Effect of Socio-economic and Demographic Features

on Motorcycle and Car Ridesharing in Dhaka City

A Thesis Submitted
In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Md. Jahidul Islam

ID#15306009
Al Amin Sumon
ID#13106240

To the

Department of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering and Technology (CEAT)
IUBAT—International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

May 2019
 Approval
The thesis titled “Effect of Socio-economic and Demographic Features on Motorcycle and Car
Ridesharing in Dhaka City” submitted by Md. Jahidul Islam (15306009) and Al Amin Sumon
(13106240) has been accepted as a satisfactory fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering.

____________________________
Supervisor
Md. Hishamur Rahman
Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering
IUBAT— International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

____________________________
External
Mr. Soumik Nafis Sadeek
Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering
IUBAT— International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

____________________________
Chair
Prof. Dr. Md. Monirul Islam
Professor & Chair, Department of Civil Engineering
Dean, CEAT
IUBAT— International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

1
 DECLARATION

We are Md. Jahidul Islam with ID# 15306009 and Al Amin Sumon with ID# 13106240 declaring
that this Thesis report on “Effect of Socio-economic and Demographic Features on Motorcycle
and Car Ridesharing in Dhaka City” has only been prepared under the supervision of Md.
Hishamur Rahman for the fulfillment of the degree Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
(BSCE). It has not been prepared for any other purpose, reward, or presentation and has not been
submitted by us for any Degree, Diploma, Title or Recognition before.

___________________________

Md. Jahidul Islam

Id: 15306009

May 2019

___________________________

Al Amin Sumon

Id: 13106240

May 2019

2
 Acknowledgment

All praises to the Almighty Allah for giving us the strength to complete the research paper in
fulfilling the CEN 488 successfully. In the process of completion of our course and preparing this
dissertation, we would like to pay my gratitude to some personnel for their immense help and
enormous cooperation.

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to our supervisor Md. Hishamur Rahman for all his
support and guidance during our thesis. His valuable suggestion and comments always served us
as a source of inspiration and encouragement.

We would like to express our thanks to Prof. Dr. Md. Monirul Islam especially for his immense
motivation and support to us and also would like to thanks Dr. Raisul Islam Porag and Engr. Anisur
Rahman (TiTu).

Finally, we would like to thank our family for their support, love and for tolerating the time we
spend working with our research.

3
 ABSTRACT

Research to know the effect of socio-economic and demographic features on a motorcycle and car
ridesharing in Dhaka city. This research conducted in whole Dhaka city and more than one
thousand individual data were collected. All data was about socioeconomic and demographic
factors.

The same person has the tendency to use both car and motorcycle ridesharing service in
Bangladesh. Analyze the effect of the socio-economic and demographic factors on ridesharing
service demand and to determine the significant socio-economic and demographic factors that
effect to the ridesharing demand by using the statistical model. A demand propensity model had
been developed for motorcycle and car ridesharing jointly by using Bivariate Ordered Probit
Model. Because this research demonstrated both car and motorcycle ridesharing service jointly.

Gender, age, household status, residential density, academic background, employment status,
occupation sector, monthly income, smartphone, car ownership, and motorcycle ownership all
these variables were found significant so that these factors have a positive and negative effect to
the ridesharing service. If ridesharing companies will focus on those factors and develop their
criterion. Then the using propensity will definitely increase and it will reach to all sorts of people.
The future government and non-government transportation-related projects also can develop by
focusing on those factors.

Keywords: Ridesharing, ride-hailing, ride-sourcing, transportation, mode choice, probit model,

motorcycle ride, car ride.

4
 Table of Contents
Declaration ………………………………………………………………………………………2

Acknowledgment…………………………………………………...……………………………3

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Chapter-1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................7

Chapter-2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................9

2.1 Research Question……………………………………………………..……..…………14

Chapter-3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 15

3.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 15

3.2 Data Description .......................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Modeling Technique .................................................................................................... 29

Chapter-4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…….……………………………………………..32

Chapter-5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATION…………....…..……..41

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………...………………………42
APPENDIX ………………………….……………………………………………...………….45

5
 List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1. 1 Increasing users of ridesharing services .....................................................................7
Figure 3. 1 Gender .................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3. 2 Age ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 3. 3 Marital Status .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3. 4 Academic Background ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 3. 5 Employment Status................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3. 6 Occupation Sector .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3. 7 Monthly Income Range .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 3. 8 Smartphone Availability ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 3. 9 Private Car Availability .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 3. 10 Motorcycle Availability ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 3. 11 Driving License Availability ................................................................................. 27
Figure 3. 12 Using propensity of motorcycle ridesharing service .............................................. 28
Figure 3. 13 Using propensity of car ridesharing service........................................................... 28

Table 3. 1 Survey sample description (independent variables) ................................................... 16

Table 3. 2 Survey sample description (dependent variables) ..................................................... 19
Table 3. 3 Tabulation of Gender and Age .................................................................................. 21
Table 3. 4 Tabulation of Gender and Household Status ............................................................. 21
Table 3. 5 Tabulation of Marital Status and Age ........................................................................ 22
Table 3. 6 Tabulation of Gender and Marital Status ................................................................... 22
Table 3. 7 Tabulation of Monthly Income and Occupation Sector.............................................. 24
Table 3. 8 Tabulation of Monthly Income and Private Car, Motorcycle Availability .................. 26
Table 4. 1 Ordered probit regression.......................................................................................... 33
Table 4. 2 Results of the significant variables ............................................................................ 34
Table 4. 3 Error correlation ....................................................................................................... 35
Table 4. 4 Threshold values ....................................................................................................... 35
Table 4. 5 Using frequency of ridesharing service for ‘gender’ .................................................. 36
Table 4. 6 Using frequency of ridesharing service for people of different ages .......................... 37
Table 4. 7 Using frequency of ridesharing service for people of different income groups........... 39

6
 Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

Ridesharing is an ongoing arrangement where a driver makes a car or bike available for public hire
for passengers. Ridesharing system is one of the most popular systems in all over the world. As
well as it is also popular in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, popular ridesharing services are UBER,
PATHAO, SHOHOJ, and OBHAI. Bangladesh’s ridesharing space is growing at a rapid pace.
There are two types of ridesharing service in our country i.e. motorcycle and car ridesharing.
Ridesharing has given a boost in sales for the motorcycle sector. In Bangladesh, Ridesharing
services created job opportunities for more than 100000 people.

Although Dhaka is one of the most populous cities in the world. In Dhaka city, there are so many
public and private transport systems. These transport systems cannot fulfill the common people’s
need. Such as time maintaining, route problem, traffic jam, etc. Actually, the major factor is time
maintaining. So they want to reach their office, college, and University very timely. Private and
public vehicles cannot satisfy the city people that much. That’s why people feel the interest to
choose the ridesharing service.

Figure 1. 1 Increasing users of ridesharing services

7
Some significant highlights of worldwide ridesharing service given below, according to Statista
(The Statistics Portal) 2019*

 Income in the Ridesharing section adds up to US$82,437M in 2019.

 Income is relied upon to demonstrate a yearly development rate (CAGR 2019-2023) of
12.8%, bringing about a market volume of US$133,473M by 2023.
 Client entrance is 8.1% in 2019 and is relied upon to hit 10.6% by 2023.
 The average revenue per user (ARPU) at present adds up to US$138.97.
 In worldwide correlation, most income is created in China (US$35,589M in 2019).

The ridesharing companies do not provide or share their data (i.e. total trip and other info) to the
others. Almost all users of ridesharing service are properly educated. Those who are less educated,
they do not use (they also may have no idea about this service). There are so many people who do
not know the use of ridesharing service also so many people do not like this ridesharing service.
Because of the quality of this service. Gender, quality, money, etc. issues may affect to the
ridesharing service. Similarly, there would some other socio-economic and demographic factors
that effect to the ridesharing service.

The same person has the tendency to use both car and motorcycle ridesharing service in our
country. The socio-economic and demographic factors have effects on the ridesharing service.
However, factors affecting the use of both car and motorcycle ridesharing service have not been
jointly modeled before. In this study, those socio-economic and demographic significant factors
will be discussed which can be helpful to the ridesharing companies and in the future non-
government and government project (i.e. MRT, Metro Rail, etc. transportation service).

*Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/outlook/368/100/ride-hailing/worldwide

8
 Chapter-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Ullahet. al. (2017) conducted a case study of the founding of Bangladeshi logistics and ride-sharing
company Pathao, solving the traffic congestion and transportation issues of the eighth-most
populous city of the world, Dhaka. Pathao broadly works under two primary areas—delivery and
logistics service; and, motorcycle taxi service. It has established broad operations spread
throughout the country and was able to differentiate themselves from competitors using an
innovative idea to tackle the traffic problem in the city and by leveraging technology to streamline
its operations. Their case gives an overview of logistics and transport scenario in Bangladesh
through the lens of the start-up.

Saidur(2008) demonstrated that perception of the linkage of travel behavior with socioeconomic
traits and the spatial environment in Dhaka city and urban transport policy applications. He used
a multinomial logistic model and build up multivariate technique to find exogenous variable on
mode choice behavior. He found many characteristics who lived in Dhaka city such as their socio-
economic character, use of their land system, attitude their travel behavior. To modify this
character he established a travel pattern to evaluate road-based performance. But he did not
determine which kind of vehicles were using the customer.

Lavieri and Bhat(2018) established the investigating goal and subjective elements influencing the
adopting frequency and characteristics of ride-hailing trips. They have used ride adoption and
hailed unobserved stochastic hidden function those observed minimal, transportation, preferences
and sociological variables. They also found out passenger ships replace the short distance walking
trips, and at low cost. They integrated a multi-model system to avoid transit trip replacement by
this mode. But here they did not discuss motorcycle and car ridesharing specifically.

Alemi(2018) proposed to what makes travelers use ride-hailing exploring the latent constructs
behind the adoption and frequency of use of ride-hailing services and their impacts on the use of
other travel modes. He used here two binary logit model to identify the characteristics of

9
customers. He saw that those people who used Uber, their age is 18 to 40. They use smartphones
some of them had a personal motorbike or car etc. He identified that the usage of Uber effect on a
public vehicle. It saves our valuable time on the other hand public vehicle could not estimate time
and it was opened a new business sector in the USA in California. He did not specifically discuss
Car and Motorcycle and some Socio-economic features (i.e. Gender, Location, Academic
Background, Job, Income, etc.)

Fang and Shen(2015) conducted a study on the modeling taxi services with smartphone-based e-
hailing applications. They used a network system. They found it by using e-hailing services more
effective because it saves time and money both. Actually, it was a contextual method between
customer and driver. In rainy season Taxiwas not available that much everywhere, so if we had an
e-hailing system in our smartphone then we could call for a ride. In total e-hailing services are
more effective than other services E-hailing (taxi) and Ridesharing (Private car & Motorcycle)
both service procedures are similar. But they did not discuss ridesharing service specifically.

Alice et al. (2015) conducted a study that how to peer economy effect on ridesharing services.
Here they use an algorithm neutrality method to find driver quality, passenger quality, and cost
benefits. After analyzing all things they find out three factors such as pragmatic, moral and
cognitive. Large-scale sharing economy firms have so far been successful in large part because of
the pragmatic benefits it provides to individual providers and consumers. Especially in the initial
stages, they are able to promise providers more money and flexibility while also promising
consumer's savings and convenience. Here they analyze only Uber ridesharing service. They take
economic data but they did not discuss motorcycle and car ridesharing specifically and the
socioeconomic features that effects.

Lee(2018) proposed to compare market and industry analysis of traditional taxi services and
transportation network vehicle services in Metro Manila. He used here multi-attribute variable
comparison through conjoint analysis. Actually, this research indicates metro Manila life into the
Philippine. How TNVS (Transport Network Vehicle Services) vehicle services affected
significantly typical metro Manila computer he finds out that uses of Uber and taxi services are
changed their economical market for their security value of economy and their opportunity are

10
satisfied users. That’s why these services are more popular in the Philippines but they analyzed it
by multi-attribute variable comparison throw conjoint analysis.

Nelson and Sadowsky(2019) propose to be estimated the impact of ride-hailing App Company
which entry on public transportation and the majority use it in US urban areas. They used here
economic model such as PT (public transportation). From 2011 they saw that private ride-hailing
app companies Uber and Lyft have expanded into more and more in the USA. They want to find
the impact of Uber and Lyft’s entry on public transportation in urban areas. After analyzing these,
the Uber entered first and follow several months later by Lyft. They also find that PT increased in
the representative urban area. They collect data at several places in the USA. They did not discuss
motorcycle and car ridesharing specifically and the socioeconomic features that effects.

Yongzhong et al. (2018) conducted that the destiny of how passengers choice ride-hailing service
among ridesharing options. They used here logit based choice models to estimate the passenger’s
choice among taxi, dedicated ride, and ridesharing services. They celebrate in China and collected
data for the model. After analyzing they find some factors which impact in ridesharing options.
Such as traveling distance, waiting for time and pricing effect passenger choice. They did not
specifically discuss Car and Motorcycle ridesharing and Socio-economic features.

Cohen et al. (2016) estimated and analyzed the rider’s aggregate consumer surplus gain from
Uber's, UberX service in 2015. Using a regression discontinuity design the estimated Uber X
generated around $2-9 billion in consumer surplus across four cities and that each dollar spent by
riders generated an average of $1.6 dollar of consumer surplus. They also found that while the
demand for Uber is inelastic meaning that consumers are relatively insensitive to take changes in
fares it depends inevitably on their characteristics that are harder to measure including the "time
of day"

Rogersand Rosenblat(2017) supported the agreement for Uber's positive net effect on consumer
welfare primarily because of it’s the efficient use of capital and labor. He also explained the form
of social costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify monetarily. Such as less drunk driving
reduced inactive to own a car and even the ability to mitigate discrimination against riders, for

11
which taxi drivers are notorious. On the other hand, the social cost could be a substantial including
the disregard for market regulations, safety concerns between drivers and riders features of privacy
violations and uncompensated "emotional labor" borne by drivers in pursuit of a higher rating.
What he did not say about negative employment impact on drivers overall.

Berger et al. (2018) studied how Uber has affected traditional driving jobs, especially taxi drivers
including the number of available jobs and changes in wages. They employed a staggered rollout
approach similar to the one that I used here by comparing taxi drivers to buy delivery, tractor and
truck drivers who were not affected by Uber’s arrival. Their difference-in-differences approach
comparing the relative changes of taxi drivers particularly their wages and aggregate employment
in the city is before and after Uber became active. They concluded that Uber's entrance did not
affect traditional drivers adversely while the number of self-employed drivers was increased by
almost 50% mainly due to taxi drivers switched to Uber.

Martin and Shaheen(2011) came to a similar conclusion while studying car sharing as their sample,
for car ridesharing users decreased in their consumption of real transit increased in their using of
cycles and carpooling and walk more. The combined changes in all transit modes after car sharing
was introduced passengers were increasing in their consumption of the public rather than reducing
it. This can help to mitigate the first and last mile problem, a situation in which travelers struggle
to get to the nearest transit station as well as from the transit situation to their final destination.
Many suburban communities faced this challenge due to lack of transit options in the outskirts of
cities as well as workers in small cities with limited public transportation options. Uber can
mitigate this first and last mile problem by connecting suburbanites to transit hubs in the outer
reigns and supplementing transportation options in smaller cities.

Tremblay (2012) and Belmonte (2014) analyzed Uber's effect on public transportation across
demography groups. Tremblay found that Uber can be complementary but only after a long period
of time and in very dense urban areas. Expected this to be true especially in cities with well-
educated affluent residents who already used public transit at high levels. Belmont came to a
similar conclusion while studying public transit ridership among various income levels he
suggested that transit can be normal good for individuals in the higher income brackets.

12
Belmonte’sanalysis included the cost of transit service traffic access to cars as determining factors
in once conjunction of public transportation especially when considering income.

Mitra et al. (2019) conducted the use of ride-hailing services between older and adults in the United
States. They use hereZero-Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) model. They found the area,
educational skills, gender and age as factors. They analyzed this factor in ZINB method to find the
tendency of uses ride-hailing services. The outcomes show that the determinants of reception of
on-demand ride-hailing administrations (users versus non-users) are not the same as the
determinants of the frequency of utilization of these administrations among older adult users. Here
they only focused on age. They did not focus on other socioeconomic factors.

Dias (2017) also developed a similar behavioral model choice for ride-sourcing and car ridesharing
services. They conducted this research in the American country and followed the bivariate ordered
probit model. In an effort to higher recognize the impact of a range of independent socio-economic
and demographic variables on the frequency of use of ride-sourcing and car-sharing services.
Model estimation consequences showed that users of these services had a tendency to be young,
well-educated, higher income, working persons and living in higher-density areas. Their research
only about ride-sourcing services and car-sharing services but they did not discuss the motorcycle
ridesharing services.

13
2.1 Research Question
The overall objective of this study is to develop a propensity model of using ridesharing service
for Dhaka city using Bivariate Ordered Probit model. Because motorcycle and car ridesharing will
be studied together. A particular objective of this study contains:

• To develop a model of demand propensity for motorcycle and car ridesharing jointly by
using bivariate ordered probit model analyzes the effect of the socio-economic and
demographic factors on ridesharing service demand.
• To determine the significant socio-economic and demographic factors that effect to the
ridesharing demand by using the statistical model.

14
 Chapter-3
METHODOLOGY

This study focused on the propensity of usage between car ridesharing and motorcycle ridesharing
both male and female. It involves the joint modeling of two ordinal dependent variables. One is a
motorcycle ridesharing service and another is car ridesharing service. So that initially selected
model is Bivariate Ordered Probit model.

3.1 Data collection

All data were collected from different places of Dhaka city and almost all places of Dhaka city had
been covered. Almost 3 months consumed for collecting all individual data. Then more than one
thousand individual data were collected. The youngest, middle age, aged male-female participated
here. Poor man to richest man, illiterate to higher educated, married-unmarried, hawker to the
businessman, student, employed-unemployed, govt. employee to private employee all sorts of
people and all classes of people participated in this questionnaire survey. Some foreigners, who
are living in Dhaka city, also participated willingly. We went man to man randomly and at first,
asked for permission if they had given us permission then the individual data was collected. Some
people also denied sharing their information and some people willingly participated. For collecting
these data we had to face off almost 3500 individual then the thousand and bit more data were
collected. These individual data were collected in all sorts of places such as in VIP zone, University
zone, office areas, slum area, etc.

3.2 Data description

The survey is based on sixteen different questions. Where fourteen questions mentioned as
independent variables and two questions mentioned as dependent variables. Actually, the objective
is to find two different coefficients with respect to car ridesharing and motorcycle ridesharing
service. To find these two different type of coefficients, we need to find the propensity of those
dependent variables. The variables will be discussed through the table and constructed pie charts:

15
Table 3. 1 Survey sample description (independent variables)

Independent Variables Count %

Female 333 33.2
Gender
Male 670 66.8
18-24 400 39.9
25-34 424 42.3
35-44 116 11.6
Age
45-54 35 3.5
54-64 14 1.4
65+ 14 1.4

Single 607 60.5

Marital Status
Married 396 39.5

Single Person Yes 440 43.9

Household No 563 56.1

Density up to 0-20k 201 20

Residential Density up to 20k-40k 381 37.9

Density* Density up to 40k-60k 187 18.7

(per sq. km) Density up to 60k-80k 202 20.1

Density up to 80k+ 34 3.4

*Retrieved fromhttps://www.citypopulation.de/php/bangladesh-dhaka.php

16
 Full Time 454 45.3

Part-Time 68 6.2

Self Employed 132 13.2

Employment
Homemaker 27 2.7
Status
Unpaid volunteer or intern 8 0.8
Retired 9 0.9

Unemployed 305 30.4

Gov. Sector 42 4.2

Occupation Private Sector 464 46.3

Sector Business 114 11.4
Not Applicable 383 38.2
Less than High School 17 1.7
SSC 18 1.8
Academic HSC 65 6.5
Background Diploma 52 5.2
Bachelor 368 36.7
Post Graduate/more 483 48.2

17
 Less than 25k 513 51.1
25000-49999 232 23.1
Monthly
50000-74999 132 13.2
Income
75000-99999 53 5.3
100000 or more 73 7.3
Smart Phone Yes 961 95.8
Availability No 42 4.2

Private Car Yes 245 24.4

Availability No 758 75.6

Motorcycle Yes 779 77.7

Availability No 224 22.3

Driving License Yes 270 26.9

Availability No 733 73.1

18
Table 3. 2 Survey sample description (dependent variables)

Dependent Variables Count %

Never do this 425 42.4

Motorcycle Not in the past 30 days 178 17.7
Ride
1-3 or more per month 189 18.8

Once in a week 31 3.1

Two or more in week 180 18

Never do this 256 25.5

Not in the past 30 days 201 20

Car 1-3 or more per month 372 37.1

Ride
Once in a week 102 10.2

Two or more in week 72 7.2

19
The statistical information of some variable from the questionnaire using the pie chart:

Figure 3. 1 Gender

In this study according to the pie chart (Figure 3.1), 32.2% were female. On the other hand 66.8%
male. Table 3.3 Majority of the 18 to 24 years (39.9%) and 25 to 34 years (42.3%). Figure 3.3
shows that from 333 female 164 female are below 25 years, 125 female is 25-34 years, 29 female
is 35-44 years and remaining 15 female is more than 45 years old. Similarly, from 674 male 240
male are below 25 years, 299 male is 25-34 years, 87 male is 35-44 years and remaining 48 male
is more than 45 years old. Table 3.4 shows that 193 female are living with their family and 140
female are living singly. Similarly, 372 male are living with their family 302 male are living singly.

Figure 3. 2 Age

20
Table 3. 3 Tabulation of Gender and Age

Age
Gender 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total
Years Years Years Years Years Years
Female 164 125 29 8 4 3 333
Female 240 299 87 27 10 11 674
Total 404 424 116 35 14 14 1007

Table 3. 4 Tabulation of Gender and Household Status

Household Status
Gender Total
Living with family Living singly
Female 193 140 333
Female 372 302 674
Total 565 442 1007

Figure 3. 3 Marital Status

21
From figure 3.3 here 39.5% of people are married and 60.5% people are single. Table 3.5 shows
that there are 621 people are unmarried. 14 people are 65+ years old from them 3 people are forever
unmarried. Again here 14 people are 55-64 years old but they all are married. 35 people are 45-54
years old from them 3 people are unmarried. Generally, in our Bangladesh people marry before 40
years old. On an average most the male marry in between 27-35 years old and female marry in
between 20-26 years old. Table 3.6 shows that 611male-female are unmarried and 396 male-
female are married.

Table 3. 5 Tabulation of Marital Status and Age

Age
Gender 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total
Years Years Years Years Years Years
Married 34 199 105 32 14 12 396
Unmarried 370 225 11 3 0 3 621
Total 404 424 116 35 14 14 1007

Table 3. 6 Tabulation of Gender and Marital Status

Marital Status
Gender Total
Married Unmarried
Female 135 198 333
Female 261 413 674
Total 396 611 1007

22
 Figure 3. 4 Academic Background

The pie chart (Figure 3.4) shows the academic background. From the pie chart, in this study 48.2
%, people have completed their graduation or post-graduation and 36.7% of people are in
undergraduate study level. Another percentage indicates those who are in below SSC, HSC and
Diploma level. It can be easily understood from the pie chart that maximum is properly
educated. Figure 3.5 shows the employment status where 45.3% of people are a full-time employee
and 30.4% of people are unemployed.

Figure 3. 5 Employment Status

23
 Figure 3. 6 Occupation Sector

Figure 3. 7 Monthly Income Range

Table 3. 7 Tabulation of Monthly Income and Occupation Sector

Monthly Income (BDT)
Occupation
Less than 25000- 50000- 75000- 100000Tk Total
Sector
25000Tk 49999Tk 74999Tk 99999Tk or more
Government sector 3 12 16 8 3 42
Private sector 106 193 92 38 35 464
Business 31 21 23 7 33 115
Not applicable 377 6 1 0 2 386
Total 517 232 132 53 73 1007

24
The pie chart (Figure 3.7) shows that 51.1% people's salary range is less than 25000 taka, 25.1 %
people’s salary range is in between 25000 to 49999 taka, 13.2% people’s salary is in between
50000 to 74999 taka and 7.3 % people monthly salary is more than 1 lakh taka. (Table 3.7) There
are 42 people in Gov. sector from them 3 people earn less than 25000 TK, 12 people earn 25000-
49999 TK, 16 people earn 50000-74999 TK, 8 people earn 75000-99999 TK and 3 people earn
more than 1 lakh TK. Others option (private sector, business sector and not applicable) can be
described in a similar way.

Figure 3. 8 Smartphone Availability

Figure 3.8 shows information about smartphone availability. Nowadays almost all people use a
smartphone. In this survey 95.8%, people found who use the smartphone.

25
 Figure 3. 9 Private Car Availability

Figure 3. 10 Motorcycle Availability

Table 3. 8 Tabulation of Monthly Income and Private Car, Motorcycle Availability

Monthly Income Private Car Availability Motorcycle Availability

(BDT) No Yes No Yes
Less than 25000 Tk 417 100 431 86
25000-49999 Tk 199 33 175 57
50000-74999Tk 90 42 89 43
75000-99999 Tk 35 18 37 16
100000 Tk or more 20 53 51 22
Total 1007 1007

26
From the pie chart, 20.4% of people have a private car (Figure 3.9) and 22.3% of people have a
motorcycle (Figure 3.10). In this study 73 people earn more than 1 lakh TK from them 22 have a
motorcycle and 53 have a private car. 517 people earn less than 25000 TK but from them, 100
people have a private car and 86 people have a motorcycle because their family provides them
motorcycle / private car (Table 3.8). Figure 3.11 shows the combined license availability of
motorcycle and private car. Here only 26.9% of people have the license but the motorcycle and
private car owner together are more than 26.9%. Because of two reasons, they may have a driver
and other people did not get the license yet.

Figure 3. 11 Driving License Availability

27
 Figure 3. 12 Using propensity of motorcycle ridesharing service

Above pie chart (Figure 3.12) shows that 42.4 % people never use the motorcycle ridesharing
service, 17.7 % people use the motorcycle ridesharing service in irregular months, 18.8 % people
use the motorcycle ridesharing service one to three times every month, 3.1 % people use this
service once every week, 10.3% people use this service two or more times in a week, and 7.7%
people use this service every day. (Figure 3.13) here 25.5% people never use the car ridesharing
service, 20% people use this service in irregular months, 37.1% people use the car ridesharing
service every month one to three times, 10.2% people use this service once in a week and 2.5 %
people use this service every day.

Figure 3. 13 Using propensity of car ridesharing service

28
3.3 Modeling Technique:
This research includes the joint modeling of two ordinal dependent factors, with the potential
presence of regular unobserved factors (for example attitude-approach and lifestyle) that affect
both the car and motorcycle ridesharing service. That’s why the selected model is a Bivariate
Ordered Probit model. The bivariate ordered probit joins together two ordered probit equations
while accommodating error covariance that may exist between them. This model is estimated at
the person level and not at the individual trip level. The model is therefore not akin to a traditional
choice model that may include explanatory variables. This section officer a brief overview of the
modeling methodology and Y formulation.

Here, we assume some latent variables which are directly related to the using propensity of car
ridesharing and motorcycle ridesharing service.

Let,
‘q’ be an index for observation units (q = 1, 2,……,Q)
𝑋𝑞 and𝑌𝑞 represents the propensity of using of car ridesharing and motorcycle ridesharing services
respectively.

Again,
Let ‘m’ and ‘n’ be the indices for the discrete outcomes corresponding to the propensity of using
motorcycle ridesharing (m) and car ridesharing (n) services respectively. ‘m’ and ‘n’ may take the
numerical values such as m=1 or n= 1 our factors come "I never do this" both car and motorcycle
ridesharing respectively. When m=2 or n=2 so the factors come "I do this but not in past 30 days”
when m=5 or n=5 so the factors come ‘‘I do this 2 or more times per week’’ both car and
motorcycle ridesharing respectively. So the model will be

29
𝑋𝑞∗ = αʹ𝑋𝑞 + ʋ𝑞 where 𝑋𝑞 = m if ẟ𝑚−1<𝑋𝑞∗ <ẟ𝑚 , ẟ0 = -∞, ẟM = ∞

Yq* = βʹYq + Ƞq where Yq = n if Ѱn-1<Yq*<Ѱn , Ѱ0 = -∞, ѰN = ∞ ...…(1)

Here, Xq∗ and𝑌𝑞∗ are the latent variables for individual ‘q’. Xq∗ and𝑌𝑞∗ indicate the propensity of an
individual to use motorcycle ridesharing and car ridesharing service respectively. The larger the
latent variable, the larger the propensity of usage; 𝑋𝑞 and 𝑌𝑞 are vectors containing all hidden
covariates of the model for individual ‘q’ that affect the latent variable ‘α’ and ‘β’ are vectors
coefficient to be calculated and which focus the effects of the independent variables 𝑋𝑞 and 𝑌𝑞 ;
ẟ𝑚 and Ѱ𝑛 are the thresholds that partition the latent factors in the similar value of a segment as
there are classified; ‘m’ and ‘n’ indicate the categories of the dependent variables; M and Nindicate
the total number of classification for each of the dependent variables;ʋ𝑞 and Ƞ𝑞 are the random
error terms of the latent factors equation.

In this study, the normal marginal distributions are assumed for these error terms. For motorcycle
ridesharing the error terms indicate ʋ𝑞 which assumed to be independent and identical distributed
(IID) across individual ‘q’. Similarly,f or car ridesharing,t he error terms indicate Ƞ𝑞 which
assumed to be IID across individual ‘q’. From this method ʋ𝑞 and Ƞ𝑞 will be obtained and othethe
r two parameters are ‘α’ and ‘β’ that will be found by using the log-likelihood function.

30
So the log-likelihood function will be,

log 𝐿 = ∑𝑄 𝑀 𝑁
𝑞=1 ∑𝑚=1 ∑𝑛=1 𝐼𝑞 (𝑚, 𝑛) log Pr[𝑋𝑞 = m , 𝑌𝑞 = 𝑛] …..(2)

Let, 𝑏𝑞𝑚 = ẟ𝑚 - αʹ𝑋𝑞 and 𝑑𝑞𝑛 = Ѱ𝑛 - β ʹ𝑌𝑞 . So the probability of occurrence is,

Pr [𝑋𝑞 = m , 𝑌𝑞 = 𝑛] = Pr [ẟ𝑚−1<𝑋𝑞∗ <ẟ𝑚 and Ѱ𝑛−1 <𝑌𝑞∗ <Ѱ𝑛 ]

= Pr [b𝑞,𝑚−1 < ʋ𝑞 < b𝑞𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 d𝑞,𝑛−1 < Ƞ𝑞 < d𝑞𝑛 ]

= φ2 [b𝑞𝑚, d𝑞𝑛 ; 𝜃] - φ2 [b𝑞,𝑚−1 , d𝑞𝑛 ; 𝜃] + φ2 [b𝑞𝑚 , d𝑞,𝑛−1 ; 𝜃]

...….(3)

Here ‘shy’ is the bivariate cumulative normal distribution function. This log-likelihood
function will be used automatically in the software.

31
 Chapter-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This part displays a point by point dialog of the model estimation results, which are appeared in
the tables. The final model, picked after checking numerous alternative specifications, includes a
number of socio-economic characteristics that give further bits of knowledge on contrasts among
individuals in the propensity to use motorcycle and car ridesharing service.

It ought to be noticed that regardless of a determination that includes various independent variable,
the error .correlations of 0.266 is highly statistically significant (Table 4.2). So, this significant
correlation justifies the use of the bivariate ordered probit model formulation and proposes that
travel forecasting models need to perceive the potential presence of such factors to more accurately
assess and predict the impacts of these innovative transportation services on travel demand and
network performance. And also itis noticed that the positive error correlation indicates that
unobserved factors that positively contribute to the use of the innovative services (say, motorcycle
and car ridesharing). This is predictable with desires, the technology-loving people are more likely
to use both ridesharing service.

The questionnaire had been prepared for collecting the effect of socio-economic and demographic
features on Motorcycle and Car ridesharing in the Dhaka city. We had surveyed whole Dhaka city
and all data were collected randomly. Finally, more than one thousand individual data from all
over Dhaka city had been managed.

Here a propensity model will be developed in the context of ridesharing service and its using
frequency in the Dhaka city through those randomly collected individual data. For finding the
accurate result of those thousand individual data here STATA 14 software has been used. After
using the software and after having all the calculation we got the results and the significant results
had been taken and that will be described from the next page.

32
Results for bivariate ordered probit model (coefficients represent the effect of factors of
motorcycle ridesharing and car ridesharing)

Table 4. 1 Ordered probit regression

Number of observation 1,007

Wald chi2(14) 202.44 Justifies the hypothesis

Log-likelihood -2816.2444 Justifies the normal

distribution

Prob> chi2 0.0000 Justifies that the overall

model is significant

33
Table 4. 2 Results of the significant variables

Motorcycle Ridesharing Car Ridesharing

Std. Std.
Variables Coef. z P>IzI Coef. Z P>IzI
Error Err.
Gender
Male 0.825 0.086 9.57 0.000 -0.220 0.484 -2.79 0.005
(base: Female)

Age Age 35-54 -0.460 0.120 -3.82 0.000 -0.139 0.111 -1.25 0.211
(base: 18-34) Age 55+ -1.082 0.331 -3.26 0.001 -0.198 0.255 -0.78 0.437
HouseholdStatus
Yes -0.067 0.073 -0.91 0.362 -0.166 0.078 -2.36 0.018
(base: No)
Density upto
Residential Density 0.365 0.098 3.72 0.000 0.591 0.093 6.33 0.000
40k-60k
(base: density upto
Density upto
0-20k) 0.279 0.087 3.19 0.001 0.387 0.084 4.58 0.000
60k+
Academic Background
Graduate/post 0.204 0.086 2.36 0.018 0.338 0.083 4.06 0.000
(base: Less than high school)
Homemaker,
Employment Status
Retired, Unpaid -0.551 0.240 -2.29 0.022 -0.143 0.184 -0.77 0.439
(base: full time paid)
Volunteer

Occupation Sector Private Sector 0.397 0.087 4.53 0.000 0.328 0.085 3.86 0.000

(base: Gov. sector) Business Sector 0.377 0.130 2.89 0.004 0.172 0.125 1.37 0.169

Monthly Income 50000-74999 0.159 0.116 1.37 0.171 0.269 0.112 2.41 0.016
(base: 0-49999 BDT) 75000+ -0.225 0.137 -1.64 0.100 0.329 0.129 2.55 0.011
Smart Phone
Yes 0.728 0.243 3.00 0.003 0.484 0.197 2.45 0.014
(base: No)
Private car
Yes -0.022 0.094 -0.24 0.807 0.285 0.088 3.24 0.001
(base: No)
Motorcycle
Yes -0.248 0.086 -2.87 0.004 -0.001 0.084 -0.02 0.988
(base: No)

34
Table 4. 3 Error correlation

Coefficient Std. Error Z P> I z I

Error Correlation 0.2662063 0.0394913 6.74 0.000

Table 4. 4 Threshold values

Threshold Values Coefficient Std. Error

ẟ1 1.287506 0.2475987
Motorcycle ẟ2 1.822331 0.2496704
Ride ẟ3 2.44699 0.2527119
ẟ4 2.57166 0.25335
Ѱ1 0 .1439634 0.200562
Ѱ2 0.7699673 0.2017828
Car Ride
Ѱ3 1.951399 0.2058913
Ѱ4 2.172189 0.2070839

Here STATA 14 software has already been introduced for the result calculation. At the time of
using this software, we went through some proper systematic procedure then the significant results
were obtained.

35
From the questionnaire, the first variable is about ‘Gender’. Here the “Female” option was taken
as a base and input it in the software. Comparing with the female, the male is increasing in the
propensity of using motorcycle ridesharing service and decreasing in the propensity of using car
ridesharing service. (Table 4.2).

Table 4. 5 Using frequency of ridesharing service for ‘gender’

Gender
Frequency Of Using Total
Female Male
Never Use 226 199
Motorcycle Used But Not In 30 Days 35 145
Ridesharing Use Monthly 1-3 Times 33 157 1007
Service Use Weekly One Time 5 26
Use Weekly 2, 3 or More Times 34 147
Never Use 72 184
Used But Not In 30 Days 61 142
Car Ridesharing
Use Monthly 1-3 Times 144 229 1007
Service
Use Weekly One Time 13 34
Use Weekly 2, 3 or More Times 43 85

In the general perspective, the female are not so much secure and comfortable for motorcycle
ridesharing service, usually they feel uneasy with an unknown guy and traveling on a motorcycle
with unknown guy women may feel uneasy. That is why they use motorcycle ridesharing service
not that much. From Table 4.5 some female use motorcycle ridesharing service and their maximum
are unmarried, jobholder and student. In our country male are comfortable in both ridesharing
service. But male use motorcycle ridesharing service more than the car ridesharing service.
Because the cost of motorcycle ridesharing is cheaper than the car ridesharing and motorcycle is
faster and quicker too. The uses of a motorcycle are more economical than car ridesharing service
so the males are using motorcycle ridesharing service more.

36
Table 4. 6 Using frequency of ridesharing service for people of different ages

Age

Total
Frequency Of Using 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
years years years years years years
Never Use 192 131 54 24 10 14
Motorcycle Used But Not In 30 Days 84 76 19 0 1 0

1007
Ridesharing Use Monthly 1-3 Times 60 95 20 4 2 0
Service Use Weekly One Time 9 18 4 0 0 0
Use Weekly 2, 3 or More Times 51 104 19 6 1 0
Never Use 141 74 22 6 4 9
Car Used But Not In 30 Days 94 81 22 4 2 0

1007
Ridesharing Use Monthly 1-3 Times 127 180 46 14 3 3
Service Use Weekly One Time 10 27 4 5 0 1
Use Weekly 2, 3 or More Times 32 62 22 6 5 1

For the ‘Age’ variable the young people (who are 18 years to 34 years) taken as a base. With
respect to younger people, older people have less propensity to use motorcycle ridesharing than
younger people. However, age has no impact on the use of car ridesharing. Older people are less
comfortable to use motorcycle ridesharing than younger people. However, this is not a factor for
car ridesharing (clearly observed from Table 4.6). Usually, the 40 years or 50+ year’s people avoid
motorcycle ridesharing service due to their physical issues.

Household status indicates the people who were surveyed, they are living singly or with family.
Those who leave with family taken as base those who are living singly they use the car ridesharing
service less than the base and they have no impact on motorcycle ridesharing (Table 4.2). Because
most of the time their economic status is limited.

37
For the residential density(Table 4.2)people who are living in a density of 0 to 20000 per kilometer
per square was taken as a base. Result of both coefficients is significant and positive so that those
who are living in the density of 40000 to 60000+ per kilometer square they use the motorcycle and
the car ridesharing service more comparing with the base.

In terms of ‘Academic Background’ variable, those who are qualified less than high school were
taken as a base and (Table 4.2). With respect to the base, the graduates or postgraduates have more
propensity to use both ridesharing service. Because they are well educated and they have a better
idea of using it. Similar findings (for ride-sourcing and car ridesharing service) have been reported
by Dias (2017), Rayle et al. (2016), Viechnicki et al. (2015), Martin and Shaheen (2011), and Coll
et al. (2014).

Those who are full time (paid) employee taken as a base(Table 4.2) for ‘Employment Status’
variable. With respect to the base, the retired, homemaker, volunteer, etc. unpaid people have less
propensity of using motorcycle ridesharing service and these people have no impact in using car
ridesharing. Because they have no income, the homemakers are all female and female do not use
motorcycle ridesharing service (It is rare). The retired person is age-old, their age would be 55 or
60+. Earlier in the 'Age' variable discussed that old man are not comfortable in using motorcycle
ridesharing service they may have physical issues.

Comparing with the people who are in the government sector, private job holder and businessman
use motorcycle ridesharing service more. As well as private jobholder also use car ridesharing
more but the businessman has no impact in using car ridesharing. (Table 4.2)for the ‘Occupation
Sector’ variable. Because in this study only 42 people found as a government employee from them
21 people never use motorcycle ridesharing service and 6 people never use car ridesharing service.
Govt. employee use their government transport services all the time for their working purpose.

38
Table 4. 7 Using frequency of ridesharing service for people of different income groups

Monthly Income (BDT)

Total
Frequency Of Using >25000 25000 to 50000 to 75000 to <100000
Tk 49999 Tk 74999 Tk 99999 Tk Tk

Never Use 249 77 38 24 37

Used But Not In 30

108 29 24 8 11
Days
Motorcycle
Use Monthly 1-3

1007
Ridesharing 85 58 24 9 14
Times
Service
Use Weekly One Time 15 8 6 1 1
Use Weekly 2, 3 or
60 60 40 11 10
More Times
Never Use 174 49 17 6 10
Used But Not In 30
124 40 20 12 7
Days
Car
Use Monthly 1-3

1007
Ridesharing 157 109 56 16 35
Times
Service
Use Weekly One Time 19 8 12 4 4
Use Weekly 2, 3 or
43 26 27 15 17
More Times

People who earn monthly 0 to 49999 BDT were taken as the base. Comparing with the people
who earn monthly 0 to 49999 BDT, those who earn 50000+ BDT has no effect on the propensity
of choosing motorcycle ridesharing. But they use the car ridesharing service more than the less
earning people. Because they can afford it.

39
For the ‘Smartphone’ variable here 'No' has been taken as a base. (Table 4.2) Comparing with the
people who have no smartphone, those who have a smartphone they have more propensity to use
both ridesharing service. It is clear that those who have no smartphone might not use ridesharing
service. Because the smartphone is the first condition to use ridesharing services. Ridesharing apps
are maintained by the smartphone, if anyone needs any ride then they must go through the mobile
apps. In this questionnaire survey, almost all people use a smartphone and some of them
temporarily not using (due to mobile servicing, lost purpose, etc.). Very few people do not use a
smartphone at all.

Private car availability, comparing with the people who have no private car, those who are car
owner they have no effect on the propensity of choosing motorcycle ridesharing but their
propensity of using car ridesharing service is more. Because at the time of their car engaged, they
hire another car or use a car ridesharing service.

Motorcycle availability, comparing with the people who have no motorcycle, those who have a
motorcycle they have no effect on the propensity of choosing car ridesharing service but their
propensity of using motorcycle ridesharing service is less. Because they have a personal bike so
that they need not any motorcycle ridesharing.

Here skip two-variable directly (working area and driving license) skipped. Because they give
insignificant output. As well as some options from the questionnaire also skipped because they
also give the insignificant output. This insignificant output indicates that it does not have any effect
on the choice of the propensity of ridesharing service.

40
 Chapter-5
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATION

Ridesharing system is one of the most popular systems in all over the world as well as in our
country also. Day by day the usage of ridesharing service is increasing numerously. This research
conducted in whole Dhaka city and more than one thousand individual data were collected. All
data was about socioeconomic and demographic factors. This research demonstrated both car and
motorcycle ridesharing service together, that’s why the selected model was Bivariate Ordered
Probit Model. Gender, age, household status, residential density, academic background,
employment status, occupation sector, monthly income, smartphone, car ownership, and
motorcycle ownership all these variables were found significant so these factors have a positive
and negative effect to the ridesharing service. The marital status and driving license availability
was found insignificant.

If ridesharing companies will focus on those factors and develop their criterion. Then the using
propensity will definitely increase and it will reach to all sorts of people. The future government
and non-government transportation-related projects also can develop by focusing on those factors.

Future study and recommendation, from this study elasticity and marginal effect, can also be
established. In this study, the range of average monthly-weekly trip was counted if the continuous
data or the exact trip information can be collected then the Multiple Linear Regression model will
be established.

41
 REFERENCES

Alemi, F. (2018). What Makes Travelers Use Ridehailing?: Exploring the Latent Constructs
Behind the Adoption and Frequency of Use of Ridehailing Services, and Their Impacts on the Use
of Other Travel Modes. University of California, Davis.

Alraee, S. I. S. (2012). Development of Mode Choice Model for Gaza City. Development of Mode
Choice Model for Gaza City.

Berger, T., Chen, C., & Frey, C. B. (2018). Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect.
European Economic Review, 110, 197-210.

Buis, M. L. (2011). Stata Tip 97: Getting at ρ's and σ's. The Stata Journal, 11(2), 315-317.

Calo, R., &Rosenblat, A. (2017). The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Colum. L.
Rev., 117, 1623.

Cohen, P., Hahn, R., Hall, J., Levitt, S., & Metcalfe, R. (2016). Using big data to estimate
consumer surplus: The case of uber (No. w22627). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dias, F. F., Lavieri, P. S., Garikapati, V. M., Astroza, S., Pendyala, R. M., &Bhat, C. R. (2017). A
behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation,
44(6), 1307-1323.

Doppelt, L. (2018). Need a Ride? Uber Can Take You (Away From Public Transportation)
(Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University).

Enam, A. (2010). Developing a comprehensive mode choice model to capture the preferences for
mass rapid transit in Dhaka.

He, F., & Shen, Z. J. M. (2015). Modeling taxi services with smartphone-based e-hailing
applications. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 58, 93-106.

Lavieri, P. S., & Bhat, C. R. (2018). Investigating Objective and Subjective Factors Influencing
the Adoption, Frequency, and Characteristics of Ride-hailing Trips. Technical paper, Department
of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.

42
Lee, L. D. D. (2018). Comparative Market and Industry Analysis of Traditional Taxi Services and
Transportation Network Vehicle Services in Metro Manila. Philippine Management Review, 25.

Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2011). The impact of car sharing on public transit and non-motorized
travel: an exploration of North American car sharing survey data. Energies, 4(11), 2094-2114.

Mitra, S. K., Bae, Y., & Ritchie, S. G. (2019). Use of Ride-Hailing Services among Older Adults
in the United States. Transportation Research Record, 0361198119835511.

Nelson, E., &Sadowsky, N. (2019). Estimating the Impact of Ride-Hailing App Company Entry
on Public Transportation Use in Major US Urban Areas. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis &
Policy, 19(1).

Rahman, M. S. (2008). Understanding the Linkages of Travel Behavior with Socioeconomic

Characteristics and Spatial Environments in Dhaka City and Urban Transport Policy Applications.
Hiroshima: Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
University, Master’s Thesis.

Wilds, M. C., & Talley, W. K. (1984). Dial-a-Ride and bus transit services: A mode-choice
analysis. Transportation Research Record, 984, 63-66.

Witt, A., Suzor, N., & Wikström, P. (2015). Regulating ride-sharing in the peer economy.
Communication Research and Practice, 1(2), 174-190.

Wu, Y., Chen, X., & Ma, J. (2018, October). Modeling Passengers' Choice in Ride-Hailing Service
with Dedicated-Ride Option and Ride-Sharing Option. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering (pp. 94-98). ACM.

Ullah, G. W., & Islam, A. (2017). A Case Study on Pathao: Technology Based Solution to Dhaka’s
Traffic Congestion Problem. Case Studies in Business and Management, 4(2), 100-108.

43
 APPENDIX
Questionnaires of the survey:

Effect of Socio-economic and Demographic Features on Motorcycle

and Car Ridesharing in Dhaka City

We are conducting research on behalf of the Department of Civil

Engineering at IUBAT to develop a behavioral choice model for on-
demand ride-hailing services. We would like to ask you some questions
regarding socio-economic and demographic information.

The survey will be used for research purpose only and the questionnaire
has been prepared without identifying the individual participating in the
survey.

Regards,

Md. Jahidul Islam Id#15306009

Al Amin Sumon Id#13106240

IUBAT —International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

Department of Civil Engineering

44
1. What is your gender?
[ ] Male [ ] Female
2. What is your age?
[ ] 18-24

[ ] 25-34
[ ] 35-44
[ ] 45-54
[ ] 55-64
[ ] 65+
3. What is your marital status?

[ ] Single [ ] Married
4. Are you living in a single person household?
[ ] yes [ ] No
5. What is your home address?
…………………………………. (i.e., Gulshan-1, Uttara Sector#10, Mirpur-12`)
6. What is your work address?

…………………………………. (i.e., Gulshan-1, Uttara Sector#10, Mirpur-12)

45
7. What is your academic background?
[ ] Less than high school
[ ] High school graduate (SSC)
[ ] College graduate (HSC)

[ ] Diploma degree
[ ] Bachelor degree
[ ] Graduate / post graduate
8. What is your employment status?
[ ] Employed full-time (paid)
[ ] Employed part-time (paid)

[ ] Self-employed
[ ] Homemaker
[ ] Unpaid volunteer or intern
[ ] Retired
[ ] Not currently employed
9. What is your occupation sector?

[ ] Government sector
[ ] Private sector
[ ] Business
[ ] Student
[ ] Not Applicable
10. What is average monthly income?

[ ] Less than 25,000

[ ] 25,000 - 49,999
[ ] 50,000 - 74,999
[ ] 75,000 - 99,999
[ ] 100000 or more

46
11. Do you have a smart phone?
[ ] yes [] No
12. Do you have a private car?
[ ] yes [ ] No

13. Do you have any motorcycle?

[ ] yes [ ] No
14. Do you have a valid driving license?
[ ] yes [ ] No
15. How many times did you take a motorcycle ride in the last 30 days from the Ride Sharing
Service (i.e. UBER, PATHAO)?
[ ] I never do this
[ ] I do this, but not in the past 30 days

[ ] I did this 1–3 or some more times in the past 30 days

[ ] I did this 2 or more times per week
[ ] I did this 1 day per week
[ ] Everyday
16. How many times did you take a car ride in the last 30 days from the Ride Sharing Service
(i.e. UBER, PATHAO)?
[ ] I never do this
[ ] I do this, but not in the past 30 days
[ ] I did this 1–3 or some more times in the past 30 days
[ ] I did this 2 or more times per week
[ ] I did this 1 day per week
[ ] Everyday

47
১. আপনারলিঙ্গ :

[] পুরুষ [] মলিিা

২. আপনারবয়সকত?

[ ] ১৮-২৪

[ ] ২৫-৩৪

[ ] ৩৫-৪৪

[ ] ৪৫-৫৪

[ ] ৫৫-৬৪

[ ] ৬৫বাতারচেচয়চবলি

৩. আপনারবববালিকঅবস্থা :

[] লববালিত [] অলববালিত

৪. আপলনলকবততমাচনবাসায়এককভাচবথাচকন?

[] ি্াাঁ [] না

৫. আপনারবাসারঠিকানাচকাথায়?

.......................................। (যেমনগুিিান -১, উত্তরাচসক্টর # ১০, লমরপুর -১২, নয়াপল্টন)

৬. আপনারকমস্থিচকাথায়?
ত

.......................................। (যেমনগুিিান -১, উত্তরাচসক্টর # ১০, লমরপুর -১২, নয়াপল্টন)

48
৭. আপনারলিক্ষাগতচোগ্তালক?

[] িাইস্কুিবাএরও কম

[] মাধ্্লমক (এসএসলস)

[] উে্ ে্মাধ্্লমক (এইেএসলস)

[] লিচলামালিগ্রী

[] স্নাতকলিগ্রী

[] স্নাতক / স্নাতচকাত্তর

৮. আপনারকমসংস্থানএরঅবস্থাচকমন?
ত

[] পূর্সময়লিউঠি
ত

[] পািত িাইম

[] আত্মলনভতর

[] গৃলিনী

[] অববতলনকচেচ্ছাচসবকবাইন্টান ত

[] অবসরপ্রাপ্ত

[] যবকার

49
৯. আপনারকমচক্ষত্রলক?
ত

[] সরকালরখাত

[] যবসরকারীখাত

[] ব্বসা

[] ছাত্র/ছাত্রী

[] প্রচোজ্্নয়

১০. আপলনলকস্মািত চ ানব্বিারকচরন?

[] ি্াাঁ [] না

১১. আপনারগড়মালসকআয়কত?

[] ২৫,০০০ / - এরকম

[] ২৫,০০০ - ৪৯,৯৯৯ / -

[] ৫০,০০০ - ৭৪,৯৯৯ / -

[] ৭৫,০০০ - ৯৯,৯৯৯ / -

[] ১০০০০০ / - বাতারচেচয়চবলি

১২. আপনারলকব্ক্তিগতগাড়ীআচছ?

[ ] ি্াাঁ [] না

১৩. আপনারলকলনজ্েচমািরসাইচকিআচছ?

[ ] ি্াাঁ [] না

১৪. আপনার কাচছ লকববধ্ ড্রাইলভং িাইচসন্স আচছ?

[ ] ি্াাঁ [] না

50
১৫. রাইিচিয়ালরংসালভতস(যেমনUBER,
PATHAO)িচতগত৩০লিচনরমচধ্্আপলনকতবারচমািরসাইচকিরাইিলনচয়চছন?

[] কখনওএসবরাইিচনয়ািয়লন

[] মাচেমাচেচনয়ািয়, লকন্তুগত৩০লিচনচনয়ািয়লন

[] গত৩০লিচন১-৩বারবাআচরাচবলিলনচয়লছ

[] সপ্তাচিএই২বারবাআচরাচবলিলনচয়লছ

[] সপ্তাচি১বার

[] প্রলতলিন

১৬. রাইিচিয়ালরংসালভতস(যেমনUBER, PATHAO)িচতগত৩০লিচনরমচধ্্আপলনকতবারকার'

রাইিলনচয়চছন?

[] কখনওএসবরাইিচনয়ািয়লন

[] মাচেমাচেচনয়ািয়, লকন্তুগত৩০লিচনচনয়ািয়লন

[] গত৩০লিচন১-৩বারবাআচরাচবলিলনচয়লছ

[] সপ্তাচিএই২বারবাআচরাচবলিলনচয়লছ

[] সপ্তাচি১বার

[] প্রলতলিন

51