The gaps in satisfaction with transit services among BRT, metro, and bus riders: Evidence from Guangzhou
Loading...
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
The gaps in satisfaction with transit services among BRT, metro, and bus riders: Evidence from Guangzhou
Published Date
2016
Publisher
Journal of Transport and Land Use
Type
Article
Abstract
This paper explores transit riders’ satisfaction with bus rapid transit (BRT) and compares BRT with conventional bus and metro services using revealed preference data from Guangzhou, China. A trivariate ordered probit model is developed to examine the effects of various service attributes on riders’ overall satisfactions with the three types of transit. We find that the top-three influential attributes for satisfaction with BRT are ease of use, safety while riding, and comfort while waiting. Moreover, transit riders are most satisfied with metro, followed by BRT and conventional bus. The top-five attributes that contribute to the difference in the overall satisfaction between BRT and metro are ease of use, comfort while riding, convenience of service, travel time, and comfort while waiting. Based on the findings, we propose specific strategies that can be used to enhance BRT quality of service.
Description
Related to
Replaces
License
Collections
Series/Report Number
Funding information
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
10.5198/jtlu.2015.592
Previously Published Citation
Other identifiers
Suggested citation
Cao, Jason; Cao, Xiaoshu; Zhang, Chen; Huang, Xiaoyan. (2016). The gaps in satisfaction with transit services among BRT, metro, and bus riders: Evidence from Guangzhou. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, 10.5198/jtlu.2015.592.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.