EVALUATION OF USER’S PERCEPTIONS REGARDING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS OF INTERCITY BUS TERMINALS IN LAHORE, PAKISTAN

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Transport Problems

Silesian University of Technology

Subject: Economics , Transportation , Transportation Science & Technology

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 1896-0596
eISSN: 2300-861X

DESCRIPTION

3
Reader(s)
9
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 (June 2017) > List of articles

EVALUATION OF USER’S PERCEPTIONS REGARDING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS OF INTERCITY BUS TERMINALS IN LAHORE, PAKISTAN

Saba IKHLAQ / Muhammad Ashraf JAVID / Tanvir Iqbal QAYYUM

Keywords : Intercity bus terminals; users’ perception; performance indicators, user satisfaction index, Lahore

Citation Information : Transport Problems. Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 123-136, DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2017.12.2.12

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Received Date : 01-October-2016 / Accepted: 25-May-2017 / Published Online: 24-October-2017

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

This study aims to evaluate the intercity bus terminals in metropolitan Lahore, Pakistan. In this regard eleven intercity bus terminals of Lahore (three government-owned & eight privately owned) were selected. Evaluation of performance indicators (PIs) for a sustainable design of intercity bus terminals was conducted with the help of different surveys. Six PIs on user perception were evaluated, i.e., safety and security, access, information, connection and reliability, environment and allied facilities. The bus terminals and PIs were also ranked according to user satisfaction. The results showed that the privately owned intercity bus terminals perform better and are more likely to be sustainable as compared with government-owned terminals. Likewise, the users indicated more satisfaction with the privately owned terminals. In addition, the users rated ‘safety and security’ as the most important among the six PIs. It is recommended to establish standards for sustainable design of intercity bus terminals using the six PIs as measures of performance.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Arintono, S. The Operating Characteristics of Intercity Public Van Service in Lampung, Indonesia. Journal of Public Transportation. 2010. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 25-37.
2. Carol, T. & Gibbon, F. BERA Dialogues. England, WBC Print Ltd. Bistrol. 1990.
3. Department of Transport. 2003. Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies. (Vol.1) Available from: http://www.persona.uk.com/A47postwick/deposit-docs/DD90.pdf.
4. De Ona, Juan & et al. Heterogeneity in perceptions of service quality among groups of railway passengers. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 9. 8. 2015. P. 612-626.
5. De Ona, Juan, et al. A composite index for evaluating transit service quality across different user profiles. Journal of Public Transportation 19.2. 2016. P. 8.
6. De Ona, Juan & et al. Index numbers for monitoring transit service quality. Transportation Research Part A. Policy and Practice 84. 2016. P. 18-30.
7. de Ona, Juan & et al. Transit passengers’ behavioural intentions: the influence of service quality and customer satisfaction. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 12.5. 2016. P. 385-412.
8. Eboli, L. & Mazzulla, G. A New Customer Satisfaction Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality. Journal of Public Transportation. 2009. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 21-37.
9. Fravel, F.D. & Barboza, R. Development and Application of a Rural Intercity Demand Model. Journal of Public Transportation. 2012. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 25-41.
10. Freitas, A.L.P. Assessing the quality of intercity road transportation of passengers: An exploratory study in Brazil. Transportation Research Part A. 2013. Vol. 49. P. 379-392.
11. Gadermann, A.M. & Guhn, M. & Zumbo, B.D. 2012. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Available from: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf.
12. Hensher, D.A. & Prioni, P. A service quality index for area-wide contract performance assessment. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP). 36.1. 2002. P. 93-113.
13. Hensher, D.A. & Mulley, C. & Yahya, N. Passenger experience with quality-enhanced bus service: the tyne and wear ‘superoute’services. Transportation. Vol. 37(2). 2010. P. 239-256.
14. Hensher, D.A. & Stopher, P. & Bullock, P. Service quality––developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Vol. 37(6). 2003. P. 499-517.
15. Hensher, D.A. The relationship between bus contract costs, user perceived service quality and performance assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. Vol.8(1). 2014. P. 5-27.
16. Iseki, H. & Miller, M. & Ringler, A. & Smart, M. & Taylor, B.D. Evaluating Connectivity Performance at Transit Transfer Facilities. Los Angeles. 2007.
17. JICA. Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan. Lahore: Almec corporation oriental consultants Co. Ltd. 2012.
18. Punjab, Govt. Motor Vehicle Rules. 1969.
19. Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. 2011. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Available from: http://www.ijme.net/archive/2/cronbachs-alpha.pdf.
20. The Urban Unit. Assessment of Institutional Arrangement for Urban Land Development and Management in Five Large Cities of Punjab. Lahore. 2007. P. 10.
21. Woldeamanuel, M. Evaluating the Competitiveness of Intercity Buses in Terms of Sustainability Indicators. Journal of Public Transportation. 2012. Vol. 15. No. 3. P 77-96.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS