8/2/2019 Bus Karo - Appendix D

1/2

reached the user perception levels of 2006 (pre- TRAVELER FEATURES

Transantiago).By gender and age: The sample is not representative of th

INTRODUCTION population as there is a bias towards women. The samp

are, however, comparable across time periods.Transantiago is a citywide public transportation plan which

includes the optimization of the bus routes and services, fare By educational level and occupation: Nearly a third of t

integration using advanced technologies, continuous bus sample of households surveyed is at least high scho

fleet renovation, strong requirements for the companies educated. Further, the second and third highest proportio

delivering transit services, support infrastructure for buses of users were employees and professionals or technicia

(priority and exclusive lanes, bus stops, integration terminals, Majority of the users indicated other as their main activity.

ands user information and control systems) and expansion ofBy most frequently used mode of transport: It was found ththe Metro network. System commissioning happened on athe percentage of users that used transfers to switch modes single day for the whole Metropolitan Area on February 10,transport increased from 47% to 69% between March 2002007, after 6 years of planning and implementation process.and 2008. Further, the percentage of users that combin

Bus servi ce improvements include the reorganization of travel on Transantiago with the Metro or only used the Met

routes into five trunk corridors using the main thoroughfares increased from 59% to 65%.

of the road network and ten local service areas that feed theThe average number of trips undertaken per week per ustrunk and metro services and provide transport services withindecreased from an average of 4.5 in October 2006 to 4.4 the areas. Each trunk corridor and service area is privatelyMarch 2007 to 4.2 in March 2008. The majority of the useprovided under concession contracts awarded through antravelled for work.open and competitive bidding process. Administration of

system funds is also a concession to a pool of banks, whichTRAVEL EXPERIENCEare in charge of providing the integration technology

(contactless smart cards, points of sale and re-charge,

Travel Time by Bus: The journey time by bus without avalidation on board buses, and transaction management). transfers decreased by an average of 16 minutes betweeControl and user information systems are privately provided,

2007 and 2008. Further, the journey time with transfeas well as selected infrastructures of the system (integration

between buses also fell by an average of 3 minutes betweeterminals.) The Metro network is developed and operated by

2007 and 2008.an autonomous public agency.

Travel time by Metro: Travel time by the Metro fell by aUSER OPINION SURVEY

average of 8 minutes. Total travel time also decreased o

average by 8 minutes even when combining commute A user opinion survey was conducted on the 26th of MarchMetro with a bus transfer.2008, similar to the surveys undertaken in October 2006 and

March 2007. The results of the survey were compared to theCost of Travel: The amount spent by users on transportati

user ratings of the public transportation system at two othereach day decreased by 17 cents between March 2007 an

time periods, October 2006 prior to the launch of the2008.

Transantiago system and March 2007 shortly after the launch

of the Transantiago system. The comparisons were made to

track any change in perception of users regarding the quality

of Transantiago.

The 2008 sample size was a random selection of 45households in the urban area of Santiago that used mass

transit. They were interviewed via the telephone on the 26th of

March 2008.

The level of reliability of the survey is 95%.

Number of transfers

Quality of buses

Personal security in bus stops and inside mode of transport

Price of transport

Payment systemEXAMPLE 1: PASSENGER USER SURVEY QUESTIONS

Which of these aspects have improved since theSample characterization implementation of BRT system (Improved, maintained, got

worse)? Female, male

Time waiting for transport at station Age

Quality of access to stations (distance from where you live, What is your principal activity? (Independent, constructionhow easy it is to reach the station, distance from station toworker, seller, executive director, technical professional,your destination, safety of access)and so on)

Driving safety What is your educational level (basic incomplete, basic

complete, average incomplete, average complete, Comfort level of triptechnical or university incomplete, technical or university

Number of transferscomplete)

Quality of buses

Characterization of trips Personal security in bus stops and inside mode of transport

Price of transport What transport mode do you use with more frequency for

Payment systemyour typical trips? (Only bus, only metro, bus and metro,

transfer between buses, ferry, bicycle, car, taxi, other) EXAMPLE 2: TRANSANTIAGO USER PERCEPTION How many times in a week do you make the typical trips? SURVEY (SANTIAGO, CHILE)

What is the main purpose of your typical trips? (study,ABSTRACTwork, and so on)

Average trip time (walk, waiting, trip) A user opinion survey on the Transantiago system was

conducted on the 26th of March 2008 to measure and What alternative transport mode do you have available?understand the change in perception of the passengers. The(car, carpooling, bus, metro, walk, taxi, walk, bicycle,results were compared to two similar surveys conductedand so on)before the launch of the new system in October 2006 and

How much to do you spend daily in transport?shortly after the launch in March 2007.

Opinion about the service The sample users were asked to rate the system on the basis

of their travel experience by rating various aspects of thePlease classify the following aspects of your transportation system by allocating a number value between 1 and 7,(from 1-Appaling to 7 - Excellent) with 1 being the worst and 7 the best. The ratings were

compared between the three separate time intervals - 2006, Time waiting for transport at station 2007 and 2008.

Quality of access to stations (distance from where you live, Overall it was noted that there has been a positive change inhow easy it is to reach the station, distance from station toperception of bus users, with the system as a whole receivingyour destination, safety of access)a rating over 4 (out of 7) on all aspects. There is a similar

Driving safetypositive change in perception and ratings of the new system

Comfort level of trip by Metro users. It is noted that there is still room for

improvement, as travel times and overall ratings have not

APPENDIX D:USER SURVEYS

APPENDIX D: USER SURVEYS APPENDIX D: USER SU

EMBARQ: Bus Karo: A Guidebook on Bus Plan202 EMBARQ: Bus Karo: A Guidebook on Bus Planning & Operations

8/2/2019 Bus Karo - Appendix D

2/2

APPENDIX D: USER SU

Micros Amarillas Transantiago Transantiago Transantiago

2006 March 2007 October 2007 March 2008

% Users that transfers 29% 47% 58% 69%

Proportion of users- Metro (full journey or one leg) 40% 59% 68% 65%

Average weekly trips per user 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.2

Average travel time 62 mins 75 mins 73 mins 72 mins

Av er ag e spe ndi ng p er d ay (ro und tr ip) $1.06 $1.14 $0.98 $0.97

Average rating system 4.6 4 4.1 4.3

QUALITY OF SERVICE

The sample users were asked to rate ten aspects of the transporta tion system from 1 to 7 with 1 being the worst and 7 the best.

The following ten aspects were rated: system of payment; price system; safety level in the commute; travel time; distance from

origin or destination; personal safety ; quality of the buses; number of transfers; convenience of travel; and waiting time at

stops.

The overall rating of the new Transantiago system increased from 4.1 in March 2007 to 4.3 in 2008; however it is still lower

than the ranking given to the older system.

There is a significant increase in user satisfaction on all aspects of the new system except the quality of the buses and the feeling

of safety during the commute by the users o f the system.

There is a positive change in the perception of bus users who have rated the new system over a 4 (out of 7) on all a spects. There

is a similar positive change in perception and subsequent rating of the new system by Metro users.

In addition, the sample users were asked to determine if the following aspects had either, Improved, Stayed the same or

Worsened since the unveiling of the Transantiago system. The results are shown below.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The percentage of users that use transfers in their commute increased by 22% between March 2007 and 2008.

2. The percentage of users who use only the Metro fell from 18% to 9% between March 2007 and 2008.

3. The percentage of users who only use the Metro in combination increased by 6% between March 2007 and 2008.

4. The average number of trips undertaken by the sample users each week fell from an average of 4.4 to 4.2 between Mar

2007 and 2008 respectively.

5. Between March 2007 and 2008, the total time taken to travel a stipulated distance decreased from 75 minutes to minutes.

6. Due to better coverage of the Transantiago service, the total walking time between the origin station or stop and the fin

destination has decreased.

7. Despite a poor rating for the use of transfers in commute, there has been a consistent increase in the number of travelle

using transfers across the time intervals.

8. The overall quality of service on the Transantiago system has shown an improvement in almost all aspects as rated by t

sample users in the survey.

9. Ratings for the Transantiago system have been consistently improving over the three time periods March 2007, Octob

2007 and March 2008. Better overall travel or commute time and overall ratings are yet to reach the levels obtained

October 2006, before the launch of the system.

Summary Table from User Survey

Source: [116]

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.4

4.6

4.6

4.7

5.1

5.6

3.4

3.1

3.7

4.0

3.7

4.2

4.2

4.6

4.7

5.3

4.4

4.7

4.7

4.9

4.7

5.3

4.9

4.9

4.3

4.8

0 2 4 6

Waiting Time at Stops

Convenience of Travel

Number of Transfers

Quality of Buses

Personal safety

Distance from orgin or destination

Travel time in vehicle

Safety level in commute

Price

Payment system

Rating of various aspects of the Transantiago System

Oct-06

Mar-07

Mar-08

9%

51%

19%

12% 9%12%

41%

21%

9%

17%

11%

54%

20%

9%6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0-500 501-1000 1001 -1500 1501 -2000 > 2000

US Cents

Cost of Travel

O ct -0 6 M ar -0 7 M ar -0 8

Got worse Stayed the same Improved

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Change in User Perception - Transantiago

closertoorigin

ordestination

waitingtime

atstops

systemo

f

payment

numberof

transfers

pricesystem

traveltime

comfort

qualityofbus

safetylevelin

commute

personelsafety

EMBARQ: Bus Karo: A Guidebook on Bus Plan204 EMBARQ: Bus Karo: A Guidebook on Bus Planning & Operations

APPENDIX D: USER SURVEYS