrose D. Vidamo
School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
Mapua University
Intramuros, Manila, Philippines
2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) | 978-1-6654-2895-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICIEA52957.2021.9436813
e-mail: mjjgumasing@mapua.edu.ph; kpvtadina@mapua.edu.ph; ndvidamo@mapua.edu.ph
Abstract—Sustainable development is a model of development
that improves the quality of life while maintaining the natural
environment and honoring local culture. Development of
accessible, safe, environment friendly, and affordable will
improve service quality and profitability and can contribute to
sustainable public transportation. In 2013, a survey among
jeepney riders described the form of transportation as noisy,
dirty, and dangerous. Passengers tend to suffer from loud noises
from the surroundings, dirt from pollution, and danger from
unsafe old jeepney units. In the efforts of conserving the
environment, the Departments of Transportation and Energy
launched the E-vehicle strategy to initiate more efficient use of
energy and reduction of GHG emissions in the country. The
study aims to: (1) evaluate the sustainability of e-Jeepney
operations in Parañaque, Metro Manila; (2) identify significant
factors that contribute to the sustainability of E-Jeepney
operation based on LOS and QOS scores; (3) develop a
sustainability model for E-Jeepney operation based on the
identified significant factors in the study. The factors and
indicators were gathered from E-Jeepney operators and
different reviews of related literature associated with
sustainable public transportation. LOS scores were used to
evaluate the satisfaction level of passengers. QOS scores were
used to measure the performance score of operation. The result
of the study revealed that the factors and indicators that
contribute to the sustainability of E-Jeepney operation are: (1)
Service Quality: E-Jeepney intensity, frequency of service, and
average waiting time of passengers; (2) Profitability: occupancy
of E-Jeepney.
Keywords-e-jeepney; sustainability; Level of Service (LOS);
Quality of Service (QOS)
I. INTRODUCTION
Transportation plays a major role in the economic growth
and development of a country [1]. It is an important element
and serves as the lifeblood and economic, social, political, and
population mobility that grows together and follows
developments that occur in various fields and sectors [2].
Transport is a key sector in the Philippine economy, linking
population and economic centers across the islands. The
transport system of the Philippines consists of road, water, air,
and rail transport [3]. Having a reliable and safe operation of
an urban public transportation system is a great index to a
city’s development sustainability
Today, the current public transportation system of the
Philippines relies primarily on jeepneys. Designed and
repurposed from army Jeeps that were left after World War II,
these paratransit vehicles serve as the main mode of
978-1-6654-2895-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Prince Edward Island. Downloaded on July 03,2021 at 14:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
transportation for most commuters as it is the most accessible
and cheapest public transport medium in the country. They are
backyard-fabricated vehicles with chassis often as old as 50 to
70 years old and engines more than 15 years old, capable of
accommodating 12-32 passengers [4]. However, due to the
old and outdated models of most jeepneys, they are identified
as one of the biggest greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
contributors in the transport sector. According to the study
Formalizing the jeepney industry in the Philippines, there are
around 179,000 jeepneys in which 90% are fifteen years or
older and produce significant environmental pollution.
In 2013, a survey among jeepney riders described the form
of transportation as noisy, dirty, and dangerous. Passengers
tend to suffer from loud noises from the surroundings, dirt
from pollution, and danger from unsafe old jeepney units.
These environmental, safety and efficiency issues around the
sector drove the need for alternative vehicle technologies that
promise a sustainable future by reducing carbon emissions
and pollution [5]. Various public transportation choices based
on the development of information technology developed
rapidly in this decade [2] and sooner led the establishment of
the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP)
in June 2017, a transformative program that seeks to modify
the entire sector and modernize the vehicle fleet [6]. The goal
of the program is to both modernize public vehicles and
provide a comprehensive transportation system to the public.
Under the Department Order No. 2017-011 of the
Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy
launched the E-vehicle strategy to initiate more efficient use
of energy and reduction of GHG emissions in the country [4].
Providing E-Jeepneys in place of the old ones promotes
environmental, economic, and social benefits. Reducing GHG
emissions and having low-carbon pathways will greatly
minimize air pollution in the country. Noise pollution will also
be reduced as e-jeepneys will not have loud engines in them.
Electric powered jeepneys will also promote more efficient
use of energy. Economically, this will help improve the urban
quality of life by providing affordable and safe transportation
to daily commuters. Health costs and premature deaths will
also be lessened as pollution decreases. Having a safer and
more efficient service quality will improve the economic
situation of the jeepney industry - both for operators and
passengers. Socially, jeepney modernization will improve
service quality and safety for riders. According to one study,
electric vehicles benefit society in many ways like fuel
savings, maintenance savings, and national security.
247
 Sustainable Transportation used to be evaluated primarily
in terms of mobility (physical movement), but increasingly it
is evaluated in terms of accessibility (people’s ability to obtain
desired goods and services) [7]. A sustainable transport
system is one that is accessible, safe, environmentally-
friendly, and affordable [8]. Furthermore, Environmentally
Sustainable Transportation (EST) is transportation that does
not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets needs for
access consistent with (a) use of renewable resources at below
their rates of regeneration, and (b) use of non-renewable
resources at below the rates of development of renewable
substitutes [9]. The goal of sustainable transportation is to
ensure that environmental, social, and economic
considerations are factored into decisions affecting
transportation activity [10].
From the study, Sustainable Transportation Performance
Indicators (STPI) by [11], the authors followed a framework
in developing indicators in measuring sustainable
transportation. These indicators were to show the movement
of transportation, whether it is towards or away from
sustainability. The framework for STPI development consists
of sustainable transportation definitions and seven policy
questions. The results of the study show mixed or
indeterminate responses towards the indicators. Also, the
movement shows away rather than towards sustainability.
Furthermore, there is no existing study yet specifically
used to assess the sustainability of E-jeepney operations in the
Philippines hence, operators have no way of determining yet
whether their operations are sustainable or not. The only factor
operators consider currently is the profitability of e-jeepney
operations based on operating cost and profit. However, there
was a study in 2019 about the sustainability of e-trike
operations in Manila, Philippines [12], the authors adapted the
methods in developing the sustainability model for E-jeepney
operation in the city of Paranaque. In the study, the Level of
Service (LOS) Score and Quality of Service (QOS) Score
were used to describe the sustainability of e-trike operation in
the country and Multi-criteria evaluation for the assessment of
the transport system performance. The Level of Service (LOS)
is defined by one or more service measures that reflect the
traveler’s perspective on transportation system operation and
several alternatives [13][14]. On the other hand, the Quality
of Service (QOS) is a measurement of the actual performance
of a service; it measures quantitatively the success of an
operation in satisfying its criteria for evaluation [15].
II. METHODOLOGY
Initially, for the researchers to understand the current
operation of the BNTSC E-jeepneys in Paranaque City, the
operation process was observed and analyzed in terms of its
current system, infrastructure, and role of each staff in
delivering their service. The authors have gathered data
through conducting interviews, distribution of survey
questionnaires, on-site observation, and actual-time study to
describe the current actual performance of E-jeepney
operation. The respondents of this study were 36 drivers, 100
passengers, and 4 operators of BNTSC E-jeepney in
Paranaque City. Through the interview, the authors were able
to determine the interaction of the three respondents. The
248
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Prince Edward Island. Downloaded on July 03,2021 at 14:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
survey consisted of questions about the experiences of
passengers and drivers while traveling with E-jeepney. The
result was used to measure the indicators for the LOS score.
On-site observation gains first-hand knowledge regarding the
overall parameters of the system [16]. Through on-site
observation, the authors were able to get valid and desired data
related to the study. Using a time study, the authors were able
to document time-related data of the study.
In presenting the data, the authors used a service blueprint.
With this, the authors were able to present and analyze
efficiently the current system of E-jeepney operation. The
blueprint was able to show the interactions between the
operator, drivers, staff, passengers, and other supporting
activities. A service blueprint was used to validate the QOS
scores to assess and identify the critical points or failing points
of the whole process.
The researchers have adapted the sustainability framework
shown in Fig. 1 to provide the study of a structure and
guideline to come up and have a clear idea of what and how
the output design will be constructed. It was a direct reference
to the basic concept of sustainable development. The
sustainable development framework helps identify and
organize the issues that will be measured. The authors
developed a sustainability framework that requires a
quantitative measurement of the indicators. The framework
was based on the studies by [17] and [18] where different
measurable indicators were categorized by 2 main factors –
service and profitability. It showed the interrelation of the
indicators of the 2 factors considered for the sustainability
model. The indices of the service and profitability factors
helped the assessment of the quality of service for e-jeepney
operations that were used to develop a sustainability model for
e-jeepney operations. It will provide principles that will
establish that specified objectives are met. Indices can be
identified based on the context and level of study [17].
Figure 1. Research Framework
The researchers used a method that can quantitatively
measure and assess the performance of a transport operation
based on related literature, observations, interviews, and user
ratings from stakeholders such as operators and drivers. A
customer satisfaction survey was done to analyze e-jeepney
performance based on 2 factors: service quality and
profitability.
Upon gathering the performance scores for each route, the
Performance Quality of Service (PQOS) Score was computed
 using its formula to determine which among the routes is with a score of 3.95, then by Route 2 with a score of 3.91, and
performing best based on the customer's perspective. Indicator lastly Route 4 with a score of 3.80. From the metric scale, the
Quality of Scores (IQOS) was also computed using its results indicate that all four routes were perceived to have a
formula. Weight importance was obtained from the Indicator very satisfactory performance by the respondents.
Rating Survey done to operators and drivers. While the data Continuing the evaluation, Indicator Quality of Service
gathered from the e-jeepney operators were converted into a Scores (IQOS) were also computed. The table above shows
QOS rating based on the rubric scale to standardize the scores the summary of IQOS scores. Weight importance was
that will be used. The overall scores were obtained using the obtained from the Indicator rating survey done by operators
OQOS formula that combines PQOS and IQOS scores of each and drivers. For the scores, the data gathered from the E-
route. Jeepney operators were converted into QOS ratings based on
To further understand the relationships of the indicators in the rubric scale to standardize the scores. IQOS scores were
the study, the researchers performed statistical analysis using obtained by using the IQOS formula.
Analysis of variance, Correlation analysis, and Regression
Analysis. Analysis of variance was used to determine the TABLE III. SUMMARY OF IQOS
relationship between the performance scores of the Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4
respondents and the 2 sustainability factors. Correlation Total IQOS 2.89 1.42 2.43 2.2
analysis was used to determine which indicators have a
significant relationship with the performance scores. Lastly, a From the results of total IQOS, route 1 showed the highest
regression model was developed for the overall customer IQOS score of 2.89, followed by route 3 with a score of 2.43,
satisfaction based on the significant indicators determined in then route 4 with a score of 2.20, and lastly route 2 with a score
the study that can be used for attaining a sustainable operation of 1.42. From the QOS metric scale, the results indicate that
of e-jeepneys. routes 1, 3, and 4 have satisfactory ratings while route 2 has
an unsatisfactory rating.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Continuing the evaluation, Overall Quality of Service
Table 1 shows a summary of the sustainability indicators Score (OQOS) scores were computed. The table below shows
survey done by the researchers. The scores given by drivers the summary of OQOS scores which were obtained by using
and operators from each route were averaged for each the formula for OQOS.
indicator to allow the researchers to compare and evaluate the TABLE IV. OQOS SCORES SUMMARY
performance scores for the four routes. The ratings were
supported by the data gathered from E-Jeepney operators. Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4
Total PQOS 3.99 3.91 3.95 3.8
TABLE I. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY Total IQOS 2.89 1.42 2.43 2.2
OQOS Score 11.52 5.55 9.61 8.36
Route Route Route Route Rank 1 4 2 3
Factor Indicator
1 2 3 4
E-jeepney intensity 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.5
Frequency of service 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.9 The table above shows that route 1 obtained the highest
Inter-arrival time of score of 11.52, followed by route 3 with a score of 9.61, then
3.9 3.8 3.9 3.9
Service service by route 4 with a score of 8.36, and lastly by route 2 with a
Quality Duration of travel 3.8 3.9 3.9 4 score of 5.55. The results show that E-Jeepney operation in
Travel distance 3.1 3 2.9 3 route 1 performs the best among the four routes thus, indicates
Ave. waiting time of that it could serve as the basis for other E-Jeepney operations
3.8 3.8 3.7 4
passengers
Ave. occupancy 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
for improvement.
To further understand the relationships of the indicators in
Travel cost of e-jeepney 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9
Profitability the study, the researchers performed statistical analysis using
Ave. revenue of e- Analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and regression
3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7
jeepney
Analysis. Analysis of variance was used to determine the
relationship between the performance scores of the
The table below shows the summary of Performance respondents and the 2 sustainability factors. Results showed
Quality of Service Scores (PQOS) per factor for each route. that both service quality and profitability factors have a
Performance scores and weight importance were obtained significant difference in the performance scores of each route.
from the performance rating of the respondents, on the other However, ANOVA doesn’t indicate which among the
hand, the PQOS scores were obtained by using the PQOS indicators have a significant difference with the performance
formula. score hence, the researchers also performed a Tukey test to
TABLE II. SUMMARY OF PQOS specify which indicators had significant differences. Upon
performing the Tukey test for the service factor, the results
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4
Total PQOS 3.99 3.91 3.95 3.8
showed that there is a significant difference in the
performance scores of cleanliness, service route, attentiveness
From the results of total PQOS, Route 1 was revealed to of driver, comfortability, accessibility, and convenience. And
have the highest PQOS score of 3.99, followed by Route 3 performing the Tukey test for the profitability factor, the

249

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Prince Edward Island. Downloaded on July 03,2021 at 14:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
results showed that the two indicators, payment options and Performance Score = 7.608 + (0.0573*E-jeepney intensity) -
the number of seats, have different groups thus, indicating that (0.0182*Frequency of service) - (0.00369* Average waiting time of
passenger) - (0.0344*Occupancy of e-jeepney)
there is also a significant difference between the two factors
as shown in the figure below. Summarizing models formulated from service quality and
TABLE V. ANOVA RESULT FOR PERFORMANCE SCORES OF SERVICE profitability factors, the equation shown above represents the
QUALITY sustainability model for E-Jeepney operation that can be used
for future research regarding the sustainability of public
Df Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value transportations.
ANOVA Result for Performance Scores of Service Quality Factor
Route 3 58.061 19.352 31.32 0 IV. CONCLUSION
Service
Quality Factor
14 231.36 16.5255 26.74 0 The method used by the researchers in this study can
ANOVA Result for Performance Scores of Profitability Factor quantitatively measure and assess the performance of a
Route 3 3 3.735 1.235 2.56 transport operation based on related literature, observations,
Profitability
1 1 25.205 25.205 51.77
interviews, and user ratings from stakeholders such as
Factor operators and drivers. To evaluate the current system of the
BNTSC e-jeepney, the researchers used a service blueprint
In addition, correlation analysis was used to determine and customer satisfaction survey. The service blueprint helped
which indicators have a significant relationship with the to represent the step-by-step process of the service system
performance scores. From the correlation analysis for the where different roles are involved hence allowing the
service quality factors, results showed that e-jeepney intensity researchers to understand operator and customer perspective.
and frequency of service has a strong positive relationship A customer satisfaction survey was done to further analyze e-
with the performance score while the waiting time of jeepney performance based on 2 factors: service quality and
passengers has a strong negative relationship. And from the profitability.
correlation analysis of the profitability factors, results showed
that the occupancy of e-jeepney has a strong negative Upon gathering the performance scores for each route, the
relationship with the performance score. Indicators with Performance Quality of Service (PQOS) Score was computed
strong positive relationships with the performance scores using its formula to determine which among the routes is
indicate that these indicators have a direct effect on the e- performing best based on the customer's perspective. From the
jeepney performance scores; as the values of these indicators results of total PQOS, Route 1 was revealed to have the
increases or decreases, the performance scores are affected the highest PQOS score of 3.99, followed by Route 3 with a score
same way. Conversely, indicators with strong negative of 3.95, then by Route 2 with a score of 3.91, and lastly Route
relationships with the performance scores indicate that these 4 with a score of 3.80. From the metric scale set by the
indicators have an opposite effect on the e-jeepney researchers, the results indicate that all four routes were
performance scores; as the values of these indicators increases perceived to have a very satisfactory performance by the
or decreases, the performance scores are affected the opposite respondents.
way. The result is shown in the table below. Continuing the evaluation, Indicator Quality of Scores
(IQOS) was also computed using its formula. Weight
TABLE VI. RESULT OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS
importance was obtained from the Indicator Rating Survey
Factor Indicator Pearson R P-Value done to operators and drivers. While the data gathered from
E-jeepney intensity 0.893 0 the e-jeepney operators were converted into a QOS rating
Frequency of E- based on the rubric scale to standardize the scores that will be
0.764 0
Jeepney service
used. From the results of total IQOS, route 1 showed the
Inter-arrival time of E-
Service Quality
Jeepney
-0.871 0 highest IQOS score of 2.89, followed by route 3 with a score
Duration of travel 0.246 0.014 of 2.43, then route 3 with a score of 2.20, and lastly route 4
Travel distance 0.112 0.269 with a score of 1.42. From the metric scale set by the
Average waiting time -0.794 0 researchers, the results indicate that routes 1, 3, and 4 have
Average occupancy of
0.382 0 satisfactory ratings while route 2 has unsatisfactory ratings.
E-Jeepney Overall Quality of Service Score (OQOS) scores were
Travel cost of E-
Profitability 0.094 0.354 computed to combine the PQOS and IQOS scores of each
Jeepney
Average revenue from route. The overall scores were obtained using the OQOS
0.52 0 formula where results showed that Route 1 performs the best
E-Jeepney
among the four routes thus, indicating that it could serve as
Lastly, a regression model was developed for the overall the basis for other e-jeepney operations for improvement.
customer satisfaction based on the significant indicators To further understand the relationships of the indicators in
determined in the study that can be used for attaining a the study, the researchers performed statistical analysis using
sustainable operation of e-jeepneys. The result of the equation Analysis of variance, Correlation analysis, and Regression
is shown below using Minitab software. Analysis. Analysis of variance was used to determine the
relationship between the performance scores of the

250

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Prince Edward Island. Downloaded on July 03,2021 at 14:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
respondents and the 2 sustainability factors. Results showed
that both service quality and profitability factors have a
significant difference in the performance scores of each route.
However, ANOVA doesn’t indicate which among the
indicators have a significant difference with the performance
score hence, the researchers also performed a Tukey test to
specify which indicators had significant differences. Upon
performing the Tukey test for the service factor, the results
showed that there is a significant difference in the
performance scores of cleanliness, service route, attentiveness
of driver, comfortability, accessibility, and convenience. And
performing the Tukey test for the profitability factor, the
results showed that the two indicators, payment options and
the number of seats, have different groups thus, indicating that
there is also a significant difference between the two factors.
Correlation analysis was used to determine which
indicators have a significant relationship with the performance
scores. From the correlation analysis for the service quality
factors, results showed that e-jeepney intensity and frequency
of service has a strong positive relationship with the
performance score while the waiting time of passengers has a
strong negative relationship. And from the correlation
analysis of the profitability factors, results showed that the
occupancy of e-jeepney has a strong negative relationship
with the performance score. Indicators with strong positive
relationships with the performance scores indicate that these
indicators have a direct effect on the e-jeepney performance
scores; as the values of these indicators increases or decreases,
the performance scores are affected the same way.
Conversely, indicators with strong negative relationships with
the performance scores indicate that these indicators have an
opposite effect on the e-jeepney performance scores; as the
values of these indicators increases or decreases, the
performance scores are affected the opposite way.
Lastly, a regression model was developed for the overall
customer satisfaction based on the significant indicators
determined in the study that can be used for attaining a
sustainable operation of e-jeepneys. Regarding the evaluation
of the indicators, the researchers recommended different
action plans for each significant factor to further improve the
current operation of e-jeepneys.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Luansing, C. Pesigan, & E. Rustico Jr., “An e-trike ICE project -
innovative, concrete and ergonomic: systems design to support
sustainable e-trike commercialization”. Procedia Manufacturing 3,
2015, pp. 2333-2340
251
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Prince Edward Island. Downloaded on July 03,2021 at 14:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[2] A. A. Nasution, K. Erwin, & L. Bartuska, “Determinant study of
conventional transportation and online transportation”. Transportation
Research Procedia 44, 2020, pp. 276-282
[3] ADB, “Transport Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map,” 2012.
[4] P. Mariano, “Modernizing Public Transport in the Philippines”,
Changing Transport, (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.changing-
transport.org/modernizing-public-transport-in-the-philippines/
[5] N. S. Lopez, J. Soliman, J. B. Biona, & L. Fulton, “Cost-benefit
analysis of alternative vehicles in the Philippines using immediate and
distant future scenarios”. Transportation Research Part D, 2020
[6] I. Mateo-Babiano, R. Recio, D. Ashmore, M. D. Guillen, & S. M.
Gaspay, “Formalising the jeepney industry in the Philippines - A
confirmatory thematic analysis of key transitionary issues”. Research
in Transportation Economics, (n.d.)
[7] Litman and Todd, “Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements”.
Journal of Public Transportation, 11(2), 2008, pp. 43-63, doi:
10.5038/2375-0901.11.2.3.
[8] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
“Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) – Futures, Strategies
and Best Practices, Synthesis Report on the EST Project, and EST
Guidelines, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development”. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management, 2000, Vienna, Austria
[9] Moving on Sustainable Transportation (MOST), ”Transport Canada”,
1999. Retrieved from
www.cityofberkeley.info/Public_Works/Transportation/Sustainable_
Transportation.aspx
[10] Litman, “Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and
Liveable Transport Planning”. Transportation Research Record, 2016
[11] Gilbert, Irwin, Hollingworth, & Blais, “Sustainable Transportation
Performance Indicators (STPI)”. Transportation Research Board
(TRB), 2002, CD ROM 2003 (2003)
[12] M. J. Gumasing, D. Araga, & F. L. Baez, “Sustainability Model of E-
Trike Operations in the City of Manila”. IEEE 6th International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, 2019, pp. 1-5
[13] Litman and Todd, “Well Measured Developing Indicators for
Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning”. Transportation
Research Record, 2017, doi: 10-15. 10.3141/2017-02.
[14] HCM, “Highway capacity manual”. Transportation Research Board,
2000, Washington, DC
[15] FDOT Quality/ Level of Service Handbook. (2013)
[16] B. Waheed, F. Khan, & B. Veitch, “Linkage-Based Frameworks for
Sustainability Assessment: Making a Case for Driving Force-Pressure-
State-Exposure- Effect-Action (DPSEEA) Frameworks”.
Sustainability, 1(3), 2009, pp. 441–463, doi: 10.3390/su103044.
[17] B. Waheed, F. Khan, & B. Veitch, “Linkage-Based Frameworks for
Sustainability Assessment: Making a Case for Driving Force-Pressure-
State-Exposure- Effect-Action (DPSEEA) Frameworks”.
Sustainability, 1(3), 2009, pp. 441–463, doi: 10.3390/su103044.
[18] L. Wang, “Framework for evaluating sustainability of transport system
in Megapolis and its application”. IERI Procedia, 2014, pp. 110-116