Study of Mobility Impact Through Cable Car

Implementation in Bandung, Indonesia

Sheryta Arsallia

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dirk Heinrichs

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Science in Urban Management at
Technische Universität Berlin

Berlin, March 2016

 Statement of Authenticity of Material

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma in any institution and to the best
of my knowledge and belief, the research contains no material
previously published or written by another person, except where due
reference has been made in the text of the thesis.

Sheryta Arsallia
Berlin, March 2016
Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to thank to my family. Thanks to my father and mother,

Sumargo and Nina Migiandany. Your support and prayer to reach my goals are
never ending. I love you so much. Also thanks to my two little brothers, Destian
Lukito and Ferdian Bari Maulana, to always cheer me up with their random chats.
For my husband, Refantho Ramadhan, thank you for your patience and support
during our long distance relationship for the last one-year.

Thank you to all my friends in Urban Management for all the shared knowledge,
the friendship, and the fun we had together. Everything we shared during this one
and a half year is very meaningful to me. Especially to my closest ones, the 417-
Iceland friends: Qi Yahya, Farhan Mohd, Yan Liang, and Rashid Kairuz. Also,
my beloved Eunyoung Lee. You are my unnie, my thesis mate, and my business
mate. And of course to my UM Band mates: Hicham Sader, Evandro Holz, and
Kurt Steffens. Thanks for all the fun we had in the studio and for the nice
performances we had. We are friends forever. See you guys soon, maybe next
year in Indonesia.

Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Dirk Heinrichs for your
supervision and time in Bandung, Indonesia. I appreciate all your guidance during
the thesis period. Moreover, I am also grateful to have Dr. Bettina Hamann and
Mrs. Claudia Matthews during the whole study. Thank you very much.
 ABSTRACT

Bandung is the capital of West Java Province as well as the third largest city in
Indonesia by population, with a growth rate of 1.26% in the year 2012. In
Indonesia the increasing trend of population is also followed by the increasing
trend of private vehicle ownership. From 2002 to 2006 it was noted that the
growth rate of private car and motorcycle are 12% and 16% per year. Bandung
is a private vehicle oriented city like all other cities in Indonesia, the high
percentage of modal split is given to the private vehicle use. Bandung has
crowded roads every day and even worst in the weekend. The road traffic in
weekend can be said worse than weekday, due to the number of tourist.
Angkot, the most used public transportation mode in Bandung, is less
interesting than private vehicle as proven from the modal split of 27% for
public transport and 59% for private vehicle. In fact, due to the hilly
topography, road vehicles need to take detours to go mobile, which might turn
to be inefficient. Thus, there is a plan to implement cable car as an option for
public transport mode in Bandung. Main objective of this study is to see the
mobility impact of people who lived surround to one of the future cable car
station by the implementation of cable car system and the factors that influence
the use of cable car on weekdays and weekends. The study object consists of
two housing areas, which has different level of economy. Data of the study is
mainly obtained through trip diary survey. The study analysis is done by
several statistical methods, which are descriptive statistics and logistic
regression. In the end, it is found that there are different level of ridership and
factors that influences the use of cable car on the weekdays and weekends.
Moreover, there are different mobility impacts on people from the two different
level of income by the cable car implementation.

Keywords: urban cable car, trip diary, ridership, influencing factors, mobility
behavior

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1 STUDY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives and Goals .............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Expected Outcome ................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 4
1.4.1 Spatial Study Area ........................................................................................ 4
1.4.2 Study Focus .................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Study Framework.................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Document Structure ............................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 11

2.1 Mode Choice in the 4-Step Transportation Forecasting Model ........................... 11
2.2 Factors Influences People’s Mode Choice ........................................................... 11
2.3 Private Vehicle Ownership and People’s Mode Choice ....................................... 12
2.4 Transportation Mode Service Level and People’s Mode Choice ........................ 13
2.5 Qualitative Influences and People’s Mode Choice ............................................... 15
2.6 Urban Cable Car Practices from Medellin .......................................................... 16
2.7 Relevancy Between the Study and Literature ..................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 20

3.1 Methods Background ............................................................................................ 20
3.2 Methods of Data Collecting .................................................................................. 22
3.2.1. Delineation of Study Area ........................................................................... 22
3.2.2. Primary and Secondary Data Survey ......................................................... 25
3.3 Methods of the Questionnaire, Sampling, and Distributing ................................. 27

ii
 3.3.1. Questionnaire Method ................................................................................. 27
3.3.2. Sampling Methods ...................................................................................... 28
3.3.3. Distribution Methods ................................................................................ 29
3.4 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................ 30
3.4.1. Respondent Profile and Travel Diary Analysis ........................................... 33
3.4.2. Perception on Cable Car Analysis .............................................................. 34
3.4.3. Predictor Variables on Cable Car Ridership .............................................. 35

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF MOBILITY IMPACT ........................................... 37

4.1 Respondent’s Profile ............................................................................................ 37
4.2 Respondent’s Trip Diary....................................................................................... 43
4.3 Compatibility Between Trip Destination and Cable Car Route Plan .................. 59
4.4 Preferences and Perception Towards Cable Car Services ................................... 61
4.5 Factors Influencing Cable Car Ridership ............................................................. 67
4.5.1. Variables Influence the Cable Car Weekday Ridership .............................. 68
4.5.2. Variables Influence the Cable Car Weekend Ridership .............................. 76
4.6 Factors Influencing Cable Car Ridership at Two Housing Areas ....................... 83

CHAPTER 5 DATA INTERPRETATION ............................................................ 88

5.1 People’s Characteristics and Travel Pattern ........................................................ 88
5.2 People’s Trip and Cable Car ................................................................................. 91
5.3 Variables Predict the Use of Cable Car ............................................................... 94
5.4 Cable Car Ridership and Influencing Factors at Two Housing Areas.................. 96

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................................ 98

6.1 Conclussions ......................................................................................................... 98
6.2 Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 102

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................i
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... v

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Road Access To and From Dago Terminal ................................................ 2

Figure 1.2 Study Area Focus in Bandung City Map .................................................... 4
Figure 1.3 Focus Study Area: Radius 300 meters from Dago Terminal ..................... 5
Figure 1.4 Study Framework ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.1 Cable Car Route Plan ............................................................................... 23
Figure 3.2 Non-kampong Area (Upper) and Kampong Area (Below) ....................... 24
Figure 3.3 Overview of Analysis Method ................................................................. 32
Figure 4.1 Gender Profile .......................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.2 Age Profile ............................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.3 Last Education Level Profile ..................................................................... 39
Figure 4.4 Occupation Profile .................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.5 Household Average Monthly Salaries ...................................................... 40
Figure 4.6 Household Private Vehicle Ownership .................................................... 41
Figure 4.7 Last Time Use of Public Transportation Modes ...................................... 42
Figure 4.8 of Walking Time to Dago Cable Car Station ........................................... 42
Figure 4.9 Weekday (left) and Weekend (right) Modal Split ..................................... 45
Figure 4.10 Trip Companion on Weekday and Weekend ......................................... 46
Figure 4.11 Trip Purpose Weekday and Weekend .................................................... 47
Figure 4.12 Trip Purpose by Transportation Modes on Weekday .............................. 48
Figure 4.13 Trip Purpose by Transportation Modes on Weekend ............................. 48
Figure 4.14 Trip Time Distribution on Weekday and Weekend ............................... 50
Figure 4.15 Trip Time Distribution by Transportation Modes on Weekday ............. 51
Figure 4.16 Trip Time Distribution per Trip Purposes on Weekday ......................... 51
Figure 4.17 Trip Time Distribution per Transportation Modes on Weekend ............ 52
Figure 4.18 Trip Time Distribution per Trip Purposes on Weekend .......................... 52
Figure 4.19 Trip Distance on Weekday and Weekend ............................................... 54
Figure 4.20 Trip Distance by Transportation Modes on Weekday ............................ 55
Figure 4.21 Trip Distance by Trip Purposes on Weekday ......................................... 56
Figure 4.22 Trip Distance per Transportation Modes on Weekend .......................... 57

iv
Figure 4.23 Trip Distance per Trip Purposes on Weekend ........................................ 58
Figure 4.24 Starting and Ending Transportation Mode ............................................. 59
Figure 4.25 Compatibility Between Trip Destination and Cable Car Short Term
and Long Term Route Plan on Weekday and Weekend ......................... 60
Figure 4.26 Willingness to Ride Cable Car on Weekday and Weekend ................... 62
Figure 4.27 Cable Car Ridership on Weekday and Weekend of People from Non-
kampong and Kampong Area .................................................................. 83
Figure 4.28 Compatibility Between Cable Car Route and Trip Destination of
People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area .................................... 84
Figure 4.29 Household Private Vehicle Ownership of People from Non-kampong
and Kampong Area .................................................................................. 85
Figure 4.30 Walking Duration from home to Dago Terminal of People from Non-
kampong and Kampong Area .................................................................. 86
Figure 4.31 Gender of People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area ................... 86
Figure 4.32 Age of People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area ......................... 87

v
 LIST OF TABLE

Table 3.1 Overview of Methodology ......................................................................... 21

Table 4.1 Number of Trip on Weekend and Weekday ............................................... 44
Table 4.2 The Reason of Willingness to Ride Cable Car on Weekdays .................... 62
Table 4.3 The Reason of Willingness to Ride Cable Car on Weekends ................... 64
Table 4.4 Comparison Between Cable Car and People’ Current Transportation
Mode Based on Variables .......................................................................... 65
Table 4.5 People’s Priority in Selecting Transportation Modes ................................. 66
Table 4.6 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekday Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression: Forward Stepwise ......................................... 69
Table 4.7 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekday Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression: Beginning Block ........................................... 70
Table 4.8 SPSS Output on Model Summary for Weekday Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression ........................................................................ 70
Table 4.9 SPSS Output on Homer and Lemeshow Test for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression ....................................................... 71
Table 4.10 SPSS Output on Classification Table for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression........................................................ 72
Table 4.11 SPSS Output on Variables in the Equation for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression........................................................ 73
Table 4.12 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekend Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression: Stepwise........................................................ 77
Table 4.13 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekend Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression: Beginning Block ........................................... 78
Table 4.14 SPSS Output on Model Summary for Weekend Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression ........................................................................ 78
Table 4.15 SPSS Output on Homer and Lemeshow Test for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression ....................................................... 79
Table 4.16 SPSS Output on Classification Table for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression........................................................ 80

vi
Table 4.17 SPSS Output on Variables in the Equation for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression........................................................ 81

vii
 CHAPTER 1
STUDY BACKGROUND

1.1 Background
There is a plan to implement a cable car program as a mode of public transport
in Bandung. The planned routes will cover almost all over the city, not only in
the northern area where the hilly topography is. However, the earlier phase of
implementation will only cover the northern area of the railway, which is
more difficult to navigate than the south. One of the stations, which will be
implemented on the early implementation phase, is to be called Dago
Terminal, and this terminal will be the focus area of this study. This study
aims to analyze the mobility impact of the implementation of this new public
transportation mode to the people who live in the area surrounding Dago
Terminal. In addition, it will also aim to discern the factors that could
encourage and discourage the use of cable car on weekday and weekend by
these people. Due to the area’s two different housing areas, which are the
urban kampong and the non-kampong area, the study will also describe the
demographics of these two different areas. This idea will show how do
different demographics influence the cable car ridership. In general, the
planned cable car routes might contribute to addressing the traffic jam
problems, but first the potential demand needs to be known through looking at
people’s mobility pattern and perception of cable car services, as well as
people’s willingness to shift their mobility modes to cable car.

Bandung is the capital of West Java Province as well as the third largest city
in Indonesia by population. The city’s population reached 2,470,802 in 2014,
with a population density of 15,713 people per square kilometer (Bandung
Statistics Bureau, 2015). The city contains 657,769 households, with an
average of 3.38 persons per household (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2015).

1
 Bandung has an area of 167.31 square kilometer, and sits 791 meters above
sea level (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2015). The highest area is in the north
at 899 meters and the lowest point is in the south, which is around 400 meter
above sea level (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2015). The land in the south of
Bandung is relatively flat, while the north part is mountainous.

This increasing trend of population has been followed by an increasing trend

of private vehicle ownership. In Bandung in 2013, there are 318,598 cars and
around 1,030,729 motorcycles (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2015). From 2002
to 2006 it was noted that the growth rate of private car and motorcycle were
12% and 16% per year, respectively (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2006 cited
from Utami, 2008). The population growth rate was in average of 1.5% from
2002 to 2006. Bandung has crowded roads every day, which are worse in the
weekend due to the number of tourists. The main roads in Bandung are
generally narrow, with two effective lanes per direction. Moreover, these
roads have low level of service. Bandung is a private vehicle oriented city
like all other cities in Indonesia, and the high percentage of mode share is
given to the private vehicle use.

Figure 1.1 Road Access To and From Dago Terminal

The main public transport mode inside the city of Bandung is by Angkot, a
minivan with a maximum occupancy of 14 persons. In 2014, there were 5,521

2
 Angkot vehicles on the streets, which is far less than number of private
vehicles. Moreover, it can be said that transportation via Angkot is less
desirable than via private vehicle as proven from the modal split of 27% for
public transport and 59% for private vehicles. In addition, due to the hilly
topography, road vehicles need to follow the meandering roads to go mobile,
which might turn to be inefficient. Thus, considering the hilly topography and
uncertain time of journey, Angkot turns to be ineffective. The hilly land
located in the northern area is mainly used as location of houses, apartments,
and commercial uses (e.g. restaurants, hotels, education facilities). Thus, high
traffic volume is being produce from, to, and at the hilly northern area not
only in the weekday, but also weekend.

1.2 Objectives and Goals
The main objective of this study is to answer the questions, ‘what would be
the mobility preference of people who live around Dago Terminal by the
implementation of cable car system?’ and ‘what would be the factors that
influence the use of cable cars on the weekday and weekend by these
people?’ In order to answer these questions, several research objectives need
to be met, summarized by these questions:
a. What are the demographics and travel habits of people who live around
Dago Terminal?
b. How compatible is the cable car route to common trip destinations?
c. What is people’s perception of cable car services in comparison to their
current mode of transport?
d. What are the characteristics of people who are willing and not willing to
ride the cable car on weekdays and weekends?

1.3 Expected Outcome

This study’s expected outcome is to discern what impacts that the cable car
would have on people’s mobility in Bandung. The target of this study is the
people who conduct their daily activities in Bandung and the Government of

3
 Bandung. To the people, this study will aim to show how the planned cable
car routes can be compatible with their daily mobility pattern. To the
government, this study will aim to show people’s behavior and perception
towards the cable car and the characteristics of people who are willing or
unwilling to ride the cable car. In the end, by demonstrating how to maximize
effective adoption of the cable car routes, this study will be able to support
the Bandung cable car plan to be a useful means of transport for its people.

1.4 Study Area

1.4.1 Spatial Study Area
Bandung is divided into six development areas, 26 districts, and 139
sub-districts. Focus area of this study is located in the northern part of
Bandung, which has higher topography in comparison to the southern
part. The study is located at Cibeunying Development Area, Coblong
District, and Dago Sub-District. Coblong District has an area of 743.3
hectare, while Dago Sub-District has an area of 258.0 hectare (Bandung
Statistics Bureau, 2015). Dago is the largest sub-district in the Coblong
District. Moreover, it has a population number of 39,565 people, which
is also the biggest number in comparison to the other sub-district in
Coblong District (Bandung Statistics Bureau, 2015).

Figure 1.2 Study Area Focus in Bandung City Map

Source: self-edited from indotravelers and Dedering, 2016.

4
 100 meters

200 meters

300 meters

Figure 1.3 Focus Study Area: Radius 300 meters from Dago Terminal
Source: Google Maps (2016). Self-Edited Infographic. (Physical Map).

As stated above, Dago Terminal area is the main focus of this study.
This is a terminal being built for the Angkot vehicle, the main method
of public transportation in Bandung. This location will be particularly
valuable to study because, in the cable car construction plan, one of the
first stations will be located here. Moreover, houses surround this area,
and thus, people who are living in this area will be the fixed potential
users of the cable car from the Dago Terminal Station. The study area
will cover 300 meters radius from the Dago Terminal (see Figure 1.3), a
radius that was determined according to average walking distance to
public transit. This part will be explained more on the next chapter.

1.4.2 Study Focus

Beyond the spatial focus area above, the discussion in this study will
focus on several aspects. This study will not cover all aspects in the
process of planning and implementing the cable car or such aspects as
institutional cooperation, government policies, technical construction,
and business model. This study will be focused on:

5
 1. Respondent profile and travel diary information
A travel diary enables people to explain in detail their trips each
day, from their first trip to their last trip. The travel diary will
enable this study to obtain the Origin Destination (OD) per person
per trip. Moreover, each person may have one to four trips per day,
and each of these will be detailed in the travel diary. Beyond the
OD, other travel details regarding each trip will be also collected,
such as purpose of the trip, trip companion, transportation modes
used, longest transportation mode used, trip starting time, trip
arrival time, trip frequency, and others. Moreover, the profile of
each respondent will be also gathered, such as age, gender,
occupation, level of education, household average monthly salary,
household private vehicle ownership, main method of
transportation, last time they used public transportation modes,
walking time from home to public transportation points, and
mobility limitations. Furthermore, the travel diary analysis will
separate people’s trips on weekdays and weekends. The analysis
will correlate all of the data gathered from the trip diary. Thus,
these data will be used as the basis to analyze the influencing
factors of cable car ridership.

2. Travel destination compatibility with cable car routes

To know how compatible the cable car route is to people’s travel
patterns, it is essential to do an analysis on each respondent’s trip
destination in light of the cable car route. Thus, it can be seen how
many potential trips would need to be done by the cable car. Output
of the analysis will show how many trips will be fit within the first-
phase and following-phase cable car routes, how many trips will
require transfer after taking the cable car’s first-phase and
following-phase routes, and how many trips do not fit at all with
the cable car routes. The trips analyzed will be the trips on both
weekdays and weekends.

6
 3. People’s perception of transportation via cable car
Through questionnaire, people will be given the overview of how
the cable car works as a public transportation, and what the cable
car plan is in Bandung. After reading this, respondents will be
asked about their opinion regarding whether the cable car route
could support their travel pattern or not. Moreover, their perception
about the cable car’s major advantage and disadvantages in
comparison to their current mode of transport will be collected,
based on several factors, which are:

• faster,
• reach the destination better,
• better access to the destination,
• the car is more comfortable,
• allows less mode interchanges,
• allows shorter walking distance,
• comfortable station,
• more accessible station,
• availability of parking spaces in the station,
• safer,
• cheaper,
• no pollution,
• no need to look for parking space on the destination,
• and better view.

Moreover, they will also be asked to rank every travel component

above based on its level of importance for them.

4. People’s willingness to shift to cable car

To conclude the questionnaire for people’s preference on cable
cars, there will be a final section asking about people’s willingness
to shift from their current transportation modes to cable car.
People’s willingness to ride, both on weekdays and weekends, will
be the dependent variable, while these following factors will be the
independent variables:

7
 • age,
• gender,
• walking duration from home to Dago Terminal,
• household average monthly salary,
• household private vehicle ownership,
• outbound trip destination compatibility with cable car route,
• trip purpose,
• trip length,
• number of trips per day,
• frequency they used public transportation modes,
• occupation,
• and transportation mode used for outbound trip.

The analysis will be done by binary logistic regression, with the

two categories of being willing or not willing to take the cable car.
Moreover, correlation between the dependent variable with the
most significantly correlated independent variables will be
investigated to obtain more information. The correlation analysis is
done by three types of correlation test, which are Chi-Square Test,
Kruskal-Wallis Test, and Spearman Rho Test on SPSS. Some of
the correlations that will be examined are: the correlation between
weekend or weekday cable car ridership with age, gender,
outbound trip destination compatibility with cable car route,
household private vehicle ownership, and walking time from home
to Dago Terminal.

1.5. Study Framework

The study framework will explain about how the study is being conducted. It
will visualize the background, objective, and analysis of the study. The study
framework can be seen on the following figure.

8
 Traffic congestion Bandung’s hilly
problem in Bandung topography

Identifying people’s profile and

trip diary who live in walking
distance from cable car station
Existing public transportation modes is
not always a better answer in
comparison to private vehicle The use of cable car by these
Identifying on how compatible is
people; and what are the most
the cable car route with people’s influencing variables to their
trip destination ridership on weekday
The use of private vehicle is more than 2
times than the public transportation
modes
Identifying people’s perception
The use of cable car by these
on cable car in comparison to
their current transportation people; and what are the most
mode influencing variables to their
Cable Car plan in Bandung, which
ridership on weekend
envision answering the congestion
problem, especially on weekend
Identifying people’s willingness
to take the cable car on weekday
and weekend
Mobility effect on people who live in
walking distance from the cable car
station, in weekday and weekend

Figure 1.4 Study Framework

9
1.6. Document Structure
This study is divided into six chapters:
Chapter 1: Study Background
This chapter explains the background, objective and goals, expected outcome,
study area, study framework, and document structure.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter explains theories, such as mobility behavior, which are related to
the study. Mobility behavior discerns how people make decisions regarding
mobility based on their destination, means of transport, and other factors.
This chapter will also explore the theory of how people become willing to
shift to a new means of transport.
Chapter 3: Methodologies
This chapter explains the reason of the methodology used in this study and
the method of data collection and analysis.
Chapter 4: Analysis
This chapter analyzes the theoretical and methodological data in order to
answer the goals and objective of the study. Three types of analysis are done:
respondent profile and travel diary analysis, analysis of respondent
preferences on cable cars, and predictor variables on cable car ridership.
Chapter 5: Data Interpretation
This chapter critically discusses the conclusions drawn by the three types of
analysis in the previous chapter.
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation
This chapter explains the conclusion and recommendation of the study.

10
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Mode Choice in the 4-Step Transportation Forecasting Model

There are four steps in the transportation-forecasting model (Tamin, 2000).
These four steps, in order, are: trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice
analysis, and route assignment. Trip generation explains the purpose and
frequency of trips, which are normally analyzed day by day. Trip
generations are commonly classified as home-based work (HBW), home-
based shop (HBS), home-based other (HBO), non-home based (NHB). Trip
distribution's zonal interchange analysis yields a set of origin destination
tables that tells where the trips will be made. Since it is the step after trip
generation, this analysis will explain, for example, where the destination of
a person’s HBS trip is. Mode choice analysis is done to determine
what mode of transport will be used. For example, an HBS trip at ABC
Street is done by car. The final step of the model, the route assignment, is an
analysis to determine which route the user took to do the aforementioned
HBS trip at the ABC Street. From the whole steps of modeling, mode
choice can be said to be the most important part of transportation planning
because the purpose of many transportation policies is to encourage the use
of public transportation (Setiawan, Suranto, and Priambodo, 2003). As such,
the literature review will mostly talk about mode choice, specifically
examining the reason behind people’s choice of transportation method, and
the way in which this is related with their travel behavior.

2.2. Factors Influences People Mode Choice

Transportation is one of the most important human needs. There are several
well-established factors that influence how people choose their mode of
transportation (Tamin, 2000), which are:

11
 1. Traveler’s characteristics, such as:
a. Social and economy background.
b. Access to or ownership of a private vehicle.
c. Availability of driving license.
d. Household members.
2. Trip characteristics, such as:
a. Trip destination.
b. Trip distance.
c. Time of trip.
3. Characteristics of available transportation modes, especially service
quality, such as:
a. Quantitative factors: trip duration (waiting time, walking time, and
other factors added together), trip fare, availability of parking space,
etc.
b. Qualitative factors: comfort, ease, reliability, safety, etc.

To obtain these data there are many questions must be asked. These
questions can be answered descriptively by a travel diary survey. The
commonly asked travel behavior questions are as follows:
• How many trips do people make?
• Where do they go?
• What mode do they take?
• Who accompanies whom?
• When is the trip made?
• What advantages and disadvantages do they find from their current
mode of transport?
• Why do they choose the current transportation mode over others?

2.3. Private Vehicle Ownership and People’s Mode Choice

In general, a private car is the most attractive mode of transport due
primarily to convenience, speed, comfort, and individual freedom (Anable,

12
 2005; Hagman, 2003; Jensen, 1999; cited in Beirao and Cabral, 2007).
However, vehicle ownership in Southeast Asia is unique because, along
with the private cars, there are a massive number of motorcycles (Prabnasak
and Taylor, 2008). In recent times, motorcycle ownership has increased
rapidly in many cities in developing Asian countries. For example, the
motorcycle average annual growth rate is approximately 11% in Bali,
Indonesia (Wedagama and Dissayake, 2009), and 14% in Hanoi City,
Vietnam (Tuan and Shimizu, 2005). In most Indonesian cities, due to the
high ownership of private vehicles, especially motorcycles, this is the
dominant mode of transportation preferred for trips. For example, in Jakarta,
in 2010 the modal split was divided into 20% car use, 53% motorcycle use,
and 27% public transportation (Jabodetabek Urban Transport Policy
Integration, 2010 cited in Japan International Corporation Agency, 2012).

Since the ownership of motorcycles and cars is growing so tremendously, it

is a rare case to see the modal split of public transport holding a bigger
proportion than the use of private vehicle. Thus, public transport systems
need to adjust their services to the trip characteristics required by consumers
in order to become more attractive and influence a modal shift
(STIMULUS, 1999 cited in Beirao and Cabral, 2007). In order to plan
attractive public transportation, it is essential to research people’s travel
behavior. Travel behavior is the study of the ways people navigate space, and
how they choose to move about.. Understanding travel behavior and the
reasons that people choose one transportation mode over another is an
important issue in transportation planning. However, travel behavior is
complex, because for each journey, people have the choice between
different transport modes, each of which has specific characteristics,
advantages, and disadvantages (Beirao and Cabral, 2007).

2.4. Transport Mode Service Level and People’s Mode Choice

In transportation planning, service quality is perceived as an important

13
 determinant of users’ travel demand (Prioni and Hensher, 2000 cited in
Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Walking distance is also an important factor for
people when choosing to take public transportation. Thus, in this study,
walking distance is used as one of the influencing factors to determine the
focus study area. Daniels and Mulley (2013) stated that walking distance is
important for two primary reasons: First, walking is the primary access
mode for trips from home to public transport and second, walking distance
has a significant impact on public transport use. Average walking distances
are typically longer to access rail services than to access buses (Daniels and
Mulley, 2013). Moreover, the NSW Ministry of Transportation (2013)
stated in the service planning guidelines for Sydney, Australia that 90% of
households should be within 400 meters of a rail line and/or bus route
during the day and within 800 meters at nighttime. This distance is
measured as a straight-line, not road length or walking distance. Likewise,
Daniels and Mulley (2013) found that Vancouver uses 400 meters (Greater
Vancouver Transport Authority, 2004), Helsinki uses 300 meters (HKL,
2008), while Perth uses 500 meters (Public Transport Authority, 2003).
Moreover, Jarrett (2011) stated that there is no definitive authority for a
400m standard as opposed to 300 meters or 500 meters or even 600
meters. Furthermore, Levine & Bartlett (1984) found that people in
Indonesia have slowest walking speed in comparison to people from Japan,
England, United States, Italy, and Taiwan, respectively. As walking speed
can influences the walking duration and walking distance, this study choose
to cover a distance of the short average walking distance from Dago
Terminal. Thus, for the purposes of this research, the radius of 300 meters is
used to determine the study area.

In Indonesian cities, data show that the top-ranked transportation modes

used by university students to go to the university in order are: motorcycle,
walking or cycling, public transportation, and car. Motorcycle is chosen
highest with the reasons of efficiency, able to navigate traffic effectively,

14
 cost-effective, flexibility, quick, and comfort. However, respondents to the
study stated that public transportation could be an ideal mode of transport to
go to the university, if it shows improvements in cleanliness, comfort,
security and speed (Trianisari, Ekasari, and Kusuma, 2014). As many of
48% students stated that motorcycle is the most ideal mode of transport to
be used to the university, while only 2% of the students choose car as an
ideal mode of transport (Trianisari, Ekasari, and Kusuma, 2014).

Moreover, another research study shows that in addition to travel times and
costs, socio-economic information of the respondent and perceptions of
transportation choices can have a significant impact on mode choice
(Glerum, Atasoy, Monticone, and Bierlaire, 2011). This is the case for the
latent variable of a positive perception of comfort in public transport. This
research shows that more percentages of people are willing to shift from
private vehicle to public transport when the service quality and comfort
have been improved. Considering public transport, both operators and
authorities need to understand how consumers evaluate the quality of the
service. However, consumer evaluation of quality is an abstract and elusive
concept to measure (Parasuraman et al., 1985 cited in Beirao and Cabral,
2007), complicating the development of valid and accurate constructs of
service quality. These constructs deal with abstract and intangible attributes,
such as safety and comfort, which are not easily measured.

2.5. Qualitative Influences and People’s Mode Choice

Even though the service quality of a means of transport strongly influences
people’s mode choice, its ranking is not directly related to the objective
service level, instead, it is also influenced by psychological factors (Fujii
and Kitamura, 2003 cited in Beirao and Cabral, 2007). These psychological
factors include perceptions, attitudes and habits (Ajzen, 1991; Fujii and
Kitamura, 2003 cited in Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Following, changing the
psychological factors may also change travel mode choice, even if the level

15
 of service remains the same (Fujii and Kitamura, 2003 cited in Beirao and
Cabral, 2007). According to this, Hagman (2003) found that although
respondents seem to agree that car use in general ought to be reduced due to
environmental issues, they do not think of reducing their own car use
(Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Moreover, in Asia, people show a great
preference for private vehicles, even though many other transport options
are available in their transport systems (ADB, 2009 cited in Dissanayake
and Morikawa, 2010). One of the reasons might be that vehicle ownership is
often regarded as a status symbol (Goodwin, 1997 cited in Dissanayake and
Morikawa, 2010).

Moreover, a research has shown that reliability of scheduled stops is a

decisive factor (Bates et al., 2001; Edvardsson, 1998; Hensher et al., 2003;
König, 2002 cited in Beirao and Cabral, 2007). The problem is not so much
having to wait, but the uncertainty of not knowing when the transport will
arrive (König, 2002). Likewise, attributes like frequency (Hensher et al.,
2003) and comfort (Friman and Gärling, 2001; Hensher et al., 2003) are also
highly valued by consumers, being key elements of consumer satisfaction
(Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Futhermore, another research demonstrates that
it is not expected that all car users, in general, will change from driving a
car to using public transport exclusively due to improvements in the public
transport system (Jensen, 1999 cited in Beraio and Cabral, 2007). But the
intention to switch modes, as expressed by car users and occasional public
transport users, shows that improving the image and levels of service being
offered can attract potential users to the public transport service. Thus, it is
necessary to understands people’s needs and expectations and acknowledge
that different people have different needs and are motivated by different
factors (Beirao and Cabral, 2007).

2.6. Urban Cable Car Practices from Medellin

The success of cable car operations in Medellin, Colombia, proves that an

16
 optional mass passenger transit system can be feasible in mountainous
areas. Thus, it is a good case to study and compare to Bandung. In Medellin,
for people who are the target audience of this cable car, conventional buses
and walking were the main transportation mode options before the
implementation of the cable car. To them, the influencing factor that may
encourage or discourage them to take the cable car is the final destination,
cost, travel time, reliability, access to information, and safety and security
(Heinrichs and Bernet, 2014). Based on Heinrichs and Bernet (2014), the
residents’ consideration of travel time includes various aspects: the
operation’s hours of service, how fast the means of transportation is and
how this differs across a day, and how long it takes to get to the station or
point of departure from the individual’s home. The advantages of cable car
in comparison to other modes, in terms of waiting time, are that the cable
car is a continuous conveyor, meaning that there is no waiting time for the
vehicle to arrive but the cabins arrive and leave constantly. Thus, people
feel that the waiting time is less, because they can see the cable car moving
all the time (Heinrichs and Bernet, 2014). However, access time to the
stations is an issue because of the hilly topography. From the interview
conducted by the researchers, the maximum time that people are willing to
spend walking to the nearest station is about 10 to 15 minutes (Heinrichs
and Bernet, 2014). For residents who live further than 15 minutes away
from the cable car stations, the conventional buses that pass closer to their
dwelling are often more convenient than the cable car. However, passengers
depend heavily on timetable information to plan and make trips in the most
cost- and time-saving, safe, and comfortable way. From this point of view,
cable car has more advantages, since the conventional buses have no fixed
frequency.

2.7. Relevancy Between the Study and Literature

This study aims to see the impact on people’s mobility through cable car
system implementation in Bandung. In more detailed explanation, the

17
 “impact” that will be seen is the people’s willingness to ride. Along with
this, the reasons behind cable car ridership, perception on cable car service,
and priority of categories in selecting a mode of transport will also be
analyzed. To see the willingness to ride, we must also see on how people
choice their mode of transport. As explained before, that people’s mode
choice is complex. This complexity is because the mode choice can be
influenced by traveller’s characteristics, trip characteristics, and
transportation mode service quality, which are divided into the quantitative
and qualitative factors.

Private vehicle ownership has a significant influence to modal split. In

Indonesian cities, it is known that the growth of private vehicle ownership,
especially motorcycles, increases the share of motorcycle uses into the
modal share. Service level of a transportation mode also holds an important
role to the mode choice. Looking at the quantitative factors of the service
level, which is trip duration, cable car has the advantages. Firstly, the road
traffic congestion will not affect on the cable car trip duration from one
station to another. Secondly, cable car moves continuously, so there is no
waiting time for the vehicle to arrive. Thus, the only “time” influence is the
access to and from the cable car station. Therefore, it is important to see the
walking duration. From the case in Medellìn, people are willing to spend
walking for maximum of 10 to 15 minutes (Heinrichs and Bernet, 2014).
Moreover, as a research found that people in Indonesia has slow walking
speed (Levine and Bartlett, 1984), and an average distance from home to
public transit is between 300 to 600 meters in several countries, so this
study covers an area of 300 meters radius from Dago Terminal. Other than
the quantitative factors of service level, the qualitative factors also have a
great influence to the mode choice. These factors include ease, comfort,
reliability, safety, etc. Thus, in the questionnaire, both quantitative and
qualitative service quality are included to see people’s perception on cable
car.

18
 Thus, this study will explain the main factors that influence cable car
ridership. The factors of: traveller’s characteristics, trip characteristics, and
transportation mode service level, will be analyzed by the use of binary
logistic regression. The output will show the strongest factors that influence
the mode choice of “willing” or “not willing” to take the cable car.
Moreover, the reason behind the cable car ridership will be asked.
Furthermore, to analyze more in depth reason of the cable car ridership, this
study will take a look on people’s perspectives towards cable car based on
the quantitative and qualitative factors. In addition, people’s priority in
selecting a mode of transportation will be collected, based on the same
factors. Thus, in the end it is possible to compare people priority factors
with the cable car perception factors. From this comparison, it is possible to
see how do the cable car meet people’s factors on choosing a mode of
transport.

19
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

3.1. Methods Background

In order to reach the objectives and goals of this study, there are several data
collection and data analysis methods that will be used. The data analysis
method used in this paper can be described as a quantitative social science
methodology. Since the main objectives of this study is to look at the
mobility impacts of the implementation of the cable car system in Bandung
and the factors that influence the cable car ridership, it means that the main
output of this study will describe factors that influence people’s willingness
to ride the cable car, and the ridership itself. Thus, this kind of data can be
obtained by the use of statistical analysis. In this study, the main statistical
analysis used is binary logistic regression, with supporting data from
frequency and probability distributions. The regression analysis will be done
to determine the factors that influence people in taking or not taking the
cable car on weekday and weekend. Specifically for the weekend model, a
correlation analysis will be done before jumping into the binary logistic
regression analysis. In tandem, the frequency and probability distribution
will show the trend of people’s demographics, trip diaries, reasons given for
taking or not taking the cable car, perception of cable car in comparison to
their current means of transport, and priority ranking of the various means
of transportation.

The spatial area of this study is focused to the area of one of the planned
cable car stations – the Dago station. This is because implementation of a
new city infrastructure system will take some time, and also because
people’s demographics and trip diaries may change after several years.
Moreover, since such projects are normally constructed in several phases, it

20
 is essential to focus on the cable car routes, which will be built as the first
phase of the implementation. Based on the Cable Car Feasibility Study
Report (LPPM, 2014), Dago Terminal Station is assumed to be one of the
first cable car stations to be built during this phase. In this study, Dago
Terminal is chosen over other stations because it is the only station to be
built during the first phase that is surrounded by dwellings whose
inhabitants are the primary targets for using the cable car. Moreover, this
station is also located at the highest elevation compared to other first phase
stations. As a lesson learned from other urban cable car systems, cable car is
normally used to transport people from or to higher land. Thus, due to these
reasons, the spatial area of this study needed to be focused into one small
area.

The following table summarizes the general methodology of the study. The
table explains the data sources, analyses, and data output that will be
conducted in order to reach the goals.

Table 3.1 Overview of Methodology

No. Study Focus Data Output Analysis Data Source

Respondent profile Frequency
Questionnaire
People’s and trip diary distribution
data on
1 demographics Correlation between
Probability respondent profile
and trip diaries respondent profile
distribution and trip diary
and trip diary
Compatibility of Questionnaire
Suitability of cable
people’s travel Frequency data on trip diary
2 car route to people’s
pattern with distribution and cable car
trip destination
cable car route preferences
People’s Comparison of
perception on factors between cable Frequency
cable car car and current mode distribution
Questionnaire
services in of transport
3 data on cable car
comparison to
Priority of factors on preferences
their current Frequency
choosing means of
mode of distribution
transport
transport

21
 Questionnaire
People’s willingness Frequency
Characteristics data on cable car
to ride on cable car distribution
of people who preferences
are willing and Questionnaire
Correlation
4 not willing to Factors that data on
analysis
ride the cable encourage and respondent
and binary
car on weekday discourage the use of profile, trip diary,
logistic
and weekend cable car and cable car
regression
preferences

3.2. Methods of Data Collecting

This section will explain the methods for conducting the data collection for
this study, starting from delineating the study area, up until the collection of
secondary and primary data.

3.2.1. Delineation of Study Area

The study area is focused to the Dago Terminal, which is planned to
be one of the first locations where a cable car station will be built.
The Dago Terminal will serve the blue route (see Figure 3.1). The
Dago Terminal, located at the upper part of Dago, is currently used
as a terminal for Angkot. Dago is a sub-district in, Bandung, West
Java, Indonesia. It covers H. Djuanda Street and the surrounding
area. The lower Dago area, which is the southern part, is one of the
central commercial districts of Bandung. This area is occupied by
shops, shopping malls, cafés, boutiques, restaurants, and other
entertainment centers. The upper area, which is the northern part, is
occupied more by houses and several newly built apartments.
Moreover, one of the best universities in Indonesia, Bandung
Institute of Technology is also located in this sub-district, with a city
zoo next to it. A major private hospital is also located near to them.
In addition, houses, apartments, and many restaurants occupy the
extreme northern parts of Dago.

22


Interchange

Trase 1 (Merah) 12.79 km

Trase 2 (Biru) 13.75 km

Trase 3 (Hijau) 13.78 km

Total 40.32 km

Figure 3.1 Cable Car Bandung Route Plan

Interchange

Trase 1 (Merah) Source:

12.79 km LPPM ITB, 2014
Trase 2 (Biru) 13.75 km
This map highlights several reasons that Dago Terminal is chosen as
Trase 3 (Hijau) 13.78 km

the focused
Totalstudy area.
40.32 Firstly,
km the blue route is recommended to be
the first route to be built, in terms of the economy point of view
(LPPM ITB, 2014). Secondly, the route from Dago Terminal down
to the City Council does not cross any restricted areas that could
complicate the implementation process, including dwelling or green
area (LPPM ITB, 2014). Thirdly, the four-planned cable car stations
from Dago Terminal, Dago Intersection, PDAM, and City Council
are located on publicly owned land. Thus, the second and the third
reasons may allow the part of blue route from Dago Terminal to City
Council to be the fastest route implemented due to having few
obstacles. Additionally, it is the best option from an economic point

23
 of view, as the Net Present Value (NPV), Interval Rate of Return
(IRR), and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the Blue Line obtains the
highest value in comparison to other routes. As stated above, Dago
Terminal has been chosen among the other three stations on the
route because dwellings surround this terminal, meaning the people
who live there are the people who will need transportation every day.
Thus, they will have the option to use the cable car from Dago
Terminal for both their weekday and weekend mobility. The specific
study area is 300 meters radius from the Dago Terminal, because, as
mentioned in the literature review on previous chapter, this distance
is the maximum distance for people to be willing to take the public
transit. Moreover, it has been mentioned that the study area consists
of two different housing areas, which are the urban kampong area
and the non-kampong area (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Non-kampong Area (Upper) and Kampong Area (Lower)

24
 3.2.2. Primary and Secondary Data Survey
Data in this study will be collected through the survey of both
primary and secondary data, which will be explained below.

A. Primary Data Survey

Primary data survey is a survey that is conducted to obtain the
data directly from the main source. This study obtains three
different data sets:

1) Respondent Profiles
The respondent profile is normally the basic information
asked at the beginning of the questionnaire. Basic questions
for the respondent profiles are age, occupation, and gender.
However, the respondent profile asked will also depend on
the targeted data. In this case, the data covered in the
respondent profile are not only age, occupation, and gender,
but also other data about their transportation profiles. In this
study, the respondent profile data include age, occupation,
gender, highest level of education, number of household
members, average household monthly salary, private vehicle
ownership, driving license ownership, main mode of
transport, last time used of public transport, walking duration
from home to Dago Terminal, and permanent health
problems that may affect mobility. The respondent profile
data make up a very important part of the analysis.

2) Trip Diary
This survey needed to be done to obtain information about
the travel patterns of people who live near to the Dago
Terminal. These people are chosen because they will be the
future potential users of the cable car from this station. The
travel diary will reveal more detailed information than an
Origin Destination (OD) data. The travel diary includes

25
 purpose of trip, trip companion, transportation modes used,
trip starting time, trip arrival time, and trip frequency. These
data will be obtained through questionnaires, which are given
to the respondents. Moreover, the data cover both weekday
and weekend trips.

3) People’s Preference on Cable Car

This survey is also done through questionnaires, which are
given to the people who live near the Dago Terminal. The
questionnaires asked about people’s perception on cable cars
in comparison to their current mode of transport as well as to
rank their preferred methods of transportation. Furthermore,
they were also asked about their willingness to ride the cable
car on weekdays and weekends. The willingness to ride
answers is ranked on a scale including: not willing, mostly
not willing, mostly willing, or willing to take the cable car on
weekdays and weekends.

B. Secondary Data Survey

Secondary data is collected through a survey, which is
conducted to obtain data made by other source, which is not the
main source. The secondary data needed for this study are:
1) Population data of the study area, such as number of
population, age of the population, population density, etc.
The population sample will be the people living within a
three hundred meter radius from Dago Terminal. The
Bandung Statistics Bureau produces the population data,
which are accessible through the internet.
2) Data of the cable car plan in Bandung, such as the planned
routes, fare plan, passenger demand, etc. These data are
needed in order to choose the study area as well as to support
the questionnaire and further analysis. The data are available

26
 in the Feasibility Study document of Cable Car Bandung,
which is produced by LPPM ITB, a research institution under
Institute Technology of Bandung.

3.3. Methods of the Questionnaire, Sampling, and Distributing

3.3.1. Questionnaire Method
In this study, the questionnaire is divided into 3 parts, which as
stated above are respondent profile, trip diary, and cable car
preferences. The first and the second parts are considered a trip diary
survey, while the last part is considered a stated preference
questionnaire. The trip diary is influenced by the survey, which is
normally done in metropolitan areas once a decade. The travel diary
survey is a survey of individual travel behavior. This survey
gathered information about an individual’s demographics (e.g.
socio-economic profile), household information (e.g. size, private
vehicle ownership, and economy profile.), and a diary of
respondents’ journeys on a given day (e.g. the starting and ending
location, starting and ending time, mode of transport,
accompaniment, and purpose of travel). As for the cable car
preference survey, this survey is done to obtain people’s perception
on cable car in comparison to their existing mode of transport, and to
obtain people’s top preferences, which greatly affect their
willingness to ride a given method of transportation.

On the national level, travel surveys are highly meaningful in the

process of the design and management of transportation systems and
policies. Data analyses address a wide range of issues, including
traffic forecasting, transportation planning and policy, land use
connections, system monitoring and benchmarking, and other
important areas (Zhang, Viswanathan, n.d.). Since 1994, the German
Mobility Panel has collected information annually about when, why,

27
 and with which mode of transportation the people in Germany prefer
to travel. For this purpose, German households are interviewed
about their everyday mobility behavior. The household members fill
out a diary in which they report all of their trips in the course of a
week. By providing this information, each citizen can make an
important contribution for a reasonable design of transportation
systems in their community (Germany Aerospace Center, 2012). In
this study, the stated preference method is used on the survey. It is a
method that is widely used in transportation surveys to know
people’s perception on a new alternative mode of transport.

3.3.2. Sampling Methods

The samples in this study are people who are chosen from the total
population in the radius of 300 meters from the Dago Terminal.
Number of samples must be decided in order to know how many
questionnaires needed to be distributed. Dago Terminal is located in
Dago Sub-District, which has a number of population of 39,594 and
an area of 258 hectare. In conversion to meter square, 258 hectare is
equal to 2,580,000. On the other hand, the study location has an area
of 300-meter radius, which equal to 70,650 square meters. Thus, in
this study it is assumed that the number of population in this 300-
meters radius is 1,085.

With a population number of 1.085, margin of error of 9%, and

confidence level of 95%, the sample size is calculated to be 107.
However, since there are two types of population groups in the area,
which are high to middle income groups and middle to low income
groups, the sample number needs to be stratified equally. Thus, in
the end the sample size is 108, with an equal of 54 subjects from
each group. The sample size is calculated with the formula below
(Rea and Parker, 2014):

28
 𝑧!𝑝 1 − 𝑝 𝑁
𝑛=
𝑧 ! 𝑝 1 − 𝑝 + 𝑒 ! (𝑁 − 1)
n = sample size
N = population size
z = value to confidence level
p = population variance
e = margin of error

The questionnaires are distributed by the combination of personal

interview survey and self-completion survey. With the personal
interview survey, contact is more direct and involves face-to-face
contact between the respondent and the interviewer. Under these
circumstances, there is a far greater possibility for interaction (which
can be both beneficial and harmful to the purposes of the survey)
between respondent and interviewer. While this interaction may
allow more complex data to be collected, it also allows for a greater
degree of bias to enter into the survey results (Richardson, Ampt,
and Meyburg, 1995). In self-completion surveys, even though
surveyor and respondent have the chance to meet in person, due to
respondent’s lack of time, the respondents are responsible to fill in
the questionnaire by themselves. As soon as the questionnaire are
filled in, surveyor and respondents need to do a short meeting to
confirm the answers.

3.3.3. Distribution Methods

Within a radius of 300 meters from the Dago Terminal, there are
areas, which have different economy characteristics, and the
difference can be seen from the diverse range of housing conditions.
Right behind the Dago Terminal, there is an urban kampong, which
is the housing characteristically occupied by low to middle income
people. Moreover, there are several neighborhoods of non-kampong
houses, located across Dago Terminal, which are occupied by people
from middle to high income. Thus, the 108 individual respondents

29
 are divided into each of the two housing areas. After, the 54 numbers
of samples are distributed randomly among households in the
district. The adults who live in the chosen house are obligated to fill
in the questionnaire, unless they refuse. Thus, surveyors are able to
obtain one to six survey participants from one house.

The questionnaire distribution method used is cluster sampling and

simple random sampling. In cluster sampling, the total population is
first divided into clusters of sampling units, usually on a geographic
basis (Richardson, Ampt, and Meyburg, 1995). These clusters are
then sampled randomly and the respondents are contacted at their
homes. Doing a cluster sampling before distributing the
questionnaire by the simple random sampling method can be much
more economical both in terms of drawing the sample and in
conducting the survey. For example, interviewers' travel costs can be
reduced substantially by the use of cluster sampling. Also, if
interviews are being conducted in a small number of relatively well-
defined areas, it is easier to maintain a higher degree of quality
control on the conduct of the interviews. In our survey, after the
samples are clustered, simple random sampling is done to distribute
the questionnaire. Simple random sampling is the simplest of all
random sampling methods and is the basis of all other random
sampling techniques (Richardson, Ampt, and Meyburg, 1995).

3.4. Methods of Analysis

In order to achieve the objective of this study, this study uses several
methods of analysis, which are explained on the following figure (figure
3.3). As seen in Figure 3.3, there are five sets of data that are analyzed in
this study. All of the inputs needed to obtain these five sets of data will be
obtained from the questionnaire. For the analysis there are three methods
used, which are frequency distribution, probability distribution, and binary

30
 logistic regression. Frequency distribution is used to show the trend of data.
For example, it is used to show how many people use a car for their trip so
that the modal split data can be obtained. The probability distribution is
used to correlate between two sets of data in order to show a more detailed
trend, for example, correlation between trip distance and means of transport
used. Thus, from this data, we can see the trend of distance traveled by
motorcycle. As for binary regression analysis, this analysis is to show the
factors that influence people in taking or not taking the cable car.
Willingness to ride acts as the independent variable, while respondent
profile, trip diary, and cable car compatibility data sets act as the dependent
variables. In the end, the data output will show, for example, a correlation
showing that for women with the age of 49 to 64 years old, when the trip
destination has no compatibility with the cable car route, will have the
lowest probability of taking the cable car on a weekend day.

31
 Figure 3.3 Overview of Analysis Method

32
 3.4.1. Respondent Profile and Travel Diary Analysis
In this study, the travel diary of 108 samples will be analyzed. This
analysis will provide data on the characteristics and trip diaries of
people who live near the Dago Terminal. This analysis will show the
OD points of each trip per person, as well as the mode of transports
used for each trip per person. Moreover, the correlation between
travel pattern and the respondent’s profile, such as their age, sex, or
level of income, will be analyzed. After the OD points are known,
looking at the relationship between travel destination and cable car
route is necessary to answer the question of ‘how compatible is the
cable car route to people’s trip destination?’. Through this analysis,
data will be gathered on how well the cable car route is able to
accommodate the people’s trip patterns. In the next chapter, this data
on cable car compatibility with the trip pattern will be divided into
three parts: compatible, compatible with an Angkot transfer, and not
compatible.

This part of analysis will be done by the methods of frequency

distribution, and probability distribution. These analyses are done
through the output of histogram, pie chart, and other types of charts.
For example, in this study, frequency distributions are shown by the
number of people who are in the categories of 16-24, 25-34, 35-49,
50-64, and 65+ years old. Moreover, for example, the probability
distributions are shown through seeing the cross relationship
between age categories and willingness to ride the cable car on the
weekend. Thus, we are able to determine how many people in the
age category of 16-24 years old are willing or not willing to take the
cable car on weekend. As for determining the compatibility between
people’s trip destination and cable car route, Google Maps is used to
determine the distance between people’s trip destination and the
nearest cable car station.

33
 3.4.2. Perception on Cable Car Analysis
Even if a respondent’s mobility pattern is suitable with the cable car
routes, it is not always the case that people are willing to shift from
their current mode of transport to cable car. Thus, this analysis will
answer the question, ‘how do people’s perceptions on cable car
services compare to their current mode of transport?’ The
questionnaire in this part is structured by a stated preference method,
in which people are asked to rank their top preferences, as well as to
compare their current mode of transportation with the cable car.
Stated preference method refers to a family of techniques that use
individual respondent’s statements about their preferences in a set of
transport options to estimate utility functions (Kroes and Sheldon,
1988). The options are normally descriptions of transport situations
or contextual prompts constructed by the researcher.

In contrast, a stated preference method is easier to control, because

the researcher defines the conditions that the respondents evaluate.
Moreover, it is more flexible, since it is capable to deal with wider
variety of variables (Kroes and Sheldon, 1988). However, people
may not necessarily behave in practice in the exact manner that they
respond on the survey, which is the main criticism leveled against
the use of stated preference methods. This may become a serious
problem under conditions where research is undertaken to estimate
demand levels by using only the stated preference data (Kroes and
Sheldon, 1988).

In this study, first the cable car’s utilities are explained to the survey
participants, and second they will be asked to compare between the
cable car and their current mode of transportation. The variables
with objective units, such as cable car speed and cable car fee, are
ranked, as well as those not related to engineering units. The

34
 subjective units are, for example, the comfort level of the car, the
station, and the provided parking space at the station; accessibility of
the station; safety; air pollution level; ability to reach the destination
in a better way; ability to access the destination, or access it with
fewer stops; length of walking distance to destination; accessibility
to a better view, and more. Beyond comparing their existing mode of
transportation with the cable car, respondents will also be asked to
rank the most important categories, which a mode of transport must
have in order for them to be willing to ride it. Thus, we will be able
to see how the cable car’s utilities suit people’s priorities in choosing
methods of transportation.

3.4.3. Predictor Variables on Cable Car Ridership

Logistic regression analysis is used in this part of the study. This
analysis is done to answer the question, ‘what are the characteristics
of people who are willing and not willing to ride the cable car on
weekdays and weekends?’ In a nutshell, logistic regression is
multiple regression but with an outcome variable that is a categorical
variable and predictor variables that are continuous or categorical. In
its simplest form, this means that we can predict which of two
categories a person is likely to belong to given certain other
information (Field, 2009). In this case, this part of analysis is to look
at which variables predict whether a person is willing or not willing
to take the cable car as their weekday and weekend method of
transportation. We might measure gender, age, occupation,
household private vehicle ownership, last time the person used
public transportation, walking duration from home to Dago
Terminal, household average monthly salary, outbound trip purpose,
transportation mode used for outbound trip, trip distance of the
outbound trip, number of trips per day, and the compatibility of the
cable car route to each individual’s outbound trip. Using logistic

35
 regression, we might find that all of these variables predict the
willingness of the person to ride the cable car, and also to predict
whether a new person is likely to be willing or not willing to take the
cable car on weekdays and weekends. So, if we picked a random
person and discovered they are 49 to 64 years old, a woman, and that
their outbound trip destination is not suitable with any of the cable
car routes, then the regression model might tell us that, based on this
information, this person is unlikely to take the cable car on the
weekend. Moreover, when we are trying to predict membership of
only two categorical outcomes the analysis is known as binary
logistic regression, but when we want to predict membership of
more than two categories we use multinomial logistic regression
(Field, 2009). However, this study uses binary logistic regression
with two categories of the dependent variable, which is “not willing”
or “willing” to take the cable car. Two binary regression analyses are
done separately for weekday cable car ridership and weekend cable
car ridership. Thus, we can also show that there are different
independent variables that predict ridership on both weekdays and
weekends.

36
 CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS

The analysis chapter is done in six sub-chapters. Firstly is the respondent’s profile
analysis, which is done to get the idea of people’s social, economy, and mobility
profile. Secondly is the trip diary analysis, which is done to obtain the data of
people’s trips on weekdays and weekends. The third sub-chapter explains the
compatibility between people’s trips destination and cable car route plan. The
fourth sub-chapter explains people’s preference and perception towards the cable
car. The fifth part explains the factors that influence cable car ridership on
weekdays and weekends. The last part is done to show ridership and the
influencing factors in two different neighborhood areas.

4.1 Respondent’s Profile

This part of the analysis will explain the respondent profile trends in
demographic information such as gender, age, highest level of education,
occupation, average household salary per month, household private vehicle
ownership, last time the respondent used public transportation, and walking
time from the respondent’s home to Dago Terminal.

47% Men
53% Women

Figure 4.1 Gender Profile

37
 As explained in the previous chapter, the study area covers 300 meters radius
from the Terminal Dago Cable Car Station. This radius includes a population
of 1.085 bringing the sample size 108. Along a gender line, 47% of the
respondents are men and 53% are women (see Figure 4.1). This shows that a
greater number of women than men completed the survey. This result may
reflect a greater availability of women to participate in the surveys when
surveyors called to place travel diaries, as well as a greater willingness among
women to participate in the survey.

8%
21%
16 - 24
21%
25 - 34
35 - 49
18% 50 - 64
65 +
32%

Figure 4.2 Age Profile

Figure 4.2 shows the age profile of survey participants. The age group of 35-
49 years old dominated the survey participation by 32%, while the age ranges
of 25-34 and 50-64 years old have the same amount of 21% each. Populations
with the age range of 16-24 years old are included among the survey
respondents at 18%, most of whom are high school to university students. In
addition, the oldest population, which is the group that is 65 years old and
older, is included among the survey respondents at 8%. The survey did not
include any part of the population under 16 years old. In other words, the
sample population only includes people who already have the possibility to
have earned a driving license, so they might have personal reasons for
choosing to ride the cable car or to drive their own private vehicle.

38
 1%

13% None
Elementary School
38% 8%
Secondary School
High School
University
40%

Figure 4.3 Last Education Level Profile

As shown in Figure 4.3, 40% of the survey participants had a high school
degree as their highest education level, while 38% of them had university
degrees. In addition, 22% of participants, had an even lower level of
education: 8% of that group are having junior high school degree, 13% are
having elementary school degree, and 1% are people with no formal
education. Among these respondents, those people with the lowest levels of
education (22%) come from the population who lived in the urban kampong
side of the Dago Terminal. Meanwhile, the high school graduates come from
both the urban kampong and the middle-high economy housing area, while
the university graduates all come from the middle-high economy housing
area.

2%

Employee
12% 16%
Entrepreneur
Housewife
15%
Student
32% Teacher

23% Jobless

Figure 4.4 Occupation Profile

39
 Figure 4.4 shows that entrepreneur1 (32%) is the most dominant occupation
of the population who live in the area surrounding Dago Terminal. In this
case, entrepreneur includes owner of a consultancy firm, dentist, owner of a
coffee shop, public notary, artist, food merchant, parking assistant, security,
driver, and more. Housewife is the second top occupation with 23%, while
employee, student, and teacher/lecturer all have slightly similar proportions,
which are 16%, 15%, and 12%, respectively. Moreover, there is a small
proportion (2%) of people who are jobless or looking for job.

1%
2% <= 1 million

10% 1 - 3 million
13%
3 - 5 million
5 - 7 million
14%
32% 7 - 10 million
10 - 30 million
11%
30 - 50 million
17% >= 50 million

Figure 4.5 Household Average Monthly Salaries

Illustrated on Figure 4.5 is the household average monthly salary. It shows

that the dominant (32%) household salary is 1-3 million Rupiah per month,
while the salaries of 3-5 million, 7-10 million, 10-30 million, 5-7 million, and
less than 1 million per month, are having a slightly similar proportions, which
are 17%, 14%, 13%, 11%, and 10%, respectively. Moreover, household
monthly salaries of 30-50 million and greater than 50 million per month are
only 2% and 1% of the population. As explained in the previous chapter, the
survey area was divided into two – the kampong urban, where households
generally have a lower to middle income level, and the private households,
most of which have middle to upper income levels. The salary of less than 1

1
Someone who starts their own business, especially when this involves seeing a new
opportunity (Cambridge Online Dictionary).

40
 million to 1-3 million per month is considered as a low-level income, and this
group includes 42% of the sample size. While, the salary of 5-7 million to
more than 50 million per month is considered as high-level income, which is
41%. As for the group with 3-5 million Rupiah per month, this is counted as a
middle-level income. Thus, the pie chart above slightly reflects equal
proportion of low- to middle-level income population and middle- to high-
level income population.

12%

34% No PV at all
12%
Car only
Motorcycle only
Car and Motorcycle
42%

Figure 4.6 Household Private Vehicle Ownership

The chart above (Figure 4.6) illustrates household’s private vehicle

ownership. 42% of the population has a motorcycle and no car in their
household, while 34% of the population has both a car and a motorcycle in
their household. A further 12% of population has a car and no motorcycle in
their household, while another 12% of population does not own any private
vehicle in their household. Interestingly, populations who own a car and no
motorcycle, as well as those who have both a car and a motorcycle in their
household, are the populations with middle to high-income level. Meanwhile,
the population who does not have private vehicles in their household comes
from the low to middle income level. As for the population who own a
motorcycle and no car in their household, most of them come from the low to
middle income level.

41
 1%
Daily
19% 1 - 2 weeks
27%
3 - 4 weeks
6%
2 - 3 months

9% 3 - 6 months

6% more than 1 year

32%
Never

Figure 4.7 Frequency of use of Different Public Transportation Modes

Figure 4.7 shows that 32% of the sample respondents used public
transportation modes in the last 1-2 weeks; while 27% of the population takes
public transportation for their daily commute. Significantly, there are 19%
more respondents who use public transportation as their mode of choice than
1 year ago, and there is only 1% of the population who never uses public
transportation at all. Furthermore, the proportion of the population who used
public transportation mode in the last 3-4 weeks, 2-3 months, and 3-6 months
are 6%, 9%, and 6%, respectively. ‘Public transportation mode’ in this case
refers exclusively to Angkot, which is the only public transportation mode
inside the walking distance area of people who live in the area around this
terminal.

17%

5
5 - 10
21%
62% 10 - 15

Figure 4.8 Walking Time to Dago Cable Car Station

42
 The pie chart above shows the percentage of people’s walking time to Dago
Terminal, which later will be one of the cable car stations. Most people (62%)
live 5 minutes’ walk from the future cable car station, while 21% live 5-10
minutes’ walk and 17% live 10-15 minutes’ walk from the incoming cable car
station. Due to their location, which is behind the Dago Terminal, people who
live in the urban kampong area have very high-density and small dwellings
with a very narrow access road, which allows them closer walking distance to
the Dago Terminal. On the other hand, people who live at the non-kampong
area have a lower density housing and bigger size of houses with bigger
access road, which results in more walking distance between them and the
incoming cable car station. However, the result of walking time above is
distributed evenly between people from the urban kampong area and people
from the non-kampong housing area. In other words, it does not mean that all
people with the five-minute walking duration come from the urban kampong
area.

4.2 Respondent’s Trip Diary

This part of the analysis will explain the results of the trip diary survey,
which takes up the biggest part of the questionnaire. The trip diary includes
the trip data in one day during the week and one day on the weekend. The
weekday trip diary is meant to capture a picture of the working day trip
pattern of the population, while the weekend trip diary aims to discern the
non-working day trip pattern of the population. The trips included in the
analysis are only ones inside the cities of Bandung and Lembang,2 meaning
these are people who would have the opportunity to choose cable car for their
daily trips. A trip to outside of Bandung and Lembang would not be included
into the trip diary (i.e., a trip to Jakarta). Moreover, the trip diary features the
starting point and ending point, starting time to arrival time, trip purpose, trip

2 Lembang is an urban fringe of Bandung and one of the cable car stations will be located
in this area. This area is also famous for holiday activities.

43
 frequency, trip companion, and mode of transportation used. The trip diary on
each day includes a maximum of 5 trips.

Table 4.1 Number of Trips on Weekends and Weekdays

Number of Trips Weekday Weekend

Number of Trips/Day 249 203

Average 2.3 1.9
Number of
Median 2 2
Trips/Person/Day
Mode 2 2

The table above shows the result of the entire population’s response to
number of trips on weekends and weekdays. Overall, the weekday produces
more trips than the weekend; it breaks down as 249 trips for the weekday and
203 trips for the weekend. These numbers come from the 108 survey
participants, which equals to around two trips per person per day on an
average weekday or weekend day. The fact that we found two trips per person
per day illustrates that one person normally takes their commute from Home
to Point A, and from Point A back to his/her Home. The same case is shown
both on weekday and weekend.

The next two pie charts illustrate the modal split on weekday, modal split on
weekend, and the overall view of both modal split on weekday and weekend.
The transportation modes are divided into car, motorcycle, Angkot, by foot,
bicycle, and bus. The modal split explained below includes not only outbound
trips, which means trips from Home to A, but also intermediate trips, which
means trips from A to B, B to C, and so on. The outbound and intermediate
trips are included because people may use different kinds of transportation
modes for each trips, and the figures below capture an image of every trip in
the respondents’ trip diaries. For example, a person may take a car from
Home to A, but he/she may use Angkot from A to B, and again a car from B

44
 to C. This is the reason that intermediate trips are included into the modal
split charts below.

1% 1% 3%

Car
19%
29% Motorcycle
36% 42% Angkot

15% Walk
Bike
Bus
35%
19%

Figure 4.9 Weekday (left) and Weekend (right) Modal Split

On figure 4.9 it is shown that private vehicle, car, and motorcycle are the
dominant transportation modes on a weekday, by 64%. It also illustrates that
35% and 29% of the weekday trips are motorcycle and car trips. Moreover,
there are 19% and 15% weekday trips, which are done by foot and Angkot.
Furthermore, there are proportions of 1% each for the weekday trips, which
are done by bicycle and bus. Thus, from the chart below we can conclude that
people still prefer to take their private vehicle on working days. The same
case is also shown on weekends, when the private vehicle dominates the
modal split by 61% among total trips. Going deeper into the data, it is shown
that 42% and 19% of the total weekend trips are done by car and motorcycle,
while Angkot does 36% of trips on the weekend and walking trips constitute
only 3% of the weekend trips. This is significant because, even though private
vehicle still dominates the modal split, it is shown that the use of motorcycle
is less than the use of Angkot in the weekend, in a proportion of nearly one-
to-two. Furthermore, in making trips on both the weekday and weekend,
people’s preferences in choosing their modes may correlate to trip purposes,
trip distances, and other variables. The correlation between modal split and
other variables will be explained on later charts.

45
 120%

Trip Percentage
100%
80% 49% 24% 89% 36%
60% 76%
64%
40% 51% Trip with Passenger
20% 11%
0% Trip Alone

Car

Car
Motorcycle

Motorcycle
Weekday Trip Weekend Trip

Figure 4.10 Trip Companion on Weekday and Weekend

Figure 4.10 above depicts each respondent’s trip companion on both

weekdays and weekend days. It shows that on weekdays most people drive
their car or motorcycle alone, without any passenger, by 51% and 76%,
respectively. In comparison to the weekday, on weekends people tend to
travel together with other people. Thus, the car trips on weekends have a
significant difference with the trips on a weekday, as 89% of the car trips on
weekends are done with some number of passenger(s). However, there is only
a small difference between the motorcycle trips that are done with some
number of passenger(s) on weekend and weekday. The proportions for riding
a motorcycle with a passenger on weekdays and weekends are 24% and 36%,
demonstrating a variance of 12% higher ridership on weekends. Motorcycle
users who travel alone on a weekday might travel together with other people
on the weekend, so motorcycle would no longer be an option for their
mobility needs on the weekend. Thus, most of them shift to Angkot, if they
do not own a car. This is the reason why motorcycle trips with passengers on
weekdays versus weekends only show a small difference in comparison to the
trips with cars on weekdays versus weekends.

46
 100% 7%
26%
13% Other
80%
Trip Percentage

15% 1%
Education
8%
60%
8% Social/Recreation/Shop
62%
40% Accompaniying Person
49% Drop off/Pick Up Passenger
20%
2%
Work
0% 10%
Weekday Weekend

Figure 4.11 Purpose of Trips on Weekdays and Weekends

The column chart above explains the different proportions of people’s

purpose for traveling on weekdays and weekends. The purposes of trips are
divided by 6 classifications: working trips; education trips; social, recreation,
or shopping-related trips; trips to drop off or pick up a passenger(s); trips to
accompany a person or number of people; and miscellaneous other trips. In
this case, miscellaneous other trips include sports trips, private visit trips,
trips for health purposes, trips for religious purposes, and various other
purposes that are not mentioned in the 5 other classifications. The chart
includes the number of trips from both outbound and intermediate trips, so it
is able to explain the whole day’s worth of transportation needs.

Figure 4.11 shows that traveling for working purposes is the most common
purpose for traveling on a weekday, and dominates 49% of the entire
population’s weekday trips. On the other hand, on the weekend, social,
recreational, or shopping related-trips are the most prevalent trip purposes,
making up 62% of the total weekend trips. On a given weekday, social,
recreational, shopping-related trips, or educational trips reach 15% and 13%
of the total weekday trips. As for drop-off or pick-up trips, trips to
accompany a person or people, and trips, these categories only represent
proportions of 8%, 8%, and 7% out of total weekday trips. On the weekend,
the “other trips” category makes into second place, with a proportion of 26%

47
 of total weekend trips, while working trips, drop-off or pick-up trips, and
educational trips only reach, respectively, 10%, 2%, and 1% of total weekend
trips. The proportion of non-working trips on weekdays could possibly be
influenced by the number of housewives, students, and unemployed people,
categories that together represent 40% of the total population (see Figure 4.4).

100% 1% 5% 6%
90% 11% 6% 20%
7% 36% 38% 11%
Trip Percentage

80% 42%
70% 10%
22%
60% 47% 20%
50% 14% 39% Bus
40% 45% 10%
30% 58% 50% Bike
20% 33% 33%
9% Walk
10% 17%
0% 9%
Angkot
Motorcycle
Car

Figure 4.12 Trip Purpose by Transportation Modes on Weekday

100% 9% 3% 3%
90% 39% 28%
Trip Percentage

80%
70% 45%
60% 28%
50% 100% 100% Bus
16%
40%
30% 42% 41% Bike
20% 45%
Walk
10%
0% Angkot
Motorcycle
Car

Figure 4.13 Trip Purpose by Transportation Modes on Weekend

48
 The previous two diagrams explained the purposes of trips as categorized by
transportation modes on both weekdays and weekends. The use of
motorcycles dominates weekday-working trips with a proportion of 47%,
while working trips on weekdays share the same proportions for car and
motorcycle, which represent 45% each. As for trips to drop-off or pick-up a
passenger, cars outweigh motorcycles on weekdays with a share of 58% and
42%. On the weekend, trips to drop-off or pick-up passengers are not as
common trip, and trips by car overwhelmingly dominate this trip purpose
with a proportion of 100%. Moreover, trips to accompany a person only
happened on weekdays, and there are none of these trips on weekends. On a
given weekday, this trip are shared 45% by Angkot, while 36%, 9%, and 9%
are respectively shared by walking trips, motorcycle trips, and car. In this
context, trips to accompany a person are mostly taken by parents to
accompany their child for school, or to accompany person for health
purposes. Thus, these trips mostly happened on weekdays. Furthermore,
walking is dominates the weekday social, recreational, or shopping-related
trips by 38%, while the respondents who answered that they used car,
Angkot, motorcycle, or bus shared the proportions of 33%, 14%, 10%, and
5%, respectively. On the weekend, however trips by car dominate this trip
purpose category by 42%. As for Angkot, motorcycle, and walking trips on
weekends, these represented portions of, respectively, 39%, 16%, and 3% of
the total trips. On the weekend, people tend to add more distance on their
social, recreational, and shopping-related trips, showing that walking is not a
popular option for this trip purpose on the weekend.

All transportation modes are used for weekday educational trips, with
proportions of: 39% for motorcycles, 22% for Angkot, 17% for cars, 11% for
walking, 6% for bicycles, and 6% for buses. On the weekends, on the other
hand, educational trips are only represent a proportion of 1% of the total
weekend trips (see Figure 4.11) and 100% of users rely on Angkot for their
this type of transportation need. For other trips, cars still dominate the modal

49
 share both on weekdays and weekends by 50% and 41%, respectively. On a
given weekday, motorcycle and walking trips share the same proportion of
20% each, while Angkot only represents 10% of the total. On the weekend,
motorcycle and Angkot trips share the same proportion, at 28% each, while
walking trips only represent 2% of total trips. The same case appears with
social, recreational, or shopping-related trips, and people also tend to add
more distance to their other trips on the weekend, resulting in a significant
reduction in the share of walking trips. Moreover, in this case of other trips
people mainly take cars motorcycles on the weekday. While on the weekend,
Angkot use shares the same proportion with motorcycle use for the other
trips.

100% 5%
5% 8%
90% 6% 4%
7% 19.00 Onwards
80%
70% 16.00 - 18.59
60% 39%
56%
50% 13.00 - 15.59
40% 10.00 - 12.59
30% 28%
07.00 - 09.59
20%
29%
10% Before 07.00
14%
0%
Weekday Weekend

Figure 4.14 Trip Time Distribution on Weekday and Weekend

The previous diagram pictures weekday and weekend trips, as categorized by

time distribution. On weekdays, most people start their trips between 7:00
and 9:59 in the morning, a time category that represents 31% of total trips. On
the weekend, on the other hand, most people start their travel between
10:00am and 12.59pm, at 27% of the totals. On the weekday, the smallest
proportion of people start their trip from 19:00 onwards, a period of time that
represents 6% of the total. On the weekend, on the other hand, the fewest
numbers of people start their trip before 07:00, with 6% of the total trips
taken. Other time ranges are more similarly widespread both on weekdays

50
 and weekends: people who start their trips on weekdays between16:00 and
18:59, before 07:00, between 13:00 and 15:59, or between 10:00 and 12:59
share percentages of, respectively, 21%, 16%, 14%, and 12%. On the
weekend, people who start their trips between the times of 07:00-09:59,
13:00-15:59, after 19:00, or between 16:00-18:59 demonstrate respective
percentages of 19%, 19%, 17%, and 11%.

70

60
9 Bus
Number of Trips

50
8
Bike
40
1 27 Walk
30
10 Angkot
20
6 Motorcycle
4 1
10 17 2 2 1
10 2 1 3 Car
0 1 2 1
Before 07.00 - 10.00 - 13.00 - 16.00 - 19.00
07.00 09.59 12.59 15.59 18.59 Onwards

Figure 4.15 Trip Time Distribution by Transportation Modes on Weekday

40 37
35
Number of Trip

30
Work
25
Drop off/Pick Up Passenger
20
Accompaniying Person
15 10
9 Social/Recreation/Shop
10 6 7
4 3 4
5 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 3
1 1
Education

0 Other

Figure 4.16 Trip Time Distributions per Trip Purposes on Weekday

Figure 4.15 explains people’s weekday trip time distribution by transportation

modes and Figure 4.16 explains people’s weekday trip time distribution by

51
 trip purposes. These figures show that the categories of car and motorcycle
show the highest usage with maximum trip starting times between 07:00 and
09:59, which is the morning peak travel time. The figures further show that
28% and 20% of the 07:00 to 09:59-weekday trips are taken by car or
motorcycle. People’s trips during this time range are mostly taken for
working purposes, which receive a proportion of 62% of the total weekday
trips from 07:00 to 09:59. Educational trip purposes stay at the second-
highest position with a percentage of 17% out of total weekday trips from
07:00 to 09:59. By comparing this to educational trips during other time
ranges, we show that 07:00-09:59 is also the peak travel hour for the students.

Following the data further, these figures show that walking and car trips have
the same distributions before 07:00, which are 32% each out of the total
before-07:00 weekday trips. This explains that the three biggest proportions
of these trips are undertaken for working; educational; and, social,
recreational, or shopping purposes, which show percentages of, respectively,
29%, 23%, and 19% out of the total before-07:00 weekday trips. It is quite a
common behavior for people in Indonesia who live very near to a traditional
market to go shopping in the early morning. In this case, some shopping trips
are done before 07:00 because there is a traditional pop-up market that
operates at Dago Terminal in the early morning time. Until the time range of
10:00 to 18:59, there are still some working trips taken, a category that still
dominates in comparison with other trip purposes. Remarkably, at 19:00 and
after that time, there are no other outbound trips taken. Thus, the conclusions
from the following two charts are that the morning peak hour is from 07:00 to
09:59, with motorcycle and car as the most-used transportation modes, and
the mostly trips for working purposes during the peak trip hours.

52
 40
35
Bus
Number of Trips

30 13
25 1 Bike
20 3 Walk
12
15
2 Angkot
10 5 19
7 2 Motorcycle
5 1
1
1 7 4 1
1 4
0 3 2 1 Car
Before 07.00 - 10.00 - 13.00 - 16.00 - 19.00
07.00 09.59 12.59 15.59 18.59 Onwards

Figure 4.17 Trip Time Distributions per Transportation Modes on Weekend

25 23

20
Number of Trip

Work
15 12
11 Drop off/Pick Up Passenger
10 8 8 Accompaniying Person
7
4 Social/Recreation/Shop
5 3 3
2 2 Education
1 1 1 1 1
0 Other

Figure 4.18 Trip Time Distributions per Trip Purposes on Weekend

Figure 4.17 explains people’s weekend trip times, distributed by

transportation modes, and Figure 4.18 informs us about people’s weekend
trip times, distributed by trip purposes. These charts show that car and
Angkot reach the highest modal share on the weekend with a maximum share
from 10:00 to 12:59. The use of car and Angkot during this range of time has
proportions of 54% and 37% out of the total weekend trips from 10:00 to
12:59. This means that on the weekend, most people start their trip by car and
Angkot from 10:00 to 12:59. The trip purposes chart during this weekend
peak hour shows that trips are taken mostly for social, recreational, or

53
 shopping purposes or miscellaneous other trips. These categories show total
perce tages of, respectively, 66% and 31% out of total weekend trips between
10:00 and 12:59. Outside of the time period between 10:00 and 12:59, the
proportions of cars and Angkots dominate almost all of the outbound trips,
receiving proportions of 23% and 54% during the time before 07:00, 28% and
48% from 07:00 to 09:59, 67% and 17% from 13:00 to 15:59, 28% and 48%
from 16:00 to 18:59. Moreover, it is shown that social, recreational, or
shopping-related trips and other trips are the most dominant trip in every time
range for the weekend. Thus, it can be concluded that most people start their
first trip between 10:00 and 12:59 by car or Angkot for social, recreational,
shopping, or other trip purposes.

100% 2%
4% 3%
90% 3% 5% ≥ 15
9% 10%
80% 13.0 - 14.9
18%
70% 22% 11.0 - 12.9
60% 9.0 - 10.9
50% 29% 28%
7.0 - 8.9
40%
5.0 - 6.9
30% 17%
22% 3.0 - 4.9
20%
10% 19% 1.0 - 2.9
10%
0% 1% ≤ 1
Weekday Weekend

Figure 4.19 Trip Distance on Weekday and Weekend

The diagram above shows the trip distance on both weekday and weekend. It
is shown that the distance of 3.0 to 4.9 km is the most traveled distance by the
population on weekday. The weekday trip between 3.0 and 4.9 km received a
proportion of 29% of the total outbound and intermediate weekday trips,
while on the weekend, the distance of 5.0 to 6.9 was the most traveled
distance by the population, and this category received a share of 28% of the
total outbound and intermediate weekend trips. On the weekday, the distance

54
 of less than 1 km, 5.0 to 6.9 km, and 1.0 to 2.9 km all show up on the next
two positions with percentages of, respectively, 19%, 18%, and 17% out of
the entire outbound and intermediate weekday trips. On the weekend, both
11.0 to 12.9 km and 3.0 to 4.9 km received proportions of 22% each out of
the total outbound and intermediate-distance weekend trips. As for the
categories from 1.0 to 2.9 km and 9.0 to 10.9 km, both received a percentage
of 10% each out of the total outbound and intermediate weekend trips. From
this chart we can conclude that people tend to add more distance to their trips
on the weekend.

45
40 1
2
35
Number of trip

Bus
30
19 Bike
25 1
20 6 Walk
9
15 23 8 Angkot
1
10 6
18 Motorcycle
5 11 8 3
2 8 3
3 3 3
0 1 1 Car
≤ 1 1.0 - 3.0 - 5.0 - 7.0 - 9.0 - 11.0 - 13.0 - ≥ 15
2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9
Kilometer (km)

Figure 4.20 Trip Distance by Transportation Modes on Weekday

Figure 4.20 shows the distance traveled by people using various

transportation modes on weekdays. For the travel distance of 3.0 to 4.9 km,
motorcycle and car are the most prevalent types of transportation used, with
48% and 45% out of the whole 3.0 to 4.9 km weekday trip. Moreover, car and
motorcycle also share the biggest percentage for weekday trip distance from
5.0 to 12.9 km, while first phaseer trips are mostly undertaken by foot or
Angkot, which shown by the measures of weekday trips with a distance less
than 1 km to 2.9 km. The trip distance of less than 1 km is mostly traveled by
foot, with a share of 88% out of the whole less than 1 km-distance weekday
trip. As for the trips with distances between 1.0 to 2.9 km, Angkot, car, and

55
 motorcycle share a somewhat a close percentage. However, Angkot shares
the biggest proportion, with 38% of the total 1.0-to 2.9 km-distance weekday
trips. Furthermore, people who travel more than 15 km entirely take busses,
which show up as 100% out of the total more than 15 km-distance weekday
trips, which are 3 numbers of trips. Thus, from the following figure we can
conclude that on the weekday, the nearer the destination, people are more
likely to choose to travel by foot or Angkot, and the more distance to the
destination, people are more likely to choose to travel by bus. At the same
time, motorcycle and car remain the most commonly used transportation
modes for the weekday.

45
40
4
35
Number of trip

9 Other
30
25 2 4 2 Education
2 2
3 3 2
20 2 4 Social/Recreation/Shop
8 2
15 4 6
3 1 Accompaniying Person
10 3 18
2
5 11 10 11 Drop off/Pick Up Passenger
7 4 1
6
0 Work

Kilometer (km)

Figure 4.21 Trip Distance by Trip Purposes on Weekday

Diagram 4.21 explains people’s trip distance as categorized by trip purposes

on weekdays. For the travel distance category of 3.0 to 4.9 km, working and
educational trip purposes receive the two biggest proportions of trip purposes,
with shares of 45% and 23% out of the total 3.0 to 4.9-distance weekday
trips. Moreover, working trips have the biggest percentage for almost the
entire category of weekday trips with a distance from less than 1 km to 12.9
km. Furthermore, the trip purpose category with a distance of more than 15
km is dominated by working, educational, and social, recreational, or
shopping trip purposes, with each receiving 1 trip. From the chart below we

56
 can conclude that people are willing to travel almost any distance for work,
while students tend to live an average of 3.0 to 4.9 km from their school or
university. In addition, for social, recreational, or shopping trips, people tend
to go to places that are less than 1km from their home or previous location.

35

30
16
Bus
Number of trip

25
2
20 4 Bike
5
5 Walk
15 6
3 15
10 1 2 Angkot
6 11 11
4 Motorcycle
5 2 2
1 2 5 2 3 Car
0 1
≤ 1 1.0 - 3.0 - 5.0 - 7.0 - 9.0 - 11.0 - 13.0 - ≥ 15
2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9
Kilometer (km)

Figure 4.22 Trip Distance for each Transportation Mode on Weekends

Figure 4.22 shows trip distance for each transportation mode used on
weekends. In the travel distance of 5.0 to 6.9 km, Angkot and car receive the
biggest proportion, with 53% and 37% from the total 5.0 to 6.9-km weekend
trips. Moreover, cars and motorcycles also share the two biggest percentages
for the weekday trip distances from 3.0 to 4.9 km as well as those from 7.0 to
10.9 km, while first phaseer trips are mostly traveled by foot and by Angkot,
a fact which is shown by the weekend trip distance category of less-than-1
km to 2.9 km. The trip distance of less-than-1 km was mostly traveled by
foot, with a share of 100% of the total weekend trips with distance less-than-1
km (which is only 1 trip). On the other hand, people mostly travel the trip
distance from 1 to 2.9 km by Angkot, with a share of 55% out of the total
less-than-1 to 2.0 km weekend trips. Furthermore, people who travel more
than 15 km take their car – a category, which received 100% out of the total
greater-than-15-km-distance weekend trips. Thus, from the following figure
we can conclude that, during the weekend, people choose to travel by foot or

57
 Angkot when the destination is close, and choose to travel by car when the
destination is far away. Meanwhile, car, Angkot, and motorcycle are the most
commonly used transportation modes for the weekend.

35
30
5
Number of trip

25 Other
5 25 7
20 Education
15 16
1 14 Social/Recreation/Shop
10 1
4 Accompaniying Person
5 9
2 4 3 1 Drop off/Pick Up Passenger
1 3 1 2 2
0 3
Work

Kilomenter (km)

Figure 4.23 Trip Distance per Trip Purposes on Weekend

Diagram 4.23 explains people’s trip distance categorized by trip purposes on

the weekend. In the category of travel distance from 5.0 to 6.9 km, social,
recreational, or shopping-related trips share the biggest proportion of the total
trips, with a share of 83% out of all 5.0 to 6.9-km weekend trips. Moreover,
social, recreational, or shopping-related trips also share the biggest
percentage for almost the entire weekday trips with a distance from 1.0 km to
8.9 km. Furthermore, the trip purposes with a distance of more than 15 km
are rare, with the few trips only being for “work” or “other” categories.
Moreover, trips for other purposes comprised the second largest percentage of
the total outbound, intermediate-distance weekend trips, which shows
especially for the trips with a distance from less than 1.0 km to 12.9 km.
From the chart above we can infer that for social, recreational, or shopping-
related trips, people tend to travel between 1.0 and 10.9 km. As for “other
trips”, even though largest number is shown at the distance from 7.0 to 8.9
km, people are willing to travel at any distance.

58
 4.3 Compatibility Between Trip Destination and Cable Car Route Plan
In this part of the analysis, the compatibility between people’s trip
destinations and the cable car route plan will be explained. As mentioned in
the previous chapter, it is expected that there will be several implementation
phases for the cable car. The questionnaire stressed that people need to
imagine that the cable car will have both first-phase and following-phase
implementation plans. Thus, the percentage of compatibility shown below is
based on the analysis between current common trip destinations and the first-
phase implementation plan, separately from the following-phase plan. The
first-phase plan will only cover 4 stations, which are Dago Intersection,
PDAM, City Council, and Cihampelas. These four stations are located 2.0
km, 3.9 km, 6.0 km, and 4.9 km from the Dago Terminal. Moreover, the
route from PDAM to Cihampelas is planning to be built by early 2016.

Weekend 100% Different Transportation

Mode
Weekday 3% 97% Same Transportation
Mode
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 4.24 Starting and Ending Transportation Mode

The following chart explains the compatibility between the cable car route
and the travel patterns of people who live in a 300-meter radius from Dago
Terminal on both weekdays and weekends. In this analysis, outbound trips
are the only type of trip included, because people mostly start and end their
trip with the same transportation mode (see figure 4.24). For example, if they
take their car from Home to Location A, generally they will also take their car
from Location A to Location B, or from Location A to Home. Thus, if the
cable car does not work for the first trip, it is assumed that the probability of
the person taking the cable car for his or her second trip is low. In order to
determine the compatibility between people’s trip destinations and the cable
car route, Google Maps is used to measure the distance between people’s trip

59
 destination and the nearest cable car station. Cable car compatibility with the
trip pattern is divided into three categories: compatible, compatible with an
Angkot transfer, and not compatible. Compatible means that people’s
destination is within a reasonable walking distance from the cable car, which
is around 300 meters. Compatible with an Angkot transfer is used when
people need to take one Angkot transfer of a maximum of 2 km after using
the cable car in order to reach their destination. To analyze these data, we
used Angkot’s route information. As for “not compatible,” in this sense we
mean that people need to take more than one Angkot transfer or need to take
an Angkot transfer with a distance of more than 2 km after taking the cable
car in order to reach their destination.

70%
58% 58%
60%
Trip Percentage

50% 44%
40% 28%
Fit
27% 28% 22% 27%
30%
17% 17% 20% Fit with Transfer
20% 15% 16%
5% 11% Not Fit
10% 5%

0%
Shorterm Longterm Shorterm Longterm Weekday Weekend
Weekday Weekend Overall

Figure 4.25 Compatibility Between Trip Destination and Cable Car First
Phase and Following Phase Route Plan on Weekday and Weekend

The figure above shows that on the weekday, 58% of people’s first trips are
not compatible with the cable car route, while 17% of the trips are compatible
with an Angkot transfer, and 15% of the trips are compatible with the cable
car route. The weekend data shows that 28% of people’s first trips are not
compatible with the first-phase cable car route, 27% are compatible with the
first-phase cable car route, and 11% are compatible with Angkot transfer. The
compatibility of cable car first-phase route on weekday and weekend are

60
 different, in that on the weekday most people’s first trips are not compatible
with the cable car route, while on the weekend, even though most people’s
first trips are mostly compatible with the first-phase cable car route, the
category has a very small difference of 1% with people’s first trips that are
compatible with the first-phase cable car route.

After the following-phase implementation plan is completed, our data show

that on the weekday only an addition of 5% of trips will be compatible with
the cable car route, as well as an additional 5% of trips that would be
compatible along with a transfer. On the other hand, on the weekend, our data
show that an additional of 17% of trips will be compatible with the cable car
route as well as a subsidiary of 16% of trips that will be compatible along
with a transfer. Thus, we conclude that when the entirety of cable car routes
have been built, 20% of weekday first trips will be compatible with the cable
car route, 22% of weekday trips will be compatible along with a transfer, and
the remaining 58% of the weekday first trips will not be compatible with the
cable car route. On the weekend, 44% of weekend first trips will be
compatible with the cable car route, 28% of weekend first trips will not be
compatible with the cable car route, and the remaining 27% of weekend first
trips will be compatible along with a transfer. Thus, from the above chart, we
can conclude that the cable car routes will be more compatible with people’s
travel destinations on the weekend than on weekdays.

4.4 Preferences and Perception Towards Cable Car Services

In this part of analysis, people’s preferences and perceptions of cable car
service will be explained. Beyond information on willingness to ride cable
cars, this part of analysis will also examine the reasons behind each
respondent’s choice. Moreover, people with different current means of
transportation might have different perceptions on the cable car service. Thus,
it is crucial to explore people’s perceptions by comparing their current mode
of transport with cable car services. In addition, respondents were also asked

61
 to rank several variables by importance to their travel decision, i.e., fast,
cheap, or no pollution.

50% 44%

40% 36%
Trip percentage

32%
30% 25%
22% Weekday
18%
20% Weekend
13%
9%
10%

0%
No Mostly No Mostly Yes Yes

Figure 4.26 Willingness to Ride Cable Cars on Weekday and Weekend

The diagram above shows that on the weekday most people are definitely not
willing (36%) or mostly not willing (22%) to take cable car for their first trip
of the day. On the weekend, on the other hand most people are mostly willing
(44%) or completely willing (25%) to take cable car for their trip. This shows
that people prefer to take cable car as their transportation mode for social,
recreational, or shopping trips as compared to their working or studying trips.

Table 4.2 Reasons for Willingness to Ride Cable Cars on Weekday

Weekday Number
Reason Percentage
Ridership of Person
Destination is not covered by CC 17 16%
My current trip is first phase 8 7%
I prefer current mode 8 7%
Not Willing 36%
Fear of height 2 2%
Health condition 1 1%
Do not travel 3 3%
Destination is not covered by CC 6 6%
My current trip is first phase 4 4%
I prefer current mode 9 8%
Mostly Not
Fear of height 2 2% 22%
Willing
Health condition 1 1%
Do not travel 1 1%
I need to do transfer after taking CC 1 1%

62
 Destination is covered by CC 1 1%
Better than current mode 5 5%
I need to do transfer after taking CC 3 3%
Mostly No traffic congestion 6 6%
32%
Willing Occasional 16 15%
If it is implemented as promised 2 2%
If integrated with dependable PT 1 1%
As an alternative mode 1 1%
Destination is covered by CC 2 2%
Willing Better than current mode 6 6% 9%
No traffic congestion 2 2%

Shown in Table 4.3, the reason that most people are not willing to ride the
cable car on weekdays is that their destinations are not covered by the cable
car route, either on the first-phase route plan or the following-phase route
plan, which is the response of 16% of the whole population. The highest
proportion of people who are mostly not willing to take the cable car on the
weekday said that they prefer to take their current mode of transportation
instead of cable car by 8%. These people’s current modes are mostly car,
motorcycle, Angkot, and bicycle. Some of them said that they prefer their
current transportation mode because it is more flexible, practical, and offers
more privacy in comparison to cable car. The highest percentage of people
who are mostly willing to ride the cable car on weekdays that they are mostly
willing to take the cable car for occasional purposes, by 15%, rather than for
work or educational purposes, while the greatest proportion of people who are
willing to ride the cable car on the weekday said that the cable car is better
than their current transportation mode. This response was recorded from 6%
from the whole population, and, generally, these people’s current
transportation modes are car or motorcycle. Many respondents stated that
cable car is better because it is faster. Moreover, people who are mostly
willing to take the cable car on weekday also said that cable car is better than
their current transportation mode, a response that was recorded from 5% of
the entire population. This group of people’s current modes of transportation
is car, motorcycle, or Angkot. In addition, there are three people who are

63
 mostly willing to take the cable car with a specific condition: some of them
are mostly willing to take the cable car if later the cable car proves that it can
be at least as fast as, and cheaper than, their current transportation modes;
some of them are mostly willing to take the cable car if there is a dependable
transportation mode, meaning one with a reliable timetable (unlike Angkot),
that is integrated alongside the cable car.

Table 4.3 Reasons for Willingness to Ride Cable Cars on Weekends

Weekend Number
Reason Percentage
Ridership of Person
Destination is not covered by CC 8 7%
My current trip is first phase 1 1%
I prefer current mode 5 5%
Not Willing 18%
Fear of height 2 2%
Health condition 1 1%
Do not travel 2 2%
Destination is not covered by CC 3 3%
I prefer current mode 6 6%
Mostly Not
Fear of height 3 3% 13%
Willing
Health condition 1 1%
Occasional 1 1%
Destination is covered by CC 1 1%
I prefer current mode 1 1%
Better than current mode 8 7%
No traffic 6 6%
Mostly
Occasional 11 10% 44%
Willing
Recreation 13 12%
Depend on destination 6 6%
As an alternative mode 1 1%
If it is implemented as promised 1 1%
Better than current mode 2 2%
Willing No traffic 9 8% 25%
Recreation 16 15%

From the table above it is shown that most people who are not willing to ride
the cable car on weekdays give the reason that the cable car route does not
cover their destinations, either on the first-phase or the following-phase route
plan. This response makes up 7% of the total population. The highest

64
 proportion (6%) of people who are mostly not willing to take the cable car on
the weekday said that they prefer to take their current mode of transportation
in comparison to the cable car. These people’s current modes of
transportation are generally car and Angkot. The highest percentage of people
who are willing or mostly willing to ride the cable car on weekdays said that
they are willing and mostly willing to take the cable car for recreational
purposes, with respective responses of 15% and 12%. We can conclude from
this that on the weekend most people who are willing or mostly willing to
take the cable car will be taking it for recreational purposes.

Table 4.4 Comparisons between Cable Car and People’ Current

Transportation Mode Based on Variables

Cable Car Variables Car Motorcycle Angkot

Faster Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Reach the destination
Agree Agree Agree
better
Better access to the Strongly
Agree Agree
destination Disagree
The car is more
Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
comfortable
Allows less mode
Disagree Agree Agree
interchanges
Allows first phaseer
- - Disagree
walking distance

Comfortable station - - Strongly Agree

More accessible station - - Agree

Availability of parking
Agree Strongly Agree -
spaces in the station

Safer Agree Agree Agree

Cheaper Agree Agree Agree

No pollution Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
No need to look for
parking space on the Agree Strongly Agree -
destination
Better view Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

65
 The table above explains people’s opinions when asked to compare between
the cable car and their currently preferred method of transportation. People
who primarily use car, motorcycle, or Angkot strongly agree that cable car is
faster and having a better landscape-view in comparison to their current
modes. Moreover, they agree that cable car can help them more cheaply and
safely reach their destination. However, we see that people whose currently
preferred method of transportation is motorcycle, strongly disagree that the
cable car will enable them to have better access to their destination. Also,
people whose current transportation mode is Angkot disagree that the cable
car will reduce their walking distance to their destination. Countering these
negative ratings, these same people whose current transportation modes are
motorcycle and Angkot strongly agree that in comparison to their current
transportation modes, cable car’s cabin is more comfortable, has more
comfortable stations, allows them not to be affected by pollution, and grants
convenience by preventing them from having to find parking space at their
destination. On the negative side, the car users disagree that the cable car will
reduce the amount of interchanges they go through. Thus, in this case, car is
more of a door-to-door transportation mode than the cable car. In addition,
the motorcycle users strongly agree that the availability of parking spaces at
the cable car station makes the cable car comfortable to be use.

Table 4.5 People’s Priority in Selecting Transportation Modes

Rank Rank
Category
1 2 3 4 5 Summary
Faster 49 22 10 10 6 1

Reach the destination better 9 13 7 6 4

Better access to the
2 9 12 5 6
destination
The mode is more
2 10 6 9 7
comfortable
Allows less mode interchanges 4 9 15 12 8 3
Allows first phaseer walking
0 0 6 9 7
distance

66
 Comfortable station 1 2 3 4 3

More accessible station 1 0 1 5 4

Availability of parking spaces

1 2 3 1 2
in the station

Safer 14 12 12 10 16 4
Cheaper 16 17 12 17 15 2
No pollution 4 5 15 8 16 5

No need to look for parking

2 4 5 4 9
space on the destination

Better view 3 5 4 6 4

The table above shows people’s priority in choosing their transportation

modes. 49 people voted that the variable of “faster” is their highest priority,
meaning that the speed or the ability to reach destination fast is considered as
the highest importance. The variable of cheaper is in the second position, with
17 people who voted this variable to be the second most important to them. In
the third place is the variable of reducing the number of interchanges, with 15
votes. In other words, people are concerned that their method of
transportation is able to take them from one location to the next as quickly as
possible. In fourth place is the variable “safer”, with 10 votes. Lastly, the fifth
position is taken by the variable of no pollution, with 16 votes. To conclude
the table above, this means that after fast, cheap, less interchanges, safe, no
pollution is the lowest priority for people in choosing their transportation
modes in doing mobility.

4.5 Factors Influencing Cable Car Ridership
This section of the analysis was done using binary logistic analysis in the
SPSS software. The binary logistic analysis is able to show people’s mode
choice and the variables that influence their mode choice. The dependent
variable of this analysis can only have two categories, and so in this case, the
dependent variable is people’s cable car ridership, with the two categories,
“willing to take the cable car” and “not willing to take the cable car”. The

67
 independent variables are gender, age, household average monthly salary,
occupation, household private vehicle ownership, last time they used public
transportation, walking duration from home to Dago Terminal, transportation
mode used for outbound trip, outbound trip purpose, outbound trip distance,
number of trips taken in one day, and compatibility between the cable car
routes and trip destination. Ridership on both weekdays and weekends are
analyzed in two separate models.

4.5.1. Variables Influence the Cable Car Weekday Ridership

Sometimes the best regression model is obtained from multiple
processes of variable selection. From the whole list of independent
variables, there is a possibility that only several variables will be
included in the regression model. Only the best independent variables
will be chosen to be included in the model, and thus each will be
tested for its significance and ranked from first to last. Thus, the best
ones will be included into the model one by one. This procedure is
known as the stepwise regression method. This technique is done
through several stages, at each, which SPSS will decide which
independent variable is the best predictor to be included in the model.

In this case, the 12 independent variables will be inserted into the

stepwise regression process In the end, three independent variables are
chosen, which in this case are: compatibility between cable car route
and trip destination, walking duration from home to Dago Terminal,
and household private vehicle ownership (see Table 4.7). This means
that out of all of the independent variables, these three variables have
the best capability to influence weekday cable car ridership.
Moreover, from the following tables, Table 4.7 and 4.8, we are able to
count the value of -2log(Lo-L1). In the end, if the value is bigger than
the value of x2(p), it can be concluded that the three independent
variables correlate significantly with the dependent variable.

68
 Table 4.6 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekday Cable Car Ridership Binary Logistic Regression: Forward Stepwise
Iteration Historya,b,c,d,e
Coefficients
-2 Log CCC CCC CCC CCC WalkTime WalkTime PVHHOwn PVHHOwn PVHHOwn
Iteration likelihood Constant Code(1) Code(2) Code(3) Code(4) Code(1) Code(2) Code(1) Code(2) Code(3)
Step 1 1 132.500 .400 .850 -1.400 -1.120 -.883
2 132.353 .405 1.048 -1.502 -1.159 -.898
3 132.353 .405 1.061 -1.504 -1.159 -.898
4 132.353 .405 1.061 -1.504 -1.159 -.898
Step 2 1 123.387 .214 1.134 -1.330 -.949 -.867 .932 -.857
2 122.517 .221 1.535 -1.471 -1.015 -.926 1.042 -1.254
3 122.498 .221 1.610 -1.476 -1.017 -.927 1.046 -1.336
4 122.498 .221 1.613 -1.476 -1.017 -.927 1.046 -1.339
5 122.498 .221 1.613 -1.476 -1.017 -.927 1.046 -1.339
Step 3 1 114.666 .149 .753 -1.774 -1.347 -1.200 1.108 -.762 1.581 1.023 .145
2 112.884 .128 1.129 -2.152 -1.574 -1.422 1.365 -1.220 1.940 1.477 .214
3 112.821 .122 1.243 -2.202 -1.607 -1.461 1.404 -1.357 1.990 1.590 .232
4 112.821 .121 1.250 -2.204 -1.609 -1.463 1.406 -1.365 1.992 1.596 .233
5 112.821 .121 1.250 -2.204 -1.609 -1.463 1.406 -1.365 1.992 1.596 .233
a. Method: Forward Stepwise (Conditional)
b. Constant is included in the model
c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 146.706
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001
e. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001

69
 Table 4.7 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression: Beginning Block
Iteration Historya,b,c
-2 Log Coefficients
Iteration likelihood Constant
Step 0 1 146.706 -.333
2 146.706 -.336
3 146.706 -.336
a. Constant is included in the model.
b. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 146.706
c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

From the two previous tables, it can be counted that the -2log(Lo-L1)
is 146,706 – 112,821 = 33,885. The value of α is 0.05 and the value of
df is three, where df is equal to the number of independent variables
included into the model. The result of the chi-square distribution table
shows that the value of x2(p) is 7,815. Thus, the value of -2log(Lo-L1)
is bigger than the value of x2(p), where 33,885 is bigger than 7,815.
Thus, we can conclude that the independent variables of compatibility
between cable car route and trip destination, walking duration from
home to Dago Terminal, and household private vehicle ownership are
significantly correlated with the dependent variable of people’s cable
car ridership on weekday.

Table 4.8 SPSS Output on Model Summary for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Model Summary
-2 Log Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R
Step likelihood Square Square
a
1 132.353 .124 .168
2 122.498b .201 .270
3 112.821b .269 .362
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
b. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

R Square (R2) is often called as the coefficient of determination. This

70
 is a coefficient to measure the accuracy of fit from the regression
equation. This value will show the proportion of the total variance in
the dependent variables that can be explained by the independent
variable. The R2 value is between 0-1, and the closer to 1 the more
suitable the model is. In the logistic regression, the Nagelkerke R
Square value can be interpreted as the value of R² in the multiple
linear regressions. Through the Model Summary Table above, we
found that the value of Nagelkerke's R Square is 0.362. This indicates
that the dependent variable can be explained by the independent
variables at a proportion of 36.2%, while the remaining 63.8% is
explained by other variables outside the three independent variables
included.

Table 4.9 SPSS Output on Homer and Lemeshow Test for Weekday Cable
Car Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 .000 3 1.000
2 4.008 5 .548
3 8.109 8 .423

The table above is used to test the suitability of the model or accuracy
of fit. In other words, this test is done to see whether the regression
model, by using the three independent variables, is in accordance with
empirical data or not. The null hypothesis in this test is that "the
model adequately explains the data or fit". While the alternative
hypothesis is that “the model does not adequately explain the data or
does not fit". If the value of Hosmer and Lemeshow is significant or
less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the model is not fit.
Based on the table above, it is shown that the Chi-square value is
8.109, with a probability value of 0.423. Thus, the null hypothesis is
accepted, because 0.423 is bigger than 0.05. To conclude, this means
that the model has adequately explained the data.

71
 Table 4.10 SPSS Output on Classification Table for Weekday Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Classification Tablea
Predicted
Observed RiderWdayCode Percentage
Not Will Willing Correct
Step 1 RiderWdayCode Not Will 58 5 92.1
Willing 29 16 35.6
Overall Percentage 68.5
Step 2 RiderWdayCode Not Will 50 13 79.4
Willing 18 27 60.0
Overall Percentage 71.3
Step 3 RiderWdayCode Not Will 49 14 77.8
Willing 13 32 71.1
Overall Percentage 75.0
a. The cut value is .500

The table above estimates the value of cable car ridership on

weekdays, and has two categories: willing to ride or not willing to
ride. See the Step 3 row. It is predicted from the model that 63 people
are not willing to take the cable car on weekday. From the survey, it is
known that 49 people are not willing to take the cable car on weekday.
Thus, the classification accuracy is 77.8%. Moreover, the model also
predicts that 45 people are willing to take the cable car on weekdays.
From the observation, it is known that 32 people are willing to take
the cable car on weekdays. Thus, the classification accuracy is 71.1%.
Furthermore, the overall percentage of classification accuracy is
75.0%.

72
 Table 4.11 SPSS Output on Variables in the Equation for Weekday Cable
Car Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
95% C.I. for
Exp EXP(B)
B S.E. Wald df Sig. (B) Lower Upper
Step Fit Following
11.421 4 .022
1a Phase
Fit First Phase 1.061 1.115 .905 1 .341 2.889 .325 25.702
No Trip -1.504 1.225 1.508 1 .219 .222 .020 2.451
Not Fit -1.159 .962 1.452 1 .228 .314 .048 2.067
Fit w Transfer -.898 .990 .823 1 .364 .407 .059 2.835
Constant .405 .913 .197 1 .657 1.500
Step Less 5 mins 8.423 2 .015
2b 5 to 10 mins 1.046 .527 3.941 1 .047 2.848 1.013 8.002
10 to 15 mins -1.339 .761 3.098 1 .078 .262 .059 1.164
Fit Following
13.042 4 .011
Phase
Fit First Phase 1.613 1.188 1.843 1 .175 5.016 .489 51.462
No Trip -1.476 1.245 1.406 1 .236 .228 .020 2.621
Not Fit -1.017 .987 1.063 1 .303 .362 .052 2.501
Fit w Transfer -.927 1.021 .825 1 .364 .396 .053 2.925
Constant .221 .932 .056 1 .813 1.247
Step Less 5 mins 9.581 2 .008
3c 5 to 10 mins 1.406 .623 5.093 1 .024 4.079 1.203 13.827
10 to 15 mins -1.365 .882 2.391 1 .122 .255 .045 1.440
Own Both 8.712 3 .033
Own None 1.992 .859 5.372 1 .020 7.330 1.360 39.504
Only Car(s) 1.596 .884 3.254 1 .071 4.931 .871 27.913
Only Motor(s) .233 .629 .137 1 .711 1.262 .368 4.327
Fit Following
13.945 4 .007
Phase
Fit First Phase 1.250 1.243 1.010 1 .315 3.490 .305 39.922
No Trip -2.204 1.373 2.577 1 .108 .110 .007 1.628
Not Fit -1.609 1.070 2.258 1 .133 .200 .025 1.631
Fit w Transfer -1.463 1.095 1.785 1 .182 .232 .027 1.980
Constant .121 .956 .016 1 .899 1.129
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: CCCCode
b. Variable(s) entered on step 2: WalkTimeCode
c. Variable(s) entered on step 3: PVHHOwnCode

The table above explains the correlation of each category of

independent variables with the dependent variable. We know that the
independent variables are categorical, and these categories were being

73
 coded on the first step of the logistic regression analysis. However, on
the table the codes have been replaced with the original names to
avoid confusion. We can see from the preceding table that not all of
the independent variables are significantly correlated with the
dependent variable. The independent variables with significant value
less than 0.05 are the variables that have significant correlation with
the dependent variable. Thus on the table, we can see that the walking
duration from home to Dago Terminal, when less than 5 minutes or
from 5 to 10 minutes, has a significant correlation with people’s cable
car ridership on the weekday. Moreover, the household private vehicle
ownership by the categories of those who own both car(s) and
motorcycle(s), and also the category of those who do not own any
private vehicle, have a significant correlation with people’s cable car
ridership on the weekday. Finally, the cable car compatibility with
people’s outbound trip destination, categorized by fit with the cable
car’s following-phase route plan has a significant correlation with
people’s cable car ridership on the weekday.

Beyond the significance of the independent variables, the table is also

able to explain how great the level of influence is from each
independent variable to the dependent variable. The value of influence
is shown by the value of EXP (B) or also known as Odds Ratio (OR).
On the rows labeled Step 3, the table shows the walking duration from
home to Dago Terminal, and proves that the people who have a
walking duration from 5 to 10 minutes have highest probability to take
the cable car on weekday. Moreover, as a natural logarithm of the
EXP (B), the B value is positive. Therefore, people who have a
walking distance of 5 to 10 minutes have a positive relationship with
the cable car ridership on weekdays. While, people who live on a
walking duration of 10 to 15 minutes from the cable car station have
the least probability to take the cable car. The B value is negative, so

74
 the category of people who have a walking distance of 10 to 15
minutes has a negative relationship with the cable car ridership on
weekday.

Moreover, for the variable of household private vehicle ownership, it

is shown that the people who do not own any private vehicles in their
household have the highest probability to take the cable car on
weekdays. While the people who only own car(s) with no
motorcycle(s) in their household have the second highest probability
to take the cable car on weekdays. People who only own a
motorcycle(s) with no car(s) in their household have the third highest
probability in taking the cable car on weekday. In the end, we can
conclude that people who do own a private vehicle in their household
have the biggest probability of taking the cable car on weekdays in
comparison to people who own private vehicles on their household. At
the same time, people who own both a motorcycle(s) and a car(s) in
their household have the lowest probability of taking the cable car on
weekday.

Furthermore, for the variable of compatibility between cable car route

and outbound trip destination, the people whose destination is suited
to the first-phase cable car route plan have the highest probability to
take the cable car on weekdays. Since the value of B is positive we
can say that the people whose destinations fit with the first-phase
cable car route plan have a positive relationship with the cable car
ridership on weekdays. At the same time, the people who do not take
any trips on weekdays have the least probability to take the cable car
on weekdays. Since the B value is negative, we can say that the people
who do not take any trips on weekdays have a negative relationship
with cable car ridership on weekdays. As for people whose destination
are not compatible with any of the cable car route plans, this group

75
 has a probability of taking the cable car on weekday less than the
people whose destinations fit with the following-phase cable car route
plan. Another group of the population, those who would need to
transfer after taking any of the cable car route plans, have a
probability of taking the cable car on weekday less than the people
whose destinations fit with the following-phase cable car route plan.
The B value is negative, so the people whose destinations do not fit
with any of the cable car route plans and people who need to make
transfers after taking any of the cable car route plans have a negative
relationship with cable car ridership on weekdays. In the end we can
conclude that the people whose destinations fit with the first-phase
cable car route plan have the biggest probability of taking the cable
car on weekdays, while, people who do not take trips on the weekday,
people whose trip destinations do not fit with any of the cable car
routes, and people who need to make a transfer after taking the cable
car are unlikely to use the cable car on a weekday.

4.5.2. ..Variables Influence the Cable Car Weekend Ridership
This part of analysis has been done by SPSS with correlation analysis
and binary logistic analysis. The correlation analysis is done by three
types of correlation tests, which are Chi-Square Test, Kruskal-Wallis
Test, and Spearman Rho Test. Different types of correlation tests are
needed because the types of variables include nominal, ordinal, and
scale data types. As was done with the previous weekday ridership
analysis, the binary logistic analysis is used to show the mode choice
of people, and the variables that influence their mode choice. In this
case, the correlation between 12 independent variables and weekend
cable car ridership are separately analyzed. In the end, 2 independent
variables that have the highest correlation are chosen. The variables
are: compatibility between cable car route and trip destination and age
(see Table 4.13).

76
 Table 4.12 Output on Iteration History for Weekend Cable Car Ridership Binary Logistic Regression: Stepwise

Iteration Historya,b,c,d
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood Constant Age(1) Age(2) Age(3) Age(4) WEnd.CCC(1) WEnd.CCC(2) WEnd.CCC(3) WEnd.CCC(4) WEnd.CCC(5)
Step 1 1 121.210 .000 1.826 .947 .514 .261
2 119.132 .000 2.623 1.028 .526 .262
3 118.897 .000 3.007 1.030 .526 .262
4 118.890 .000 3.088 1.030 .526 .262
5 118.890 .000 3.091 1.030 .526 .262
6 118.890 .000 3.091 1.030 .526 .262
Step 2 1 109.904 -.197 1.653 1.050 .363 -.073 .743 .857 .200 1.115 -1.052
2 106.894 -.277 2.488 1.278 .372 -.138 .960 1.266 .173 1.388 -1.135
3 106.587 -.281 2.902 1.295 .362 -.155 .990 1.386 .150 1.416 -1.138
4 106.578 -.281 2.996 1.295 .361 -.156 .991 1.395 .147 1.416 -1.138
5 106.578 -.281 3.000 1.295 .361 -.156 .991 1.395 .147 1.416 -1.138
6 106.578 -.281 3.000 1.295 .361 -.156 .991 1.395 .147 1.416 -1.138
a. Method: Forward Stepwise (Conditional)
b. Constant is included in the model.
c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 132.948
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

77
 Table 4.13 SPSS Output on Iteration History for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression: Beginning Block
Iteration Historya,b,c
Coefficients
Iteration -2 Log likelihood
Constant
Step 0 1 132.991 .778
2 132.948 .821
3 132.948 .821
a. Constant is included in the model
b. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 132.948
c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter estimates
changed by less than .001

The previous two tables show that the -2log(Lo-L1) is 132,948 –

105,408 = 27,540. Alongside that, the value of α is 0.05 and the value
of df is three, where df is equal to the numbers of independent
variables included in the model. Thus the chi-square distribution table
shows that the value of x2(p) is 7,815. Therefore, we can demonstrate
that the value of -2log(Lo-L1) is greater than the value of x2(p), where
27,540 is greater than 7,815. Thus, we can conclude that the
independent variables of compatibility between cable car route and
trip destination and age are significantly correlated with the dependent
variable of people’s cable car ridership on the weekend.

Table 4.14 SPSS Output on Model Summary for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
1 118.890a .122 .172
a
2 106.578 .217 .306
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates
changed by less than .001.

The value of Nagelkerke's R Square is obtained through the Model

Summary table above, which shows that the value is 0.306. This

78
 indicates that the dependent variable (people’s cable car ridership on
weekend) can be explained by the independent variables (i.e. age and
Cable Car route compatibility with outbound trip destination) at a
proportion of 30.6%, while the remaining 69.4% is explained by other
variables outside the three independent variables included.

Table 4.15 SPSS Output on Homer and Lemeshow Test for Weekend
Cable Car Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 .000 3 1.000
2 9.791 8 .280

The test above is done to determine whether the regression model, by

using the three independent variables (i.e. age and compatibility
between cable car route and trip destination), is in accordance with
empirical data or not. The null hypothesis in this test is that "the
model can adequately explain the data or fit". If the value of Hosmer
and Lemeshow is significant or less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is
rejected and the model is not a fit. The table above shows that the Chi-
square value is 7.807 with a probability value of 0.350. Thus, the null
hypothesis is accepted, because 0.350 is bigger than 0.05. To
conclude, this means that the model has been adequately explained the
data.

79
 Table 4.16 SPSS Output on Classification Table for Weekend Cable Car
Ridership Binary Logistic Regression
Classification Tablea
Predicted
Observed WEnd.Rideship Percentage
Not Willing Willing Correct
Step 1 WEnd.Rideship Not Willing 4 29 12.1
Willing 4 71 94.7
Overall Percentage 69.4
Step 2 WEnd.Rideship Not Willing 14 19 42.4
Willing 10 65 86.7
Overall Percentage 73.1
a. The cut value is .500

The row Step 2 shows that the model predicts that 14 people are not
willing to take the cable car on weekdays, while from the observation
it is known that 33 people are not willing to take the cable car on
weekdays. Thus, the classification accuracy is 42.4%. Moreover, it is
also predicted from the model that 65 people are willing to take the
cable car on weekdays, while from the observation, it is known that 75
people are willing to take the cable car on weekdays. Thus, the
classification accuracy is 86.7%. Furthermore, the overall percentage
of classification accuracy is 73.1%.

80
 Table 4.17 Output on Variable in the Equation for Weekend Cable Car Ridership
Binary Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
95% C.I.for
EXP(B)
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step 16-24 y old 8.021 4 .091
1a 25-34 y old 3.091 1.243 6.182 1 .013 22.000 1.924 251.539
35-49 y old 1.030 .878 1.374 1 .241 2.800 .501 15.659
50-64 y old .526 .789 .445 1 .505 1.692 .361 7.943
65+ y old .262 .823 .102 1 .750 1.300 .259 6.520
Constant .000 .707 .000 1 1.000 1.000
Step 16-24 y old 9.661 4 .047
2b 25-34 y old 3.000 1.291 5.399 1 .020 20.081 1.599 252.194
35-49 y old 1.295 .976 1.761 1 .184 3.650 .539 24.700
50-64 y old .361 .864 .175 1 .676 1.434 .264 7.794
65+ y old -.156 .894 .031 1 .861 .855 .148 4.934
Not Fit 10.606 5 .060
Fit First Ph .991 .706 1.969 1 .161 2.695 .675 10.763
Fit
1.395 .911 2.346 1 .126 4.035 .677 24.043
Following Ph
Transfer
.147 .759 .038 1 .846 1.159 .262 5.128
First Phase
Transfer
1.416 .813 3.034 1 .082 4.122 .838 20.291
Following Ph
No Trip -1.138 .814 1.956 1 .162 .321 .065 1.579
Constant -.281 .855 .108 1 .742 .755
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age.
b. Variable(s) entered on step 2: WEnd.CCCompatibility.

The table above explains the correlation between each category of

independent variable with the dependent variables. From this, we can
see that not all of the independent variables are significantly correlated
with the dependent variable. Each independent variable with
significant value less than 0.05 is a variable that has significant

81
 correlation with the dependent variable. Thus, on the table, we can see
that the age profiles of 16-24 years old, 35-49 years old, 50-64 years
old, and 65+ years old have significant correlations with people’s
cable car ridership on the weekend. Moreover, the compatibility
between cable car route and trip destination, categorized by the
variable of fit with the cable car’s following-phase route plan, has a
significant correlation with the people’s cable car ridership on the
weekend.

Beyond the independent variables’ significance, the above table is also

able to explain about how greatly each independent variable in
influenced by each dependent variable. As shown by the age profile
rows under Step 2, people who are 25 to 34 years old have the highest
probability to take the cable car on the weekend. Moreover, the older
the person, there will be less possibility to take the cable car.
Furthermore, as a natural logarithm of the EXP (B), the B value of is
negative for the age group of 65+ years old, we can say that these
people have a negative relationship with cable car ridership on the
weekend. In the end we can conclude that people who are 16 to 24
years old are the only age group that has a positive probability of
taking the cable car on the weekend, while people who are 35 to 49
years old, 50 to 64 years old, and more than 65 years old unlikely to
use the cable car on weekdays.

Furthermore, the tables show that the people whose destination fits
with the first-phase cable car route plan have a probability of taking
the cable car on weekdays more than the people whose destinations fit
with the following-phase cable car route plan.. The value of B is
positive, which means that the people whose destination fits with the
first-phase cable car route plan have a positive relationship with cable
car ridership on weekends. At the same time, the people who do not

82
 take any trips on the weekend have a probability of taking the cable
car on weekend is more than the people whose destinations fit with the
following-phase cable car route plan. The B value is positive, meaning
that the people who do not take any trips on the weekend have a
positive relationship with cable car ridership on weekend. As for
people whose destinations do not fit with any of the cable car route
plans, this group has a probability of taking the cable car on the
weekend is less than the people whose destinations do fit with the
following-phase cable car route plan. The B value is negative,
meaning that the category of people whose destinations do not fit with
any of the cable car route plans has a negative relationship with cable
car ridership on weekends. Another group, people who need to make a
transfer after taking the first-phase cable car route plan, have a
probability of taking the cable car on a weekday is more than the
people whose destinations fit with the following-phase cable car route
plans. The B value is positive, meaning that the people who need to
make a transfer after taking the cable car’s first-phase route plan have
a positive relationship with cable car ridership on weekends. As for
people who need to make a transfer after taking the following-phase
cable car route plan, this group has a probability of taking the cable
car on weekday is less than the people whose destinations fit with the
following-phase cable car route plan. Since the B value is negative,
the people who need to make a transfer after taking the cable car’s
following-phase route plan have a negative relationship with cable car
ridership on weekends. In the end we can conclude that the people
whose destinations fit with the first-phase cable car route plan, people
who need to make a transfer after taking the cable car’s first-phase
route plan, and people who do not make any trips on the weekend,
will be more likely to use the cable car on weekends. Meanwhile,
people whose trip does not fit with any of the cable car route plans,
and people who need to make transfers after taking the cable car’s

83
 following-phase route plans are less likely to use the cable car on the
weekend.

4.6. Factors Influencing Cable Car Ridership at Two Housing Areas

As explained before, the survey area includes two different housing areas,
which are the urban kampong and the non-kampong area. People from low to
middle income occupy the urban kampong area, while people from middle to
high income occupy the non-kampong area. Thus, this part of the analysis
will show how the dependent variables from the previous regression model
influence cable car ridership on both weekdays and weekends in these two
housing areas.

100% 2%
90% 17% 17%
80% 34%
70% 23% 41%
60% 42%
50% 23%
40% 21% 45%
30% 15% Yes
20% 37% 36% 11%
10% 25% Mostly Yes
0% 11%
Fenced-Housing

Kampong

Fenced-Housing

Kampong

Mostly No
No

Weekday Weekend

Figure 4.27 Cable Car Ridership on Weekday and Weekend of People from
Non-kampong and Kampong Area

From the cable car ridership data, we can see that on the weekend, people
who are from the kampong area tend to have a higher willingness to ride in
comparison to the people who came from the non-kampong area. On the
weekday, however, the data show the opposite. Only 2% of the kampong-area
population is willing to take the cable car on weekdays, while 17% of the
non-kampong population is willing to take the cable car. However, when
looking at the cable car ridership on weekday and the weekend, we find no
difference in the number of the non-kampong population who are willing to

84
 take the cable car. As for the people from the kampong area, weekend
ridership shows a significant increase.

100% 6% 9%
90% 13% 25%
80%
38%
70% 31%
54% 16%
60%
5% No Trip
50% 17%
23%
40% 21% Not Fit
4%
30% 6% 9%
8% 13% Transfer Long
20% 16% 23%
10% 19% 2% 21% Transfer Short
11% 9%
0% Fit Long
Fenced-Housing

Kampong

Fenced-Housing

Kampong
Fit Short

Weekday Weekend

Figure 4.28 Compatibility Between Cable Car Route and Trip Destination of
People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area

From the table above, we can see that the weekday destination of people from
the Kampong area mostly do not fit with any of the cable car routes, with
54% of the sample responding negatively. The non-kampong population
shows the same condition, with 38% of the sample responding negatively.
Moreover, the data show that people from the non-kampong area have greater
percentages of trips that are compatible with the cable car’s first-phase route
plan, with 19% responding favorably. Meanwhile, people from the kampong
area show a proportion of 11%. However, a significant decrease of ‘not fit’
trip destinations from weekday to weekend is shown among people from the
kampong area. The data show that people from the non-kampong
neighborhood, on the other hand, responded that their ‘fit with First Phase
cable car route plan’ increases to 21% on the weekend.

85
 In the previous part of this analysis, compatibility between cable car route
and trip destination, household private vehicle ownership, and walking
duration from home to Dago Terminal are the dependent variables, which are
able to significantly predict the weekday cable car ridership. Thus, the two
following figures will show household private ownership and the walking
durations for both the kampong and non-kampong area.

100% 4%
90%
80%
70%
67% Both PV
60% 73%
50% Car only
40% Motorcycle only
30% No PV
20% 25%
10%
8%
0%
Fenced-Housing Kampong

Figure 4.29 Household Private Vehicle Ownership of People from Non-

kampong and Kampong Area

In the figure above, we can see that most people from the non-kampong area
own both a car(s) and a motorcycle(s) at their household, with 67% of the
population responding this way. Meanwhile, 25%of people who live in this
area only have a car(s) at their household. A minority of people who live in
this area only own a motorcycle(s) at their household. In contrast, at the
kampong area, 73% of the people own a motorcycle(s) at their household and
23% of them own no private vehicle in their household. The minority of 4%
of people who live in this area own both a car(s) and a motorcycle(s).

86
 100% 2%
16%
80% 33%

60% 10 to 15 mins
27%
82% 5 to 10 mins
40%
Less than 5 min
20% 40%

0%
Fenced-Housing Kampong

Figure 4.30 Walking Duration from home to Dago Terminal of People from
Non-kampong and Kampong Area

From the figure above, we see that most people who come from the kampong
area have a walking duration of less than 5 minutes to the Dago Terminal.
Meanwhile, the walking durations of people who came from the non-
kampong area are distributed evenly among the walking duration categories.

As for the data regarding weekdays, compatibility between cable car route
and trip destination, gender, and age are the dependent variables that are able
to significantly predict the cable car ridership. Thus, the two following
figures show the gender and age at both the kampong and non-kampong
areas.

100%

80%
54% 52%
60%
Women
40% Men

20% 46% 48%

0%
Fenced-Housing Kampong

Figure 4.31 Gender of People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area

87
 100% 2%
13% 18%
80% 65 +
25%
60% 34% 50 - 64
31% 35 - 49
40% 18%
25 - 34
20% 17%
29% 16 - 24
13%
0%
Fenced-Housing Kampong

Figure 4.32 Age of People from Non-kampong and Kampong Area

From Figure 4.31, we can see that there are a greater proportion of women
than men among the populations both at the kampong and the non-
kampong area. Meanwhile, from Figure 4.32, we can see that people from
the kampong are on general slightly younger than people from the non-
kampong area. As we can see people in the age category of 16 to 24 years
old came from the kampong area at a rate of 29%, while only 13% of them
came from the non-kampong area. In contrast, people who are 50 to 65+
years old reside in a greater percentage in the non-kampong area, at a rate
of 38%, while only 20% are from the kampong area.

88
 CHAPTER 5
DATA INTERPRETATION

This section will examine in greater depth the findings obtained in the analysis
chapter. The findings explained include respondent’s characteristics, trip diaries,
and the relationship found between them. Moreover, we will also explore the
relationship between trip data, respondent’s characteristics, perception of cable
car feasibility, and potential ridership. Furthermore, findings from predictor
variables for cable car ridership will also be explained. Finally, we will discuss
the cable car ridership differences between the kampong area and the non-
kampong area.

5.1 People’s Characteristics and Travel Patterns

From the total number of 108 survey participants, half came from the
kampong area and the rest came from the non-kampong area. From what we
know about each housing type, it is assumed that people who come from the
kampong side are people with low- to middle-income, while people who
come from the non-kampong area are people with middle- to high-income. In
2015, the minimum average salary in Bandung was 2.3 million Rupiah, and
one average household consists of 2 adults and 2 children. Thus, it can be said
that the category of 3-5 million for household average monthly salary is a
middle-income household, of which our sample has 12%. Following from
this categorization, 42% of the sample came from low-income households
and 41% of the sample came from high-income households. Thus, the
assumption made initially was slightly in line with the reality.

Looking at the aspects most relevant to transportation concerns, we see that

most of the population owns a private vehicle in their household, at a rate of
88% out of the entire population. Even though there are only 12% of people

89
 who do not have any private vehicle in their household, it is shown that 27%
of the total population takes Angkot as their daily mode of transport.
Moreover, we also know that most of the population has used Angkot within
the last 1-2 weeks, at a rate of 32%. Finally, the data show that most people
have a walking duration from home to Dago Terminal of less than 5 minutes,
with a response rate of 62% for this condition.

The trip diary data generate the average number of trips per day per person,
which is 2 trips both on weekdays and weekends. Moreover, the data also
show that on the weekday the modal split consists of 35% motorcycle, 29%
cars, 19% walking, 15% Angkot, 1% bicycle, and 1% bus. Meanwhile, on the
weekend, the modal split consists of 42% car, 36% Angkot, 19% motorcycle,
and 3% walking. Thus, on the weekday, people tend to use more private
vehicles, at a rate of 64% out of the total trips per day. Moreover, there are
quite a large number of walking trips on the weekday, which shows there are
many trips with short distances. On the weekend, we see that the use of
motorcycles decreases in comparison to their use on weekdays. On any given
weekday, the greatest proportion of modal split is likely to be given to
motorcycles, while on the weekend, the use of car and Angkot is
proportionally greater than the use of motorcycles. This proportional change
of modal split among users of motorcycles has a relationship with the number
of trip companions. We know that on the weekend, 89% of people who take
cars are traveling with passengers. Thus, the use of motorcycles on the
weekends decreases because people who do not own cars shift to Angkot in
order to travel with more than one other passenger. Meanwhile, on the
weekdays, a greater proportion of people who take private vehicles travel
alone without any passenger. Thus, on weekdays, the use of private vehicles
is not efficient due to the low occupancy rate. The same problem is also
shown in terms of methods of transportation used on the weekend, in that
64% of people who take motorcycles also travel by themselves.

90
 There are different proportions of trip purposes on both weekdays and
weekends. On a given weekday, most trips are working trips, at a proportion
of 49%. On the weekend, on the other hand, most of the trip purposes are
social, recreational, or shopping trips, at a proportion of 62%. Finally, it is
reported that on the weekday working trips, 47% of total trips taken are by
motorcycle, while 33% of the trips are undertaken by car. Moreover, as stated
before, most of the travelers drive alone. Thus, this shows a very inefficient
use of road, which may negatively impact traffic. Meanwhile, on the
weekend, even though 89% of the trips by cars are drivers traveling with
passengers, the use of car is 42% out of total trips, which is more than the car
use on weekdays. Moreover, the two most common trip purposes on the
weekend, which are social, recreational, and shopping, and “other” types of
trips, are usually undertaken by private vehicle, at a rate of more than 60%.
Furthermore, traffic on the weekend is produced not only by residents of
Bandung, but also from tourists, who normally come from other cities. Thus,
even though it is shown that the use of public transportation increases on the
weekend in comparison to the weekday, the use of public transportation still
must be increased in order to meet the needs of people. In addition, as seen on
a Google Maps traffic view, there are more traffic jams on the weekend than
on weekdays.

From the point of view of trip time distribution, most people start their
outbound trips on weekdays between 07.00 and 09.59, the most common time
range that represents 56% of the total weekday trips. Meanwhile, on the
weekend, most people start their trip from 10.00 to 12.59, which is 39% out
of the total weekend trips. On weekdays, most of the people who start their
trip from 07.00 to 09.59 take motorcycles and cars as their transportation
method of choice. Moreover, 66% of the trips are working trips while 18%
are trips for an educational purpose. Meanwhile, on the weekend, most of the
people who start their trip from 10.00 to 12.59 take car and Angkot as their
preferred method of transportation. Moreover, 66% of the trips are social,

91
 recreational, and shopping-related trips, and 32% of the trips are “other”
kinds of trips. As for the distance travelled, our data shows that on weekdays
most people travel a distance of 3.0 to 4.9 km per trips, a category that
represents 29% out of the total of weekday trips. On the weekend, most
people travel a distance of 5.0 to 6.9 km per trip, which is a proportion of
28% of total weekend trips. On weekdays, people who traveled from 3.0 to
4.9 km per trips take motorcycle at a rate of 48% and car at a rate of 45%.
Moreover, the most common purposes of people’s trips who traveled from
3.0 to 4.9 km are 45% working trips and 23% educational trips. Thus, we can
conclude that on the weekday, most of the traffic generated from these
populations is due to working and educational trips within 3.0 to 4.9 km,
which are done by car and motorcycle with no additional passengers.
Meanwhile, on the weekend, 53% of people who traveled from 5.0 to 6.9 km
per trip take Angkot and 37% take cars as their preferred method of
transportation. Moreover, purposes of people’s trips who traveled from 5.0 to
6.9 km are 83% social, recreational, and shopping-related trips, and 17%
“other” trips. Thus, we can conclude that on the weekend, most of the traffic
generated from these populations is for social, recreational, and shopping-
related trips, and “other” trips within 5.0 to 6.9 km, which are undertaken
mostly by Angkot and car, with travel companion(s).

5.2 People’s Trip and Cable Car

From the study, we know that most of the weekday trips (58%) are not
compatible with the first-phase or the following-phase cable car route plan.
Moreover, the eventual implementation of the following-phase cable car route
plan will not significantly affect people’s weekday trips because only 5% of
the total weekday trips are compatible with the following-phase cable car
route plan, while only 5% fit with the plan with an Angkot transfer after
taking the cable car’s following-phase route. The same problem is the case
during the weekend, when most of the trips (28%) are not compatible with
neither the first-phase nor the following-phase cable car route plan. However,

92
 the data show a significant decrease in comparison to the general
compatibility of weekend trips. Moreover, the eventual implementation of the
following-phase cable car route plan will significantly affect people’s
weekend trips. This is because 17% of the total weekend trips are suitable
with the following-phase cable car route plan and 16% of the total weekend
trips are compatible with the addition of an Angkot transfer after taking the
cable car route.

On weekdays, most people are not willing to take the cable car, with this
response receiving 36% agreement among all survey participants. On the
weekend, most people are mostly willing to take the cable car, with this
response receiving 44% agreement among all survey participants. Are data
suggest several reasons behind people’s willingness to ride the cable car. The
primary reason that people are not willing to take the cable car on weekdays
is that their destination is not covered by cable car a response that received
17% agreement among all survey participants. As for people who are willing
to take the cable car on weekdays, most (6%) agree that they feel that cable
car will suit their needs better than their current method of transportation.
“Better”, in this sense, means that the cable car allows these people to reach
their destinations faster. As for people who are mostly willing to take the
cable car on weekdays (15%), they will only take the cable car for occasional
purposes. As for people who are mostly not willing to take the cable car (8%),
the primary reason is that they prefer their current method of transportation.

There are several different variables that explain people’s willingness to ride
the cable car on weekends. For people who are not willing to take the cable
car, most (7%) respond that their destination is not covered by cable car. As
for people who are willing and mostly willing to take the cable car on
weekends, most (respectively, 15% and 12%) agree that they are likely to
take the cable car as a recreational method of transportation. As for people
who say they are mostly not willing to take the cable car, the primary

93
 response given (6%) is that the respondents prefer their current method of
transportation. Thus, we can conclude that on the weekday, people are mostly
not willing to take the cable car because their destination is not covered. This
is because, while on the weekday people’s destinations are fixed due to their
working or studying places, even if they are mostly willing to take the cable
car, they will only take it for occasional purposes. Meanwhile, on the
weekend, people generally are “mostly willing” or “willing” to take the cable
car for recreational purposes. Moreover, people’s trip destinations are more
flexible on the weekend. Thus, we conclude that the use of the cable car can
be more optimal on weekends, due to higher number of people who are
willing to ride it.

In order to meet his or her transportation needs, each person has his or her
own different priority. In this study, we ranked people priorities in order to
understand their considerations on choosing different modes of
transportation. It is known that for all people, the top five priorities in
choosing their method of transportation are the categories of fast, cheap,
requiring fewer interchanges, safe, and no pollution. This means that if there
is any other mode transport that is better in these five categories in
comparison to people’s current methods of transportation, there is a
possibility for them to shift from their existing mode of transport to that better
mode of transport. When asked to compare between their currently preferred
methods of transportation with the cable car, all of the other transportation
mode users strongly agree that cable car is faster than their current mode of
transportation. As the second most important factor, these same users also
agree that the cable car is cheaper than their current mode of transportation.
However, the cable car plans do not meet people’s expectation for the third
rank, which is to require fewer interchanges, because, as our data show, the
car users disagree with this condition. As for the fourth and fifth ranks, the
users of other transportation modes agree that the cable car is safer than their

94
 existing mode of transportation, and also strongly agree that by taking the
cable car they are less affected by pollution.

From these various factors, we can conclude that the cable car plans meet
people’s expectations for the categories of fast, cheap, safe, and no pollution.
However, the cable car plan does not meet people’s expectations for the
category of requiring fewer interchanges. This category indirectly influences
the category of fast, as interchanges take time, and we know that speed is
people’s first priority when considering different methods of transportation.
People’s destination and arrival time on the weekday is more fixed than on
the weekend, as they are traveling mostly for working and educational
purposes. Thus, fast is a very crucial category on the weekday, while, on the
weekend, people’s trip destination and arrival times are more flexible and less
rushing, as their trips are mostly social, recreational, and shopping-related, or
“other” trip purposes. We conclude that this is the reason that more people are
willing to take the cable car on weekends in comparison to weekdays.

5.3 Variables Predicting the Use of Cable Cars

There are several independent variables that can predict the use of cable cars
on weekdays and weekends. On weekdays, the most significant predictor
variables are cable car suitability with outbound trip destination, walking
duration from home to Dago Terminal, and household private vehicle
ownership. We know that people whose trips fit with the first-phase and
following-phase route plans are more favorable to the use of cable cars on
weekdays. Meanwhile, people whose trips are compatible with any of the
cable car route plans after taking an Angkot transfer, people whose trips do
not fit with any cable car route plan, and people who normally do not take
any trips, do not favor the use of cable cars on weekdays.

As for the variable of walking duration from home to Dago Terminal, we find
that people whose walking duration is less than 5 minutes and 5 to 10 minutes

95
 will be favorable to the use of cable car on weekdays, while people whose
walking duration is 10 to 15 minutes will not be favorable to the use of cable
cars on weekdays. However, this is a unique behavior, because people whose
walking duration to the Dago Terminal is 10 to 15 minutes have a higher
possibility to take the cable car on weekdays, in comparison to people with a
walking duration of less than 5 minutes.

As for the variable of household private vehicle ownership, our data show
that all of the categories encourage the use of cable cars on weekdays, but
with different levels of probabilities. However, people who own both a car(s)
and a motorcycle(s) have the lowest possibility of taking the cable car in
comparison to other categories. On the other hand, people who do not own
any private vehicle in their household have the highest possibility of taking
the cable car on a weekday. Finally, people who only own a car(s) in the
household have a bigger possibility of taking the cable car on both weekdays
and weekends in comparison to people who only own only a motorcycle(s) in
the household.

On the weekend, the predictor variables are cable car suitability with
outbound trip destination and age. For cable car suitability,we know that
people whose trips fit with the first-phase and following-phase route plan,
people whose trip requires them to take an Angkot transfer after the first-
phase cable car route plan, and people who normally do not take any trip are
favorable to the use of cable cars on the weekend. Meanwhile, people whose
trips require taking an Angkot transfer after the following-phase cable car
route plan and whose trips do not fit with any cable car route plans discourage
the use of cable cars on the weekend. As for the variable of age, our data
show that people who are 16-24 years old will be favorable to the use of cable
cars on weekends, while people who are 25 to 65+ years old will be less
likely to use cable cars on weekends.

96
 5.4 Cable Car Ridership and Influencing Factors at Two Housing Areas
From the cable car ridership data, we can see that on the weekend, people
who come from the kampong area tend to have a higher willingness to ride
than the people who come from non-kampong areas. On the weekday, the
data show the opposite. This condition is mostly influenced by compatibility
between trip destination and cable car route. For example, the data show that
on the weekend, the number of kampong people’s ‘not fit’ trip is far less than
its number on the weekday. On the other hand, for people from the non-
kampong area, the compatibility between trip destination and cable car route
compatibility on the weekday and weekend are slightly similar. Thus, this
might be the reason explaining why people from the kampong area’s
ridership of cable cars significantly increase from the weekday to the
weekend.

To understand the weekday cable car ridership more in-depth, we need to

consider the variables of household private vehicle ownership and walking
duration from home to Dago Terminal. From the regression model, we know
that people who own both a car(s) and motorcycle(s) have the lowest
possibility of taking the cable car. Meanwhile, people who own only a
motorcycle(s) in their household have the second lowest possibility of taking
the cable car. As for people who do not own any private vehicle, this group
has the highest possibility of taking the cable car. Thus, from this point of
view, people who live in the kampong area are more likely to take the cable
car in comparison to the people from non-kampong areas. This is because
people from the kampong area mostly consist of people who only own a
motorcycle(s) and those who do not own any private vehicle. As for the
walking duration variable, the regression model shows that people who have
walking durations of less than 5 minutes and 10 to 15 minutes have a lower
possibility of taking the cable car in comparison to people who have a
walking duration of 5 to 10 minutes. Thus, from this point of view, the people

97
 from the kampong area might have a lower possibility of taking the cable car
on weekdays.

To learn more about the weekend cable car ridership, we need to consider the
variable of age. The regression model shows that only people within the age
range of 16 to 24 years old will favor the use of the cable car. Thus, from this
point of view, the people from the kampong area might have a higher
possibility of taking the cable car on weekends. This is because the people
who live in the kampong area of Bandung generally are younger than people
who live in the non-kampong areas.

98
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

6.1 Conclusions
The conclusion to this study will be explained according to the four research
questions that were stated in the first chapter.
A. What are the characteristics and trip diaries of people who live in the area
near to Dago Terminal?
• 42% of people own only a motorcycle(s) in their household, while
34% own both a car(s) and motorcycle(s). People who do not have
any private vehicle in their household are only 12% of the total
population. 51% of the population is between low and middle income,
and 49% from middle to high income. Most of the population (32%)
has taken Angkot in the last 1-2 weeks, and 27% take Angkot as their
daily method of transportation. 62% of people’s walking duration
from home to Dago Terminal is less than 5 minutes, 21% have a
duration of 5-10 minutes, and the rest have walking times of 10 to 15
minutes or greater.
• The numbers of trips per day per person are 2 trips each on weekday
and weekend. On a given weekday, 64% of the people travel by
private vehicle (35% motorcycle and 29% car), 19% travel by foot,
15% travel by Angkot, and the rest travel by bicycle and bus.
Meanwhile, on the weekend, 61% of people travel by private vehicle
(42% car and 19% motorcycle), 36% travel by Angkot, and 3% travel
by foot. Numbers of motorcycle users decrease from weekdays to
weekends, which are an effect of the trips on weekend, mostly being
undertaken while accompanied by passengers. On the weekday, most
people who take private vehicles travel alone. Thus, on the weekday,

99
 the use of private vehicles is not a very efficient method of
transportation due to the low occupancy rate.
• On the weekdays, the proportions of trip purposes are mostly working,
social, recreation, or shopping-related trips, and educational trips,
which received respective responses of 49%, 15%, and 13%. The 47%
and 33% of weekday working trips are undertaken by motorcycle or
car. On the weekends, on the other hand, the proportions of trip
purposes are mostly social, recreational, or shopping-related trips and
“other” trips, with respective response rates of 62% and 26%. These
trip purposes are done by private vehicle more than 60% of the time.
Thus, both on the weekday and weekend, the most common types of
trips are generally undertaken by private vehicles, which are driven
alone on the weekday, and driven with passengers on the weekend.
• The outbound trip peak hours on weekdays are from 07.00 to 09.59,
which are traveled mostly by car and motorcycle, and the peak hours
on weekends are from 10.00 to 12.59, which are mostly traveled by
car and Angkot. The most traveled distance category on weekdays is
3.0 to 4.9 km trips, which are done mostly by car and motorcycle,
with no additional passengers. On the weekend, the most traveled
distance category is from 5.0 to 6.9 km per trip, 53% of which were
undertaken by Angkot and 37% by car.

B. How compatible is the cable car route to the people’s trip destination?
• 15% out of all weekday trips match with the first-phase cable car
route plan. Most of the weekday trips (58%) are not compatible with
either the first- or following-phase cable car route plan. Furthermore,
the eventual implementation of the following-phase cable car route
plan will not significantly affect people’s weekday trips, because only
5% of total weekday trips are suitable with the following-phase cable
car route plan and only another 5% fit along with an Angkot transfer
after taking the cable car following-phase route plan.

100
 • On the weekend, 27% of total weekend trips are compatible with the
first-phase cable car route plan, while 28% of the weekend trips are
not compatible with either the short- or following-phase cable car
route plan. In this case, though, the eventual implementation of the
following-phase cable car route plan will significantly affect people’s
weekend trips, as 17% of all weekend trips are suitable with the
following-phase cable car route plan and another 16% of all weekend
trips fit with taking the cable car following-phase route plan along
with an Angkot transfer.

C. How does people’s perception and preference on cable car services

compare to their current method of transportation?
• On the weekday, people are mostly not willing to take the cable car
because their destinations are not covered by the routes. On the
weekday, people’s destinations are fixed due to their working or
studying places. Our data show that even if they are mostly willing to
take the cable car, they will only take it for occasional purposes. On
the other hand, on the weekend, people are “mostly willing” or
“willing” to take the cable car for recreational reasons. Moreover,
people’s trip destinations are more flexible on the weekend. Thus, the
use of cable cars can be maximized on the weekend.
• People’s top five priorities in choosing methods of transportation are
fast, cheap, requiring fewer interchanges, safe, and no pollution. Cable
cars meet people’s expectations in the categories of fast, cheap, safe,
and no pollution. However, the cable car does not meet people’s
expectation on the category of requiring fewer interchanges. This
category indirectly influences the category of fast, as mode changing
takes time too, and fast is the people’s first priority on doing mobility.
People’s destination and arrival time on weekdays are more fixed than
on weekends, as their trips are mostly undertaken for working and
educational purposes. Thus, fast is a very crucial category on the

101
 weekday. Meanwhile, on the weekend, people’s trips are more
flexible and less rushed, as their trips are mostly social, recreational,
shopping-related, and for “other” purposes. Thus, this is the reason
more people are willing to take the cable car on weekends in
comparison to weekdays.

D. What are the variables that influence cable car ridership?

• People whose trips are fit with the first-phase and following-phase
route plan are encouraging the use of cable car on the weekday. On
the other hand, people whose trips are compatible with any of the
cable car plans after taking an Angkot transfer, people whose trips do
not fit with any cable car route plan, and people who normally do not
take any trips, are not favorable to the use of cable cars on weekdays.
Our data shows that people whose walking duration is less than 5
minutes and 5 to 10 minutes will be favorable to the use of cable car
on weekdays, while people whose walking duration is 10 to 15
minutes will be less favorable to the use of the cable car on weekdays.
As for household private vehicle ownership, our data show that people
from all of the categories will be favorable to the use of cable cars on
weekdays, but in different levels of probabilities.
• People whose trips fit within the first-phase and following-phase route
plans, whose trip also requires an Angkot transfer after the first-phase
cable car route plan, and who normally do not take any trip are
favorable to the use of cable cars on the weekends. On the other hand,
people whose trip requires an Angkot transfer even after the
implementation of the following-phase cable car route plan, and those
whose trips do not fit with any cable car route plan, are not favorable
to the use of cable cars on the weekend. Moreover, people who are 16-
24 years old will be favorable to the use of cable car on weekend,
while people who are 25 to 65+ years old will be less likely to use the
service.

102
 • From the data obtained through the binary regression model, we
predict that 63 people are not willing or mostly not willing to take the
cable car on weekday, which represents 58% of the sample
population. Meanwhile, 45 people are willing or mostly willing to
take the cable car on weekdays, which equals 42% of the population.
As for the weekend, our data predict that 75 people are willing or
mostly willing to take the cable car on weekends, which equals 69%
of the population, while, 33 people are not willing or mostly not
willing to take the cable car on weekend, which equals 31% of the
population. Thus, we can conclude that people’s reactions to cable
cars as a method of transportation are in line with the cable car vision
itself, which is an aerial tourism transportation mode. As Bandung has
a higher traffic jam rate on the weekend, cable car has the probability
to address this problem if people shift from their current mode of
transport to the cable car.
• People who come from the kampong area tend to have a higher
willingness to ride cable cars on the weekend in comparison to people
who come from the non-kampong area. On the weekday, on the other
hand, the data show the opposite. This condition is mostly influenced
by compatibility between trip destination and cable car route.
Moreover, there are more people within the age range of 16 to 24
years old residing in the kampong area, a group that is favorable to the
use of cable cars on the weekend. Furthermore, there are more people
who live in the non-kampong areas with a walking duration of 5 to 10
minutes from home to Dago Terminal, a factor that encourages the use
of cable cars on weekdays.

6.2 Suggestions
• The cable car route might not reach all people’s destinations, and thus all
transportation methods of transportation must be integrated together.
Moreover, it is also shown that many trip destinations still require an

103
 Angkot transfer after the cable car. However, Angkot as the main public
transportation mode in the city of Bandung is not as reliable as people
desire, since people expect to take transport modes that provide quicker
travel times. Thus, Angkot’s frequencies and speed must be well
planned. Moreover, there might be an overlap between the cable car and
Angkot routes, so it is crucial to modify the Angkot route according to
consumer needs.
• As affordability is the second priority for people when deciding on taking
a means of transportation, it is expected that cable cars have a price of
not more than 5.000 Rupiah on weekday, and 10.000 Rupiah on
weekends. This is the same price as stated at the Cable Car Feasibility
Report (LPPM ITB, 2014), which is also the average willingness of
people to pay based on the questionnaire.
• As the regression model shows that walking duration is one of the
predictor variables for weekday cable car ridership, it is critical to create
a comfortable pedestrian path to and from the cable car station.
Moreover, people who own no private vehicle have the highest
probability of taking the weekday cable car. Thus, it is necessary to limit
the ownership of private vehicles. Furthermore, it will be more effective
to have cable car stations in areas with predominant populations of the
age range between 16 and 24 years old, because they are the only age
category that proved to be favorable to the use of cable cars on
weekends.
• Binary logistics regression analysis has well forecasted the influencing
factors of cable car ridership. For further study, it will be good to do
multiple logistics regression to see more detail on the difference among
people who are “willing”, “mostly willing”, “mostly not willing”, and
“not willing” to take the cable car on weekdays and weekends.
Moreover, the frequency analysis done to show people’s priority in
selecting mode of transportation can be done more optimal through the
use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP a structured technique

104
 for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, based on mathematics
and psychology.

In general, the target users of Bandung cable car are for all level of economy, and
the cable car implementation aims to provide aerial tourism transportation for the
city. From the study, it is obtained that in people are more willing to take the
cable car on weekday, for tourism purpose. Thus, the forecasting result is in line
with the Bandung cable car vision. However, not only in weekends, the weekdays
also produce traffic congestion. Thus, the use of cable car must be also optimized
on the weekdays. Since the category of “fast” and “requiring fewer interchanges”
are important, cable car cannot be the only answer to traffic congestion. If people
need to do interchanges, this means other public transportation modes, especially
Angkot, need to be well integrated with the cable car. Moreover, Angkot needs to
have a strict time schedule, which may also help to increase the ridership of cable
car. On the weekday, as walking duration and private vehicle ownership are the
most influencing factors to cable car ridership, it is important to have comfortable
pedestrian way to and from the cable car station. Moreover, the government
should give disincentives to the use of private vehicle. While in weekends, as
people with the age of 16 to 24 years old are more likely to take the cable car, an
incentives to this age group can be applied to increase the ridership (e.g. cheaper
price for students). Regarding the two different neighborhood areas, people from
the urban kampong are more likely to take the cable car on weekends in
comparison to people from the big house neighborhood. While on the weekdays,
people from the kampong are more unlikely to take the cable car due to their short
distance trips.

105
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ardilly, Pascal & Tillé, Yves (2006). Sampling Methods: Exercises and Solutions.
Retrieved September 12, 2015 from, Web site:
http://studygig.com/uploads/materials/sampling_methods_-_exercis.pdf

Asri, Arifin; Ramli, Isran; Ali, Nur & Samang, Lawalenna (2013). The
Motorcycle Usage Characteristics in Developing Countries: The Operation Cost
and Ownership of Motorcycles in Makassar, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the
Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,9. Retrieved January 1, 2016
from, Web site:
http://repository.unhas.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/5999/EASTS_2013_AS
RI.pdf?sequence=1

Beirāo, Gabriela & Cabral, J.A. Sarsfield (2007). Understanding Attitudes

Towards Public Transport And Private Car: A Qualitative Study Transport Policy.
In Transport Policy,14(6). Retrieved October 9, 2015 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X0700052

Borghesi, Simone; Calastri, Chiara & Fagiolo, Giorgio (2014). How do people
choose their commuting mode? An Evolutionary Approach to Transport Choices.
In Working Paper Series. Retrieved September 10, 2015 from Institute of
Economics, Laboratory of Economics and Management Web site:
http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2014-15.pdf

BPS Bandung (2015). Kecamatan Coblong Dalam Angka Tahun 2015. Retrieved
September 9, 2015 from
http://bandungkota.bps.go.id/website/pdf_publikasi/Kecamatan-Coblong-Dalam-
Angka-2015.pdf

BPS Bandung (2015). Kota Bandung Dalam Angka Tahun 2015. Retrieved
September 9, 2015 from
http://bandungkota.bps.go.id/website/pdf_publikasi/Kota-Bandung-Dalam-
Angka-2015.pdf

BPS Bandung (2015). Statistik Daerah Kecamatan Coblong Tahun 2015.

Retrieved September 9, 2015 from
http://bandungkota.bps.go.id/website/pdf_publikasi/Statistik-Daerah-Kecamatan-
Coblong-2015.pdf

BPS Bandung (2015). Statistik Daerah Kota Bandung Tahun 2015. Retrieved
September 9, 2015 from
http://bandungkota.bps.go.id/website/pdf_publikasi/Statistik-Daerah-Kota-
Bandung.pdf

i
Cities for Mobility (2009). Medellín: Innovative Mobility Promotes Social
Cohesion. In Third World Congress of Cities for Mobility,1. Retrieved December
9, 2015 from, Web site: http://goo.gl/tc7QzZ

Daniels, Rhonda & Mulley, Corrine (2013). Explaining Walking Distance to

Public Transport: the Dominance of Public Transport Supply. In Journal of
Transport and Land Use,6(2). Retrieved September 11, 2015 from, Web site:
https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/viewFile/308/338

Dissanayake, Dilum & Morikawa, Takayuki (2010). Investigating Household

Vehicle Ownership, Mode Choice and Trip Sharing Decisions Using a Combined
Revealed Preference/Stated Preference Nested Logit Model: Case Study in
Bangkok Metropolitan Region. In Journal of Transport Geography,18(3).
Retrieved January 11, 2016 from, Web site:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096669230900115X

Field, Andy (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Retrieved December 9,

2015 from
http://senas.lnb.lt/stotisFiles/uploadedAttachments/9_Discovering_statistics_using
_SPSS201012510426.pdf

German Aerospace Center, 2012. German Mobility Panel. Retrieved from

http://daten.clearingstelle-verkehr.de/192/

Glerum, Aurelie; Atasoy, Bilge; Monticone, Alberto & Bierlaire, Michel (2011).
Adjectives Qualifying Individuals’ Perceptions Impacting on Transport Mode
Preferences, In Second International Choice Modelling Conference. Retrieved
September 10, 2015 from, Web site: http://transp-
or.epfl.ch/documents/proceedings/GleAtaMonBie_ICMC2011.pdf

Heinrichs, Dirk & Bernet, Judith (2014). Public Transport and Accessibility in
Informal Settlements: Aeral Cable Cars in Medellín, Colombia. In Transportation
Research Procedia, 4. Retrieved December 9, 2015 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146514002889

Indotravel [cartographer]. (n.d.). Peta Jaringan Jalan Kota Bandung [map].

1:33,000. Retrieved from
http://www.indotravelers.com/bandung/peta_bdg/bandung_jalan_bandung.jpg

Japan International Corporation Agency (2012). Project For The Study On

Jabodetabek Public Transportation Policy Implimatation Strategy in the Republic
of Indonesia (JAPTRAPIS). Jakarta: JICA.

Jensen, Mette (1999). Passion and heart in transport — a sociological analysis on

transport behavior. In Transport Policy,6(1). Retrieved October 9, 2015 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X98000298

ii
König, A (2002). The Reliability of the Transportation System and its Influence
on the Choice Behaviour. Paper presented at the 2nd Swiss Transport Research
Conference, Monte Verita` , Ascona, March 2002. Retrieved October 9, 2015
from http://www.strc.ch/conferences/2002/koenig.pdf

Kroes, E.P. & Sheldon, R.J. (1988). Stated Preference Methods: An Introduction.
In Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Retrieved September 12, 2015
from, Web site: http://www.bath.ac.uk/e-
journals/jtep/pdf/Volume_XX11_No_1_11-25.pdf

Lai, Wen-Tai & Lu, Jin-Long (2007). Modelling the Working Mode Choice,
Ownership and Usage of Car and Motorcycle in Taiwan. In Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies,7. Retrieved January 11, 2016 from, Web
site: http://tweb.cjcu.edu.tw/journal/2011_08_24_02_38_13.638.pdf

Levine, Robert & Bartlett, Kathy (1984). Pace of Life, Punctuality, and Coronary
Heart Disease in Six Countries. In Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,15(2).
Retrieved September 11, 2015 from
http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/15/2/233.full.pdf+html

LPPM ITB (2014). Feasibility Study Cable Car Bandung. Bandung: LPPM ITB.

Paulley, Neil; Balcombe, Richard; Mackett, Roger; Titheridge, Helena; Preston,

John; Wardman, Mark; Shires, Jeremy; & White, Peter (2006). The demand for
public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car
ownership. In Transport Policy,13(4). Retrieved October 9, 2015 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X05001587

Prabnasak, Jaruwit & Taylor, Michael A.P. (2008). Study on Mode Choice and
Vehicle Ownership in a Medium-sized Asian City. Retrieved January 1, 2016 from
University of South Australia, Institute for Sustainable System and Technologies
Web site:
http://eng.monash.edu.au/civil/assets/document/research/centres/its/caitr-
home/prevcaitrproceedings/caitr2008/prabnasak-taylor-caitr2008.pdf

Rea, Parker (2014). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A

Comprehensive Guide. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/W0Mufe

Richardson, Anthony J.; Ampt, Elizabeth S. & Meyburg, Arnim H. (1995). Survey
Methods for Transportation Planning. Retrieved September 12, 2015 from, Web
site:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~deutsch/geog111_211a/code_books/Survey_Methods
_For_Transport_Planning.pdf

Setiawan, Rudy; Suranto, Helix & Priambodo, Touffan (2003). Pemodelan

Pemilihan Moda untuk Perjalanan Menuju Kampus Menggunakan Kendaraan

iii
Pribadi dan Kendaraan Umum (Studi Kasus Universitas Surabaya). Retrieved
January 11, 2016 from Universitas Kristen Petra Surabaya, Fakultas Teknik Sipil
Web site: http://fportfolio.petra.ac.id/user_files/01-065/059.pdf

Tamin, Ofyar Z. (2000). Perencanaan dan Pemodelan Transportasi. Retrieved

from https://tekniksipilunwir.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/perencanaan-dan-
pemodelan-transportasi.pdf

Tran, Ngoc Linh; Chikaraishi, Makoto; Zhang, Junyi & Fujiwara, Akimasa
(2012). Exploring Day-to-day Variations in the Bus Usage Behavior of
Motorcycle Owners in Hanoi. In Procedia Social and Behavioural Science,43.
Retrieved January 16, 2016 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812009809

Tran, Ngoc Linh; Zhang, Junyi & Fujiwara, Akimasa (2014). Can We Reduce the
Access by Motorcycles to Mass Transit Systems in Future Hanoi? In Procedia
Social and Behavioural Science,138. Retrieved January 16, 2016 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814041688

Tuan, Vu Anh & Shimizu, Tetsuo (2005). Modeling of Household Motorcycle

Ownership Behavior in Hanoi City. In Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, 6. Retrieved October 9, 2015 from
http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id/files/Modeling%20of%20household%20motorcycle
%20ownership%20behavior%20in%20Hanoi%20city.pdf

Utami, Nurillah (2008). Hubungan Tingkat Kemacetan Dan Tingkat Pertumbuhan

Jumlah Wisatawan Di Kota Bandung: Pendekatan System Dynamics.
http://digilib.itb.ac.id/files/disk1/666/jbptitbpp-gdl-nurillahut-33257-4-2008ts-
3.pdf

Dedering, Uwe [cartographer]. (2013). Location of Indonesia [map]. Scale not

given. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/Pp7cWT

Walker, Jarrett (2011). Basics: Walking Distance to Transit. Retrieved 11

September 2015 from http://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-
to-transit.html

Wedagama, Dilum & Dissanayake, Aryaija J. (2009) Analysing Motorcycle

Injuries on Arterial Roads in Bali Using a Multinomial Logit Model. In Journal
Of The Eastern Asia Society For Transportation Studies, 8. Retrieved October 9,
2015 from
http://www.easts.info/publications/journal_proceedings/journal2010/100172.pdf

iv


vi