USER PERCEPTION

STUDY
1. LOKESH KUKADIYA

2. YASH THAKKAR

3. JAYESH VAVIYA

4. VAIBHAV KARELIYA
BUS TRANSIT RELIABILITY
 USER PERCEPTION SURVEY

• User perception survey was carried on one weekday and weekend along route no. 60 during
peak and off peak hours.
• Questionnaire is prepared including
• socio economic characteristics,
• awareness of bus schedules,
• satisfaction levels of passengers regarding schedule reliability and overall transit system
• also the willingness to pay extra fare on improvement of facility was recorded.
• On-board and off-board interviews were conducted.

• A total of 1000 samples were collected for the study.

 VARIABLES IN QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Sl.
Characteristics Variables considered
No
·Income
Socio-economic ·Age
1
characteristics ·Sex
·Occupation
·Trip frequency
·Origin-Destination
·Trip purpose
2 Travel characteristics ·Trip start time
·Passenger perceived travel time

·Waiting time at bus stop

3 Awareness of schedule Whether passengers are aware of schedule (Yes/ No)

DATA ANALYSIS
 age wise distribution of the data collected gender wise distribution

4%
8% 20%
19.05%
10 to
20
20-30
30-40
24%
40-50
50+ 80%

45% male female

 income wise classification occupation wise classification

7%
28% 28% 10%

3% 34%
10%
30% 38%

5%
<10 10k to 25k 25k to 50k
5%
50k+ non-income

self employed pvt sec employed govt employed

labour student other
 Cumulative frequency curve of ratio of waiting time to in-vehicle travel time
200 120.00
183
180

100.00
160 98.15
95.46
91.6092.6992.77
137 87.3188.99
81.6883.70
140
79.16 80.00

120 73.78
110 68.32

PERCENTAGE
FREQUENCY

96
63.53
100 60.00
9059.08
78 51.51
80
42.27 65 64 40.00
60 57
53
43
26.89
40 31 32 32
30 20.00
24
15.38 20
20 13
9 7.31
1
0 0.76 0.00
0 TO 0.05 0.1 TO 0.15 0.2 TO 0.25 0.3 TO 0.35 0.4 TO 0.45 0.5 TO 0.55 0.6 TO 0.65 0.7 TO 0.75 0.8 TO 0.85 0.9 TO 0.95
0.05 TO 0.1 0.15 TO 0.2 0.25 TO 0.3 0.35 TO 0.4 0.45 TO 0.5 0.55 TO 0.6 0.65 TO 0.7 0.75 TO 0.8 0.85 TO 0.9 0.95 TO 1

RATIO OF WAITING TO IN-VEHICLE TT

FREQUENCY % cummulative frequency

 deviation in perceived and actual travel time (in mins)

140 120.00
129

120
98.93 100.00
100.00
97.15
93.59
100 85.41
82.21
80.00

percentage
frequency

80 67.62
60.00
60

41 40.00
40

23 23
17 1921.71 20.00
20 14.95
9 10
6.76 5 3
2
0 0.71 0.00
-50 to -40 -40 to -30 -30 to -20 -20 to -10 -10 to 0 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60

deviation in travel time (minute)

frequency % cummulative frequency

 REASEARCH FINDINGS
• More than 70% of the passengers were students and private sector
employees.
• Approximately 40% of users were aged between 20-30
• peak hour was observed to be morning 7 am to 9 am and in evening from
5pm to 9pm.
• 30% users preferred to board bus from the terminal station as far as possible.
• Average income of commuters ranged between 10k to 25k.
• Average rating of the bus service is 2.5
• Irrespective of the age, gender and working class, bus waiting time was rated
as highest priority.
• Females, higher income groups and aged commuters also rated bus on time
performance and riding comfort as 2nd and 3rd priority.
• 99% of the users were unaware of the bus schedule on both up and down
routes.
• 60% of the users were waiting 0.25 times the travel time.
• 1.5% users were waiting for almost the same time as travelling time.
• Lower income groups, aged and students were reluctant to pay more fare if
the service was improved. However on reduction of TT by 20%, 5% more fare
was accepted by most of the commuters.
• Females, higher income groups were readily available to more if service was
improved and travel time was reduced.
• Overall from the willingness study it was observed that if an alternate mode
of transportation was provided which offers better comfort and reduces TT by
10%, passengers are willing to pay 10% to 15% extra fare.
THANK YOU