Advertisement

Bus Passenger’s Satisfaction on Accessibility to AmanJaya Bus Terminal: A Gender Comparison

  • Siti Fadhlina Muhammad Fisal
  • Nur Sabahiah Abdul SukorEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)

Abstract

A quantitative gender-based study was conducted to investigate the satisfaction levels of bus passengers towards accessibility to AmanJaya Bus Terminal, Perak. The assessment was performed based on 734 questionnaires distributed across different representative groups and the descriptive analysis proved that both male and female passengers were satisfied with the travel distance, travel time, travel cost and overall accessibility to the terminal. However, the differences in the satisfaction level shows that the respondents were reluctant to consider the accessibility to the terminal as very satisfying. Statistical analysis found that cost exhibited a significant effect on the overall level of satisfaction. Furthermore, group statistics of gender and satisfaction variables revealed that the mean value of male respondents for cost is higher than female attesting that cost is being more prioritized by men compared to women.

Keywords

Passengers’ satisfaction Accessibility Public transportation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Fundamental Research Grant Scheme from Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, MOHE (203/PAWAM/6071279).

References

  1. 1.
    Aditjandra PT, Cao XJ, Mulley C (2012) Understanding neighborhood design impact on travel behavior: an application of structural equations model to a British metropolitan data. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 46(1):22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azizan MA, Ibrahim FA, Ismail R, Ishak N, Syafiq M, Khadir A, Azmi S (2016) Implementation of systematic public transportation in Malaysia: development of bus rapid transit. Int Conf Transp, Civ Architect Eng 4(2):2–4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azmi DI, Ahmad P (2015) A GIS approach: determinant of neighborhood environment indices in influencing walkability between two precincts in Putrajaya. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 170:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bachok S, Ponrahono Z, Osman MM, Jaafar S, Ibrahim M, Mohamed M (2015) A preliminary study of sustainable transport indicators in Malaysia: the case study of Klang valley public transportation. Procedia Environ Sci 28:464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bukhari FZ (2012 November 16) A terminal too far. Ipoh Echo. Retrieved from http://www.ipohecho.com.my
  6. 6.
    Cao X, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL (2007) Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34(5):535–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakour V, Eluru N (2013) Examining the influence of urban form and land use on bus ridership in Montreal. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 104:875–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chowdhury S, Zhai K, Khan A (2016) The effects of access and accessibility on public transport users’ attitudes. J Public Transp 19(1):97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhingra C (2011) Measuring public transport performance, lessons for developing cities, sustainable urban transport technical document. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dobranskyte-Niskota A, Perujo A, Pregl M (2007) Indicators to assess sustainability of transport activities. European Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donovan S, Varghese J, Parfitt B, Huggins M, Mumby N (2011) Integrated transport and land use: Sylvia park as a case studyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Expressbusmalaysia (2013 February 18) Amanjaya Bus Terminal. Retrieved from http://www.expressbusmalaysia.com
  13. 13.
    Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25(2):73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibrahim MF (2003) Improvements and integration of a public transport system: the case of Singapore. Cities 20(3):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ismail R, Hafezi MH, Nor RM (2013) Passengers preference and satisfaction of public transport in Malaysia, part II: a comparative analysis of Komuter and LRT network. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 6(8):1450–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Napiah M, Yaakub N (2010) Preliminary assessment on reliability of public bus service in Kota Bharu. In: Proceeding of Malaysian Universities transportation research forum and conferences, Dec 2010, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Sullivan D, Morrison A, Shearer J (2000) Using desktop GIS for the investigation of accessibility by public transport: an isochrone approach. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ponrahono Z, Putra U (2016) Sustainable urban public transportation system in Malaysia a comparison of bus services in Kuantan. In: Proceedings of international conference on development and socio spatial inequalities 2015, pp 24–30Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ranawana H, Hewage D (2016) Factors affecting the service quality in public bus transportation in Sri Lanka. In: Proceedings of 8th international research conference, Aug 2015, pp 103–109Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Redman L, Friman M, Gärling T, Hartig T (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: a research review. Transp Policy 25:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rojo Arce M, Gonzalo Orden H, Dell’Olio L, Ibeas Portilla Á (2011) Modelling gender perception of quality in interurban bus servicesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rose G, Ampt E (2001) Travel blending: an Australian travel awareness initiative. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 6(2):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simons D, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, de Geus B, Vandelanotte C, Deforche B (2014) Why do young adults choose different transport modes? A focus group study. Transp Policy 36:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sukor NSA, Jarani N, Fisal SFM (2017) Analysis of passengers’ access and egress characteristics to the train station. Eng Herit J 1(2):01–04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    UN-Habitat (2013) Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: global report on human settlements 2013. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Unit EP (2010) 11th Malaysia plan. Economic Planning Unit, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang L, Li L, Wu B, Bai Y (2013) Private car switched to public transit by commuters, in Shanghai, China. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 96:1293–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whalen KE, Páez A, Carrasco JA (2013) Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel. J Transp Geogr 31:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yaakub N, Napiah M (2011) Public bus passenger demographic and travel characteristics a study of public bus passenger profile in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. In: 2011 national postgraduate conference. IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zakaria J, Ujang N (2015) Comfort of walking in the city center of Kuala Lumpur. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 170:642–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siti Fadhlina Muhammad Fisal
    • 1
  • Nur Sabahiah Abdul Sukor
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia

Personalised recommendations