Heterogeneity in desired bus service quality from users’ and potential users’ perspective

Abstract Investigating on transit users’ opinions represents a useful strategy to understand the level of quality of a service, and consequently pursuing the most convenient interventions for satisfying users and improving the service. On the other hand, an important issue for increasing the use of transit systems is linked to the necessity to attract new users, in addition to customize the current users. For this reason, it becomes fundamental to know also the perceptions of people who do not use transit systems with the aim to discover which are the reasons of their travel choices and particularly which are the most relevant transit service aspects for them. In this work, a Stated Preferences (SP) survey was conducted in order to investigate on both transit current and potential users’ preferences. This kind of survey allows potential users opinions to be captured due to its peculiarity of the possibility to propose to interviewees hypothetical services and not only real services, which could not be judged by people who do not use the service. The collected data were adopted to calibrate discrete choice models such as Random Parameters mixed Logit models and Latent Class models. These models allow heterogeneity of users’ opinions to be analysed. Calibrating this kind of models using data collected from both users and potential users permitted to capture the differences among users in their preferences about transit service quality, and the differences among potential users in their desired service quality. Model results showed some interesting findings concerning the differences of categories of users and potential users, and especially the diversity of preferences between people who know well the service and people who could become users even if they have not a real perception of it. We also calculated the Willingness-To-Pay (WTP), which allowed to discover that the WTP values obtained for the potential users are very much higher than the values obtained for the users. The proposed models can be also useful for the practitioners and transit operators to identify the best combination of the quality levels to assign to the various service aspects.

[1]  M. López-Lambas,et al.  The importance of service quality attributes in public transportation: Narrowing the gap between scientific research and practitioners' needs , 2016 .

[2]  B. Raja Shekhar,et al.  Development of Railqual:A Service Quality Scale for Measuring Indian Railway Passenger , 2010 .

[3]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[4]  Luigi dell’Olio,et al.  The quality of service desired by public transport users , 2011 .

[5]  Didier van de Velde.  A new regulation for the European public transport , 2007 .

[6]  T. Saaty.  An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” , 1990 .

[7]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The sensitivity of the valuation of travel time savings to the specification of unobserved effects , 2001 .

[8]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Effect of critical incidents on public transport satisfaction and loyalty: an Ordinal Probit SEM-MIMIC approach , 2018, Transportation.

[9]  Juan de Oña,et al.  Index numbers for monitoring transit service quality , 2016 .

[10]  Peter G Furth,et al.  Service Quality Certification in Brussels, Belgium: A Quality Process with Teeth , 2006 .

[11]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[12]  Farideddin Peiravian,et al.  Public transportation quality of service: factors, models, and applications , 2018, Transport Reviews.

[13]  David A. Hensher,et al.  A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit , 2003 .

[14]  Laura Eboli,et al.  How to Capture the Passengers’ Point of View on a Transit Service through Rating and Choice Options , 2010 .

[15]  J. Dyer.  Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process , 1990 .

[16]  Sergio R. Jara-Díaz,et al.  Detection of income effect in mode choice: theory and application , 1989 .

[17]  Luigi dell’Olio,et al.  Modelling user perception of bus transit quality , 2010 .

[18]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[19]  Mark Wardman,et al.  Public transport values of time , 2004 .

[20]  Laura Eboli,et al.  Spatial variation of the perceived transit service quality at rail stations , 2018, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[21]  Concepción Román,et al.  Using Stated Preferences to Analyze the Service Quality of Public Transport , 2014 .

[22]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[23]  Anjali Awasthi,et al.  A hybrid approach based on SERVQUAL and fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating transportation service quality , 2011, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[24]  Rocío de Oña,et al.  Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality , 2016 .

[25]  Juan de Oña,et al.  Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches , 2015, Transp. Sci..

[26]  Rosa Barreda,et al.  Modelling user perception of taxi service quality , 2018 .

[27]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  A service quality and success model for the information service industry , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[28]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research , 1985 .

[29]  Kokku Randheer,et al.  Measuring Commuters' Perception on Service Quality Using SERVQUAL in Public Transportation , 2011 .

[30]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis , 2015 .

[31]  Laura Eboli,et al.  A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures from the passenger’s point of view , 2011 .

[32]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Reply to “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” by J. S. Dyer , 1990 .

[33]  Maria Bordagaray,et al.  Modelling user perception of bus transit quality considering user and service heterogeneity , 2014 .

[34]  D. McFadden,et al.  Specification tests for the multinomial logit model , 1984 .

[35]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .

[36]  D. Hensher.  The valuation of commuter travel time savings for car drivers: evaluating alternative model specifications , 2001 .

[37]  George G. Earl,et al.  Public transport service quality and sustainable development: A community stakeholder perspective , 2010 .

[38]  Guy Garrod,et al.  Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis , 2005 .

[39]  David A. Hensher,et al.  MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY IN SCHEDULED BUS SERVICES , 2001 .

[40]  Elisabetta Cherchi,et al.  Workshop Synthesis: Stated Preference Surveys and Experimental Design, an Audit of the Journey so far and Future Research Perspectives , 2015 .

[41]  Andres Monzon,et al.  Quality of Bus Services Performance: Benefits of Real Time Passenger Information Systems , 2013 .

[42]  A. Sivakumar,et al.  Influence of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction Application of Servqual Model , 2010 .

[43]  D. Hensher.  Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice , 1994 .

[44]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Measurement of the Valuation of Travel Time Savings , 2000 .