How does car ownership influence users’ and planners’ perceptions of new Rapid Transit Systems? The Case of Amman Bus Rapid Transit

By Architect: Mohammad Abdel Qader Alfar

ABSTRACT

The relationship between car ownership and public transport ridership is of interest to governments and transport planners. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), as a relatively new mode of public transport, is usually promoted to car users in an attempt to challenge that contentious relationship. Car ownership can have different influences on the way users perceive BRT services. Perceptions of planners and professionals on BRT services are also expected to be influenced by car ownership objectively and subjectively. This dissertation addresses the question of how perceptions of potential riders and planning professionals on public rapid transit systems are influenced by car ownership and how the perceptions of the two groups compare. It uses the forthcoming Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Amman- Jordan as its one in-depth case study and employs a mixed methods research approach. In addition to reference to secondary sources, two internet questionnaires were designed to measure the influence of car ownership on the perceptions of both groups using a random sample of 213 possible riders and a purposive sample of 15 planning professionals. Using triangulations and correlation tests for the generated data it was found that while car ownership has some negative influence on users’ perceptions manifested by less enthusiasm of car users about the BRT, car ownership sits within a more complex set of influences that resonate with what has been mentioned in the Theory of Planned Behaviour in what drives intentions. The dissertation also found that planning professionals tend to be more positive and objective about the BRT and its ability to attract car users. However, their perceptions, paradoxically, had a stronger correlation with car users’ perceptions on other aspects of the relationship between car ownership and the BRT implying that, on some level, planning professionals cannot detach themselves from some subjective perceptions connected to the fact that they are also car users.

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3 FIGURES AND TABLES ...... 4 1- INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Background of the Problem ...... 6 1.2 Problem and Research Hypothesis ...... 8 1.3 Purpose of the Study ...... 8 1.3.1 Aims: ...... 8 1.3.2 Objectives: ...... 8 1.3.3 Main Research Questions ...... 9 1.4 Importance of the Study ...... 10 1.5 Scope of the Study ...... 10 2- LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12 2.1 Different perceptions ...... 12 2.2 Transport Planning and users ...... 12 2.3 Car Ownership and Rapid Transit Systems ...... 14 2.3.1 Car ownership ...... 14 2.3.2 BRT Ridership and Car Use ...... 17 2.3.3 Socio-economic and Psychological Factors ...... 19 3- METHODOLOGY ...... 22 3.1 Outline ...... 22 3.2 Framing Research Subjects ...... 22 3.3 Philosophical Approach ...... 23 3.4 Research Design ...... 24 3.5 Research sample and data sources ...... 26 3.6 Questionnaires Content ...... 28 3.7 Data Analysis ...... 29 3.8 Limitations ...... 31 3.9 Ethical Considerations ...... 32 4- FINDINGS & ANALYSIS ...... 34 4.1 Secondary Findings ...... 34 4.2 Primary Data ...... 37 4.2.1 Response Rate ...... 37

3 | P a g e

4.2.2 Users Preferences with regard to public transport ...... 38 4.2.3 Planners Perceptions on Users’ Preferences with regard to public transport ...... 39 4.2.4 Acquaintance with Amman BRT ...... 40 4.2.5 Factors discouraging users to take the BRT when compared to car .... 41 4.2.6 Factors encouraging users to take the BRT when compared to car .... 46 4.2.7 Park & Ride Facilities ...... 49 4.2.8 Attracting Car users ...... 50 4.2.9 Car influence on BRT perceptions, based on geographical attributes . 53 4.2.10 Were car ownership levels considered when Amman BRT was planned? ...... 54 5- DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ...... 56 5.1 Discussion ...... 56 5.2 Conclusion ...... 59 5.3 Recommendations for Policy and Practice ...... 60 5.4 Further Research ...... 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 62 APPENDICES ...... 72 . Appendix A: Users’ Questionnaire ...... 72 . Appendix B: Professionals’ Questionnaire ...... 75 . Appendix C: Respondents Demographics ...... 77

FIGURES AND TABLES

4 | P a g e

Figures Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behaviour, from (Ajzen, 1980) ...... 20

Tables Table 1: Respondents to the Planners’ Questionnaire ...... 27 Table 2: Ranking of factors affecting Users’ preferences in using Public Transport ...... 40 Table 3: Factors causing respondents not to use the BRT...... 42 Table 4: Specialists’ ranking of factors causing Jordanian users not to take the BRT ...... 43 Table 5: Users vs Specialists Ranking of negative influences with regard to BRT use ...... 43 Table 6: 39 Non-car users ranking of factors negatively influencing their BRT choice compared to car use ...... 44 Table 7: Regular Car users’ ranking of factors negatively influencing their BRT choice compared to car ...... 44 Table 8: Users’ ranking of factors that encourage then to use the BRT when compared to car ...... 46 Table 9: Planners’ ranking of factors that encourage then to use the BRT when compared to car ...... 47 Table 10: Users vs Specialists Ranking of positive influences with regard to BRT use ...... 47 Table 11: Non-car users’ ranking of factors positively influencing their BRT choice compared to car use ...... 50 Table 12: Regular car users’ ranking of factors positively influencing their BRT choice compared to car ...... 50 Table 13: Users responses with regard to Park and Ride services ...... 49 Table 14: Car users’ BRT intentions ...... 50 Table 15: Non-Car users’ BRT intentions...... 51 Table 16: Car ownership levels in Amman and the planning of the BRT – Planners’ Questionnaire ...... 54

Appendix Tables Table C-1: Distribution of respondents by Gender ………………………..………………………………. 79 Table C-2: Distribution of respondents by Age ……………………………………………………………….79 Table C-3: Distribution of respondents by Household Income…….…………………………………..79 Table C-4: Distribution of respondents by Household Size………………………………………………80 Table C-5: Distribution of respondents by Occupation……………………………………………………80 1- INTRODUCTION

5 | P a g e

1.1 Background of the Problem

Sustainable transport has become a topical issue worldwide. Increasing public transport use and decreasing dependence on private vehicles top transportation agendas of planning authorities (GAM, 2010; Handy, 2000). However, car dependency has proven to be difficult to control merely by improving public transport services while turning a blind eye on users’ preferences and perceptions (Brown et al., 2014; Tumlin, 2012). Users’ perceptions of public transport can shape their preferences and define their chosen modes of mobility (Abrahamse et al., 2009; Chee and Fernandez, 2013). These perceptions are subject to a number of influences, of which some are economical, some are social, and others are even psychological (de Groot and Steg, 2006; Eriksson et al., 2010; Goodman et al., 2012; Hamed and Olaywah, 2000). Car ownership in particular was found to be one of the main influences on users’ perceptions and intentions when it comes to public transport use (Bhat and Pulugurta, 1998; Kay, 1997; Kitamura, 1989).

Planning specialists and professionals form their own perceptions of public transport services, influenced by their professional knowledge, their evaluation of user experience in addition to possible political factors especially in the case of planners who take part in transportation developments (Coombe, 1985; de Luca, 2014; GAM., 2010; Healey, 2009). Investigating planners’ perceptions with regard to the relationship between car ownership and public transport can help understand the rationale that drives these transport developments and accounts for their achievements or shortcomings in reducing car use and increasing public transport ridership (Tumlin, 2012; Wagner, 2013; Wahl, 2013).

Bus Rapid Transit systems (BRT), which have only been around for 40 years, are usually adopted by planners with an attempt to attract car users (GAM, 2015b; Satiennam et al., 2006; Satiennam et al., 2015). BRT systems have had their successes and failures in that attempt (Mejia-Dugand et al., 2013; Miller, 2009; Moyer, 2009). By using dedicated bus lanes and providing the same speed and reliability of a rail- based transit system, BRT systems do not require extensive under-ground works and

6 | P a g e stations (Freij, 2015; GAM, 2015b). Accordingly, governments promote BRT systems in the discourse of reducing car dependency (Deng and Nelson, 2011). Car dependency, however, is connected to complex human factors that are worth investigating when addressing the capacity of a BRT system in mitigating car use (Newman et al., 2001).

The case of the forthcoming Amman Bus Rapid Transit, which should be completed in 2016 (GAM, 2015b), represents a good opportunity for investigating users’ and planners’ perceptions with regard to public transport and car ownership. Amman Bus Rapid Transit project is going to be the first rapid transit system in Amman. The system will operate through high capacity buses that move on dedicated lanes running with a high frequency that can reach a bus every three minutes (GAM, 2015b). Amman BRT was proposed by the Greater Amman Municipality since 2008 (Oxford Business Group, 2014) and was recommended in its Transport and Mobility Master Plan - 2010 as part of an integrated strategy that will include light rail transit (GAM., 2010). A feasibility study on the BRT took place in 2009 by the Municipality and The French Development Agency (FDA) which decided to fund the project accordingly. The BRT is expected to carry up to 150 passengers per vehicle (Oxford Business Group, 2014).

The rapid increase in Amman population in the recent years has exceeded the city capacity (Jordan Times, 2014; Potter et al., 2009). This increase in population came as a result of regional political conflicts which caused a large number of refugees and immigrants from neighbouring countries to flow to Amman (Alnawaiseh et al., 2015; Reed, 2013). In 2005, there were nearly 680,000 private vehicles registered in Amman, representing an increase of 115% since 1999. Between 2005 and 2008, vehicle registrations in Amman have grown by 25% (GAM, 2010). The population of Amman is expected to double by 2025, which will increase the number of cars to 1,170,000. With Amman already suffering congestions and with limited space to increase central urban highway capacity, alternative modes had to be considered (GAM, 2010). The share of public transport in Amman was only 17% as of 2014; and 65% of public transport users do not own private cars, which can make them “captive riders” (Imam, 2014). The problem even worsens when we know that while 55% of workers in New York, including the bank executive and the bank janitor, use the bus 7 | P a g e or subway to get to work, available statistics from 2004 indicated that only 30% of workers used public transportation in Amman (Al-Asad 2004).

1.2 Problem and Research Hypothesis

Planners and users are subject to a variety of influences that contribute to their perceptions of car ownership and its relationship with public transport in general and BRT services in particular. Car ownership stands among the main factors that influence perceptions of users and planners especially when it comes to the ability of rapid transit systems to attract car users. The main hypothesis of this research is: Planners and users perceive differently the influence of car ownership on the transition from a car-dependant system into an integrated transportation system with a new rapid transit service.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

1.3.1 Aims:

The main aim of this dissertation is to assess the influence that car ownership has on the perception of the BRT, both for users and planners. The dissertation aims to find out how perceptions of users and planning professionals compare and contrast with regard to the BRT and its relation to car use and ownership. The ability of the BRT to attract car users, as perceived both by potential users and by planning professionals, is also a main aim for the study.

1.3.2 Objectives:

Previous research that investigated the relationship between car ownership and public transport ridership needs to be reviewed in order to put this study in context. Along the same lines, reference to research that investigated riders’ perceptions and mobility intentions is required. In addition, past research that addressed the

8 | P a g e relationship between perceptions of transportation planners and users will need to be referred to.

Illuminated by previous literature, this study will then discuss best strategies, methods and techniques to carry the investigation. Some theories used in past literature to explain perceptions, especially with regard to transport, might be suitable to recall in this study, given its hypothesis and aim.

Generated data will then be subject to analysis and discussion in an attempt to find possible correlations between planners’ and users’ perceptions regarding the BRT. In the process of data analysis, it should be investigated to what extent, if any, are car owners willing to use the BRT. Motives of car users to use the BRT are of interest to this research because they can be useful in understanding the influence car ownership has on BRT perceptions.

Furthermore, the effect of “park and ride” services - as a BRT feature directly related to car use- on perceptions of planners and users will be discussed in the light of the findings. It is also among the objectives to explore the expectations of planning professionals with regard to the BRT’ ability to attract car users.

1.3.3 Main Research Questions

The dissertation will attempt to answer the following questions:

1- What are potential users’ perceptions of the forthcoming Bus Rapid Transit? 2- Who, in terms of car use, is most likely to depend on the bus rapid transit?

3- Will people who own cars necessarily make the transition to use the Bus Rapid Transit?

4- What factors would encourage or discourage car users or non-car users from taking the BRT?

9 | P a g e

5- When will the BRT be able to replace private car use according to users and planners?

6- Where, in Amman, is car influence strongest on users’ perceptions of the BRT?

7- What do planning professionals expect riders’ perceptions to be?

1.4 Importance of the Study

Studying perceptions of users and planners on forthcoming developments would benefit specialists who can go back later, after the operation of the BRT, to the findings of this study to check if perceptions have changed or remained the same. The findings of this study, therefore, can assist in understanding users’ demands, needs and aspirations prior to similar developments.

It ought to be noted too that transport issues are highly contextual and factors like levels of car ownership, roads infrastructure, and cultural differences can play a big role in the findings. Therefore, investigating the context of Amman might be of special interest given the special case that Amman represent with its unnatural rapid increase in population. It is worth understanding how this unprecedented demand on road use influences perceptions of both users and planners.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The research will study users’ perception within a random sample of Amman population, who represent potential riders for the forthcoming BRT given their location and the BRT routes. The research will also study the perceptions of a number of Jordanian Planning professionals who are familiar with the planning and transport context in Jordan. Among these professionals will be planners and transport engineers who were part of the BRT project planning and execution.

10 | P a g e

BRT services are the main focus of this research, although its findings can contribute to the knowledge of public transit services in general. Planners, engineers and academics are the main categories of specialists targeted in this research. Although this research attempts to address the question in its broadest sense, any attempt to generalize its findings will need to point out the contextual details of Amman and its population.

11 | P a g e

2- LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Different perceptions

Differences in perceptions between planners and users, which reflect their layperson- professional relationship (Mazza, 1995), have received considerable focus in the literature (Curry, 2012; Roo and Porter, 2006) - often with relation to concepts such as “public participation”, “collaborative planning”, “bottom-up planning” and even “joint fact finding in environmental planning”(Andrews, 2002; Chakraborty, 2012; Corburn, 2003; Curry, 2012; Wulz, 1986). Differences in perceptions also appear in the literature that criticizes the modernist approach to planning and its physical and social determinism (Comerio, 1981). Differences in perceptions have accounted, according to some researchers, to the shortcomings of modernism from a sustainability point of view (EUKN1, 2013; Healey, 2009).

Addressing the planner/user relationship, in terms of their different perceptions, is usually part of the planning theory literature and is at the root of its contesting discourses on the purpose of planning itself and how it should engage with users (Healy, 2002; Rydin, 2011). The planner/user relationship is not addressed in the literature only on the level of communication, participation or collaboration but literature often extends that to consider that bridging the gap between planners and users is the main motive behind “User-centred” approaches in planning or what we might want to refer to as “User-empathic” planning (Dekay, 2011; Vischer, 2008).

2.2 Transport Planning and users

To a lesser extent did the gap between the perceptions of users and transportation planners in particular capture the interest of some researchers. Transport planners tend to consider mobility as a rational activity that is governed and shaped by external and economic factors, which has left other aspects such as travellers’ perceptions of

1 European Urban Knowledge Network 12 | P a g e mobility largely unexplored (Bergman et al., 2008; Schiefelbusch, 2010). Transport planners’ views of the user’s experience are mainly influenced by their professional knowledge and they tend to plan for the long term, while users’ views are short term and relate to daily activity patterns and details that planners might miss in the course of planning (Schiefelbusch, 2010).

The emergence and ongoing development of activity-based models of travel demand is promising in reaching a more scientific understanding of users’ perceptions and intentions when it comes to transport (Rasouli and Timmermans, 2014). However, among the aspects that have not been addressed enough is understanding group decision-making. Most activity-based models so far have been based on individual decision-making (Rasouli and Timmermans, 2014).The relationship between transport planners and users has been also been addressed from the point view of the regulation theory and the foucauldian discourse. Planning in this discourse, plays a political function in regulating and observing people and keeping them under control. Therefore, auto-mobility can become a mode of regulation (Manderscheid, 2014).

Some of the most important insights on the user’s perspective when it comes to public transportation can be found in the work of Martin Schiefelbusch, especially his book: “Public Transport and its Users: The Passenger's Perspective in Planning and Customer Care”. The book considers the position of users as stakeholders in public transport. While planners are in many instances –and for political and professional reasons- very technical and tempted to solve problems which not all lay users realize the danger of leaving unsolved, users’ perceptions are shaped by their daily activities. Users might not be enthusiastic about planners’ solutions especially solutions that will work on the long term and will need a long time to manifest (Schiefelbusch, 2009). In a paper also for Schiefelbusch in 2010, he further investigates the scope of citizens’ participation in urban and transport planning and concludes that although different opinions between stakeholders –including users- are unavoidable, differences should be clear in order to assist planners in their assessment (Schiefelbusch, 2010).

Perceptions of users on developments that have not been completed yet or plans that have not been approved yet are sometimes measured for feasibility purposes and from a “demand” point of view were potential users’ demands drive planners (Soltani et al., 13 | P a g e

2012). In the same context, the concept of “Transport demand management” aims to reduce or redistribute transportation demand rather than increasing transportation capacity. Reducing the use of private cars is one of the major targets of the demand management approach (Ison, 2008). Along the same lines is the main research question of this dissertation with regard to Car Ownership and how it influences users’ perceptions of Rapid Transit services which aim to reduce the use of private vehicles.

2.3 Car Ownership and Rapid Transit Systems

2.3.1 Car ownership

Car ownership and car use have in general been referred to in the literature as a major challenge in transportation planning. Newman and Kenworthy (1999) argue that a reduction in automobile dependence can help cities achieve the Sustainability agenda by saving time, infrastructure, land and resources. Nevertheless, while the rapid increase in private vehicles use can be attributed to a weak public transportation system, factors of age, gender, car ownership, travel time, travel cost, household size and income are also significant factors in influencing the individual's choice of transportation (Nurdden et al., 2007).

A study in 1985 investigated the correlations between car-ownership and public transport in two cities, Manama in Bahrain and Amman in Jordan. The study found that lower income levels in Amman resulted in lower levels of car ownership, and more reliance was placed on public transport than in the more car‐oriented society in Bahrain. The study concluded that Amman will need to depend on public transport even more (Coombe, 1985), a conclusion that proved to be correct after 30 years, as planning authorities in Amman are aiming at making a paradigm shift in the public transport system through Bus Rapid Transit and other possible future developments (GAM, 2010).

14 | P a g e

Most problems that result from increased car ownership are tangible to users such as traffic congestions that create longer trips and cause more accidents while some other problems such as pollution are not taken very seriously by all users (Goodman et al., 2012; Newman and Kenworthy 1999). However, levels of awareness of environmental issues can vary considerably from culture to culture (Alnawaiseh et al., 2015; Newman and Kenworthy 1999). A study in Malaysia in 2013 found that, with regard to environmental awareness, the majority of users showed awareness of the dangers of motor vehicles towards the environment but refused to use more sustainable modes of transport. Among reasons provided were hot weather and inefficient public transport services (Nasrudin et al., 2013). If governments are interested in attracting car users to use transit services in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and congestion, it is necessary that the appeal of such systems to choice riders also be understood (Brown et al., 2014). Planners and users theoretically agree that car ownership should better be reduced by increasing public transport ridership, especially where increased car use has created tangible problems (Abrahamse et al., 2009; Safdie and Kohn 1997).

The planning literature in general is rich in research addressing factors that can increase public transport ridership (FitzRoy and Smith, 1998; Hensher et al., 2010; Hensher and Li, 2012). In a research conducted in three advanced contexts: USA, UK and Canada, the performance of eight urban rail systems was analyzed to investigate the factors that increase or decrease ridership. Among the factors that appeared in the findings was the integration of public transport modes, land use policies and planning traditions in each country. Interestingly, the research pointed out that expectations that rail systems will reduce traffic congestion or even pollution are sometimes overestimated. Findings also suggested that high car ownership can act to reduce ridership in urban rail systems in general (Babalik-Sutcliffe, 2002).

A study that investigated the effect of a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System in Taiwan on Car ownership levels found that the establishment of the MRT significantly reduced the level of car ownership. The study recommended expanding the MRT as a feasible policy to control car dependency. The study also found that households with high dependence on public transport tend to own fewer cars after the MRT began operating. Accordingly, the study called for more similar effective methods in order 15 | P a g e to decrease car ownership (Wen-Hsiu Huang and Ming-Che Chao, 2014). In contrast, an older study from Netherlands in 1989 suggested that changes in travel mode use cannot be adequately explained by assuming that a change in transit use influences car use and concluded that improving public transit cannot stop increase in car use (Kitamura, 1989).

Underestimating the ability of interventions to induce modal shifts appeared in other research including a study in 2006 that used an online survey to investigate current and potential travel model among students and staff at the University of Western Australia. The research found that reducing actual and perceived travel time would have the greatest impact on commuting patterns and suggested that no intervention is likely to change car users’ travel behavior (Shannon et al., 2006). It is worth mentioning here that GAM conducted a questionnaire in 2008, prior to the adoption of the Amman BRT project, for more than 700 students at the University of Jordan in Amman. The students were asked about their transportation habits and attitudes towards public transport. Results implied that they might constitute a considerable group of the riders of the forthcoming BRT (Zureiqat, 2012).

A study conducted in Amman in 2014 suggested that when captive users are not sufficiently satisfied with current public transport, planners and decision makers need to focus on the attributes that are most important for public transport users. It is necessary to increase users’ satisfaction through improving public transport to maintain existing users and attract new passengers. Improvements will make the city more sustainable and reduce the use of private cars in the future. (Imam, 2014).

Given the tendency of those living in compact, transit-oriented settings to own fewer cars (Cervero, 2006), one of the main ways used by planners and governments in the aim of reducing automobile dependence is Rapid transit and especially rapid bus transit (Demery, 2004; Deng and Nelson, 2011). Bus Rapid Transit has been implemented in different countries since the 1970’s as an effective public transport mode. BRT systems combine the speed of light rail or metro with the lower cost of a bus system (Demery, 2004; TCRP2, 2007; Satiennam et al., 2006).

2 Transit Cooperative Research Program 16 | P a g e

2.3.2 BRT Ridership and Car Use

According to some studies, there is a growing evidence about the advantages of BRT on an international level over other systems such as light rail and even heavy rail. Governments and planning authorities are advised by some transportation researchers to seriously evaluate the appeal of BRT (Hensher, 2007). A study that surveyed the perceptions of Bus Rapid Transit a passengers in Beijing Southern in 2012 suggested that an appropriately designed and operated BRT system offers an innovative approach to providing a high-quality transport service, which can attract modal shift from private cars (Deng and Nelson, 2012).

More recently in 2015, a research that was conducted in Thailand aimed to assess the potential that Bus Rapid Transit has for attracting users of private cars and motorcycles. The research used “Stated Preference surveying” to develop models of modal share to predict preferences of car and motorcycle users. Results showed that BRT has a strong ability to attract private car users. However, the majority of car users still prefer using their own private vehicles. Both travel cost and travel time affect users’ choices, but travel time has a higher effect on car users' choice of BRT. Socio- economic factors such as age, gender, having a driving license and residence location also affect users’ choices (Satiennam et al., 2015).

Similarly, researchers in Penang, Malaysia found that the possession of a driving license and regular access to a private vehicle are both significant in influencing mode choice behavior (Chee and Fernandez, 2013). Additionally, a report on the BRT of Curtiba, Brazil, indicated that high ridership was achieved. Ridership included a considerable amount of car users who made the shift to use the BRT; twenty-eight percent of express bus users previously travelled in their cars (Demery, 2004). A study on Istanbul BRT produced similar results to Curitiba. The number of passengers attracted from car users was notable. The Istanbul BRT system achieved a 9% shift from car users within 3 years and car ownership ratio among the BRT users was 10%. Furthermore, 12% of car users crossing the Bridge (on an every-day, regular basis) stated that when the congestion gets even worse by 2015, they may prefer the BRT if park-and-ride systems are provided (Alpkokin and Ergun, 2012).

17 | P a g e

High BRT ridership was also achieved in Latin America due to the relatively high population density in addition to lower car ownership. It was found that the higher the GDP per capita (which is linked to higher car ownership), the lower is the BRT ridership (Hensher and Li, 2012). Although BRT services were able to achieve rapid public acceptance, BRT (as opposed to light rail) was not necessarily able to attract car users in Latin America (Menckhoff, 2005). A main conclusion of the Latin American Experience with BRT is the important influence of the economic status on the choice of the mode of transit; the richer the user, the less opportunity that he would tend to use the BRT. Integrating BRT services with light rail in order to attract car users is another important conclusion. It is worth mentioning here that Jordanian planners at GAM considered, in the “Transport and Mobility Master Plan” of Amman, that the BRT should be integrated with Light Rail services in order to achieve the sustainability objectives (GAM, 2010).

Similar findings were found even in much advanced contexts such as the United States and Australia with regard to the relationship between ridership, income and car ownership. In Los Angeles, one study found that when nearby residents have low incomes and car ownership rates, ridership is expected to increase. A significant predictor of BRT ridership in Los Angeles was its opportunities for inter‐modality – connections with private cars, rail‐transit cars, or surface‐street buses (Miller, 2009). Accordingly, this dissertation will shed a light on the Park and Ride services which are provided in Amman BRT, especially with regard to their influence on possible ridership among current car users, an influence that was repeatedly stressed in BRT literature (Satiennam et al., 2006).

On the other hand, a study conducted in Australia in 2011 found that the influence of car ownership is unlikely to be significant in explaining differences in ridership for routes across Australia where car ownership is consistently high. It suggested that some BRT infrastructure treatments such as right of way have more significant impact on ridership (Currie and Delbosc, 2011). Although the context in which this dissertation operates is a much less advanced context in terms of transportation infrastructure, it should also consider the fact that car ownership might have a bigger

18 | P a g e or smaller effect with regard to ridership when it is connected to other socio-economic, cultural and psychological factors.

2.3.3 Socio-economic and Psychological Factors

While service reliability and frequency are important Public Transport attributes in general, those attributes most effective in attracting car users are largely connected to individual perceptions (Redman et al., 2013). A study that addressed a university population in Sweden in 2012 found that car users underestimate their potential future satisfaction with public transport most likely due to a focusing illusion. Car users focus mainly on the travel mode and forget about all other things in life that will remain unchanged even if a travel mode switch is undertaken. The higher the car-use habit, the lower the predicted satisfaction with public transport (Pedersen et al., 2012).

Similarly, other research investigated users’ intentions from the aspect of social psychology. It was recommended to make interventions that address attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control, by focusing on the core beliefs about characteristics of transport modes that predict multiple “Theory of Planned Behavior” constructs to driving evaluation (e.g., driving is cost–effective, whereas alternative transport options are not) . Accordingly, commuters need to be convinced that it is easy, cheaper, and the “ethical option” to use alternative transport options (Bamberg et al., 2003; Mann and Abraham, 2012).

A Canadian study in 2009 investigated the factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it. It found that the use of private cars for commuting can be explained by variables that are connected to individual outcomes (perceived behavioral control and attitudes) while the intention to reduce car-use is mostly explained by variables related to morality (personal norms) (Abrahamse et al., 2009). Perceived difficulty to use public transport decreased the intention of car users to commute in the bus according to a study conducted in Sweden in 2010. The study found that high access to bus stops increased bus use and reduced car use especially when costs of car use were higher. As a conclusion, the study stressed the importance

19 | P a g e of focusing on trade-offs between increasing car-use costs and the improvement of public transport (Eriksson et al., 2010).

Users’ perceptions and psychological attitudes were found to influence the size of ridership of bus services in a British research conducted in 2007. It was found that the low and declining use of bus services reflect high negative public perceptions of buses, which emphasizes the influence of good promotion for public transport services (Beale and Bonsall, 2007). In order to change the use of private vehicles, according to an Australian study that used the model of the Theory of Planed Behavior, factors influencing commuters’ intentions to travel by car must be addressed and interventions should target the perceived high levels of both the acceptability of commuting by car and the perceived control over travel (Kerr et al., 2010).

According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBH), intentions are influenced by attitude, the subjective norm and perceived control (Tonglet et al., 2004).

Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behaviour, from (Ajzen, 1980, p.100)

Questionnaires for this dissertation will be structured to observe the attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control of respondents when it comes their intentions and perceptions of the forthcoming BRT. The mathematical formula that the theory proposes to predict users’ behaviour will not be used in this dissertation because the main research question is about comparing the perceptions of users and planners rather than predicting users’ intentions. However, the main elements of the theory can be used in analysing and discussing the findings, especially that the questionnaires

20 | P a g e have been designed according to the theory. While TPB aims to predict the behaviour based on the intentions in order to recommend possible interventions, this research is concerned with the perceptions that are affected by attitudes, norms and perceived control. This research also aims to propose interventions, based on current perceptions rather than intentions.

More research needs to be conducted on how perceptions of planners and users compare and contrast with regard to the influence of car ownership on choosing a travel mode, especially when new public transportation services are provided. It was recommended in past literature for further research to examine in depth the key factors that influence commuters’ attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control regarding car commuting as a useful tool for designing interventions (Kerr et al., 2010).

21 | P a g e

3- METHODOLOGY

3.1 Outline

The research question addresses the perceptions of two major groups of people: users and planners. Whenever the term “users” is used throughout this dissertation, it denotes potential riders of the forthcoming BRT, whether they are car users or non- car users. The term “planners”, in the context of this dissertation, denotes a range of professionals who come from disciplines and fields that are deeply interconnected in Jordan, especially with regard to this research, including urban planning, transport planning, transport engineering and architecture. Planners addressed in this dissertation come from both the public and the private sector and are all familiar with the Jordanian planning context and the Amman BRT project.

3.2 Framing Research Subjects

Users The Jordanian public transport context has its own particularity. The low-quality public transport system was put under even much higher pressure due to an unprecedented increase in the number of people and cars in the last few years as a result of the regional conflicts in neighbouring countries and the continuous flow of new comers to the city of Amman (Reed, 2014; Al-Asad, 2008). Therefore, potential users of the forthcoming Amman BRT are not limited to people who have to depend on the inefficient public transport in a growing car dependent context just because they cannot afford a private car. Theoretically, even current car users might be attracted to the BRT given the worsening economic conditions, high prices of gasoline and other reasons which might include high maintaining costs of cars, shortage of parking lots and the difficulty of driving through traffic jams (GAM., 2010; Jordan Times, 2014).

22 | P a g e

Planners While Transport engineering and planning in Jordan is usually part of Civil Engineering departments as is the case elsewhere, urban planning is not well established as a discipline in Jordan separate from Architecture. Most Universities teach urban planning as part of Architecture and Architectural Engineering rather than Geography or teaching planning separately, with some minor exceptions. Nevertheless, Jordan has a considerable number of professionals whose main focus is planning including some practitioners in Jordanian Municipalities and planning authorities (Al Tal, 2006).

Amman BRT The “Transport and Mobility Master Plan for Amman” which was published by the Greater Municipality of Amman (GAM) back in 2010 proposed that public transport should provide a hierarchy of services including Light Rapid Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and emphasized the importance of having a balanced and integrated system that makes the best use of existing traffic facilities in order to form the basis of a long-term sustainable transport strategy (GAM., 2010).The implementation of the BRT began in 2010, but witnessed several issues due to corruption allegations and questions of feasibility, which left the Jordanian public with a negative impression on the BRT project (Oxford Business Group, 2014; Sonuparlak, 2011). The work on the projects was resumed in 2014 (GAM, 2015b; Oxford Business Group, 2014).

3.3 Philosophical Approach

The nature of this research, as an investigation of human perceptions and behavioural patterns, requires a post-positivist approach that can handle both qualitative and quantitative data. In particular, a critical realist perspective would be a suitable choice for this dissertation. According to critical realism, the social world is interpretive, historical, and concept-constituted rather than empirical and structural (Isaac, 1990). Methods to be applied in a critical realist study should be selected based on its main research questions, and the use of multiple methodological approaches can be suitable (Clark, 1998; Wildemuth, 1993).

23 | P a g e

The dissertation will employ a Mixed Methods research approach since it aims to generate primary data both quantitative and qualitative and apply some correlation analysis (Denscombe, 2007; May, 2011). In its attempt to understand what role car ownership plays in shaping users’ perceptions of the BRT, this research addresses the question of “how important” car ownership is in influencing their perceptions in terms of numbers and ratios. The study also wants to understand “what” creates that importance and “when” does the importance of car ownership grow or shrink.

3.4 Research Design

The research question itself is not limited to a certain context but aims to investigate how perceptions of planning professionals and lay-users compare with regard to BRT services and their relation to car use. However, by using a Case Study design for the research, a contribution should be made to the knowledge of the context of the case study: the Amman Bus Rapid Transit, which will be the one, in-depth case study for this research. In order to cover the different aspects of the case study of Amman BRT, multiple sources of evidence will be used (Robson, 2011). The research will begin by referring to some secondary findings. These secondary findings are the existing record of perceptions expressed by planning professionals both from the public and the private sectors. Reference will be made to a compilation of materials that have been written on Amman BRT in the form of governmental reports, academic research, newspaper stories, reviews written by planning professionals and comments made by pro-environment activists.

The research will generate primary data that have both quantitative and qualitative components. Two questionnaires will be used to generate the data:

1- Questionnaire for potential users of Amman BRT:

This questionnaire will need a random sample of people who live in Amman or commute to it regularly. The sample should be randomized to include possible captive and choice riders; people who own private cars and people who do not, and from all backgrounds, genders, age groups and social status as long as they live or commute

24 | P a g e in Amman. The questionnaire will investigate users’ perceptions, impressions and preferences with regard to car ownership, car use and BRT use. It will be a structured quantitative questionnaire because quantifying data facilitates comparing, contrasting and correlating processes which will be an important part of the analysis of the results of this research (Babbie, 2001).

2- Questionnaire for Planning professionals:

This questionnaire will need a smaller sample; a purposive sample of a chosen group of planning professionals and officials whose different perceptions on the BRT with regard to car ownership can reflect the general professional point of view. The questionnaire will include both quantitative and qualitative questions allowing professionals to express their ideas through comment fields and open end questions. Qualitative open-end questions will allow receiving unique insights, perceptions and interpretations from different planners (May, 2011). However, there are some common questions between the two questionnaires because the research question is about the perceptions of both groups (users and planners) on the same aspects.

The need for primary findings can be justified by the fact that secondary findings are not enough to achieve a broad and unbiased understanding of the perception of Jordanian Planners because some valuable views by specialists have not been published anywhere so they remain not investigated. Therefore, more planners should be contacted and asked to answer the same questions that are asked to users. It ought to be noted here that, with planners, the interest of this research is mainly qualitative. Although professionals might follow different schools of planning thought, they are generally agreed on some technical issues with regard to the effectivity of the BRT. Therefore, the general attitude of planners can be understood by referring to a limited sample.

The interest of this research is not investigating how many planning professionals in Jordan believe that car ownership is important with regard to the BRT. This quantitative attribute is rather needed in the case of lay users in order to investigate their general tendency. Nevertheless, in order to avoid bias in results, planners from different sectors and different minor specialities –but who are all familiar with the 25 | P a g e

Amman BRT context- have been contacted and allowed a space to express their perceptions on the issue. Perceptions of both groups (users and planners) with regard to the main research questions are to be compared in order to test the main hypothesis which states that those two groups can have different perceptions when it comes to the influence of car ownership on BRT use.

3.5 Research sample and data sources

3.5.1 Sample for the “Users’ Questionnaire”:

The size of the users sample was meant to be between 180 to 220 individuals who live or work/study in Amman to achieve a confidence level above 90% (Denscombe, 2007). Users were selected randomly through an internet questionnaire and the sample was a probability random sample reached through a Facebook Ad. The Facebook Ad allows deciding the wanted audience in terms of location, age, gender, and other attributes including interests. The targeted audience for this Ad was based on location which was set to Amman and age which was required to be above 15 years. Amman population witnessed a dramatic increase over the past few years and was estimated at 4 million people in 2014 according to GAM estimations (Jordan Times, 2014). Any member of Amman population might be a possible regular user of Amman BRT either for residing near to its intended routes or for commuting across them, given that they cover some vital nodes in the city (GAM, 2015b).

All Facebook users who reside in or around Amman had an equal opportunity to reach the questionnaire link, according to Facebook. The ratio of Facebook use in Jordan is one of the highest FB user/internet-user = 79% (Ayan, 2014), and internet use in Amman topped 55% in 2012 (Ghazal, 2012). Therefore, although not every Jordanian is online, Internet and Facebook use is not limited to a certain social class, gender, or age. However, further filtering for the reached respondents was done through questions about income, age, gender and location in the first page of the questionnaire itself to be aware of bias. Use of Social Media in general and Facebook in particular for reaching internet survey respondents has increased during the past year and has proven to be reliable in social research (Boas, 2014; Gilligan et al., 2014). 26 | P a g e

The users’ survey was conducted through the SurveyMonkey online survey service. The reason for choosing SurveyMonkey was its flexibility, user-friendly interface, options given to researchers and respondent and meeting confidentiality and anonymity criteria that are required for reliability and ethicality (Buchanan and Hvizdak, 2009; Knussen and McFadyen, 2010).

3.5.2 Sample for the “Planners Questionnaire”:

For this questionnaires, respondents were picked through purposive sampling in addition to available snowball sampling where one professional would refer to another. Choosing planners was based on a set of criteria including their connection to the Amman BRT project, their basic academic focus, their work in the field of sustainability in Jordan or their contribution to literature that is connected to the issue. Forty professionals were contacted and 15 responded, in addition to a response from a pro-environment activist (Interviewee No. 16). The response of a pro-environment community activist who is aware of planning issues was a useful insight in terms of comparing planners’ and users’ opinions. The planners’ questionnaire was also conducted through the SurveyMonkey online survey service.

Table 1: Respondents to the Planners’ Questionnaire

No. Interviewee Name Occupation Transport Engineer – Private sector Eng.Yazan Al Banna 1 (formerly in GAM) 2 Eng. Murad Hussein Transport engineer - Private sector Urban Planner – GAM (Public Transportation Eng. Mohammad Fayez 3 Department) Professor of Transport Engineering - University of Dr. Bashar Tarawneh 4 Jordan 5 Eng. Saleh Urban Planner – Private Sector Head of Comprehensive Planning Department - Eng. Rima Odeh 6 GAM Urban Planner – GAM Dr. Bushra Zalloum 7 Urban Planning Academic – Birmingham City Uni. Professor at the School of Planning- University of Dr. Luna Khirfan 8 Waterloo

27 | P a g e

Architect Academic Dr. Mohammad Al-Asad Founding director of the Center for the Study of the 9 Built Environment in Amman Professor of Architectural Engineering - University Dr. Saleem Dahabreh 10 of Jordan Professor of Architectural Engineering - Applied Dr. Mazen Nabelsi 11 Science University Architect Eng. Deyala Tarawneh 12 Lecturer at the University of Jordan Urban Planner Eng. Ihab Ammarin Architect 13 Director General of the Jordan Museum 14 Eng. Essam Ramadan Architect Name not mentioned Urban planner – Private Sector 15 upon his request. 16 Mr. Basel Burgan Pro-Environment Activist Source: Author

3.6 Questionnaires Content

3.6.1 Questions that appear in both questionnaires:

Questions that address the main points of interest to this dissertation are asked in both questionnaires: Users’ Questionnaire and Planners’ Questionnaire. However, in the Planners’ Questionnaire professionals are asked -in some questions- about how they expect users to answer. When planners are asked to predict the answers of the users they are actually asked about how they perceive the “Subjective Norm”, which is – according to Ajzen- the perceived social pressure to engage or not in a certain behaviour (Ajzen, 1980). However, planners are not asked about how they would behave but rather about their perception of the general attitude of Jordanian users. The mathematical formula of TPB is not actually used but elements of the theory are employed.

3.6.2 Questions that are asked only in the users’ Questionnaire:

The main purpose of questions that are asked only to users is to filter users according to attributes that are connected to the research questions in addition to some general

28 | P a g e attributes to make sure that there is not bias in the sample especially that the questionnaire is conducted through internet and not face to face. For example, when users are asked about their ownership and use of cars they are given a wide range of options in order to investigate the possible influence of some behavioural patterns on making the choice to use the BRT. Users are also asked if they have checked the BRT information that was published by the government. The purpose of this question is finding out the ratio of people who checked the BRT website that was advertised by the Greater Amman Municipality and if this had an influence on their other answers. Investigating users’ acquaintance with the BRT can show how successful GAM professionals were in presenting the forthcoming BRT to the public after the fuss that surrounded it with regard to corruption allegations, in addition to showing how enthusiastic Jordanian people are to public transport and what sectors are more enthusiastic, especially in terms of car ownership.

3.6.3 Questions that are asked only in the Planners’ Questionnaire:

Questions that are asked only to planners are mostly open end questions that will yield qualitative data that represent the theory, observations, experience or knowledge of the respondent with regard to the research questions.

(Refer to Appendices 1 & 2 for full content)

3.7 Data Analysis

3.7.1 Pearson Correlation Coefficient

The Pearson correlation coefficient will be used as a statistical instrument to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement between responses of users and planners to the same questions. The Pearson coefficient is practical and can be calculated through 29 | P a g e

Microsoft Excel. This correlation test has been used frequently in social research for comparing sets of responses (Niño-Zarazúa, 2012). The coefficient takes the values between -1 and 1 where -1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship (disagreement) and 1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship (agreement) and zero indicates no relationship (Zaiontz, 2015).

3.7.2 Dependent and Independent Variables

Responses for some questions will be treated as a dependent variable against responses of other questions which will be treated as independent variables (Denscombe, 2010). For example, the reason why users were asked in the questionnaire about their use or ownership of private vehicles is to be able to treat “car use” as an independent variable to which other responses compare, for example the intention to use the BRT or the enthusiasm about Park and Ride. Manipulation of variables enables us to measure the effect of car use for example on users’ perceptions of a certain aspect with regard to the BRT (Bryman, 2012). However, mediation rather than direct causality between variables might be referred to in some cases (Imai et al, 2011). For example, while car use can be perceived as having a direct influence on BRT use intention, past use of public transport -resulting from depending on the car for a long time- might be a mediator between car use and the intention to use the BRT. Car use might tend to decrease past experience with public transport and the lack of past experience might influence users’ intentions with regard to BRT use.

3.7.3 Triangulation

Whereas some responses require correlation analysis to answer the main research questions and other responses needs analyzing relationships between variables, other responses are highly qualitative data, especially in the Planners’ questionnaire. After categorizing data and defining the main trends in responses, integrating qualitative findings with quantitative findings will be a process of dialectical discussion and reflection (Denzin, 1970). Therefore, analysis and discussion can intersect when it comes to triangulation. However, in the discussion chapter the reflection on the

30 | P a g e results will be deeper and more critical and most importantly relating results to past literature.

3.7.4 Role of TPB in the analysis

The TPB formula for predicting users’ behaviour will not be used for analysing the findings of this research. However, the main concepts of the theory will be used to understand the findings especially in the discussion; in particular the role of attitudes towards car ownership, norms in the society of Amman with regard to car ownership and perceived control in private car use (Kerr et al., 2010). The effect of the TPB elements in creating users’ perceptions and intentions will be referred to in the analysis of responses.

3.8 Limitations

Data collection took place over a period of one month only. Had there been more time available to the researcher, more data could have been collected and field work inside Amman itself could have been carried. Internet use was required for reaching the respondents not only because of the advantages and flexibility of internet use in social research but also because the researcher was in Birmingham at the time of conducting the research and was not able to be in Amman. Face-to-Face Interviews with planning professionals for examples would have had some advantages over internet use such as the ability to observe discomfort or enthusiasm through the interviewee body language (Wyse, 2014).

Although planning, architecture and engineering fields are interconnected, it can be argued that limiting the sample of specialists to transport planners could have yielded more consistent findings. One of the interviewees in the planners’ questionnaire, for example, was a pro-environment activist who has deep interest in strategic planning, which he addresses as a columnist and campaigner. Although his responses to structured quantitative questions were not counted, and comments made by him were referred to in the text as made by a pro-environment activist who is rather representing

31 | P a g e the public, including the responses of an environment activist might be a matter of objection to some academics.

Finally, deeper investigation of the “where” element could have given more shape to the findings in terms of geography; i.e. Filtering responses according to provided addresses of respondents and their connection to the BRT routes. However, given the scope of this dissertation, respondents’ were only asked whether the routes of the BRT are connected to their residence or work. Finding out how aware respondents were of whether their residence or work is located on the BRT routes was more of interest to this study.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

The main ethical considerations in this research were connected to internet and social media use. Consent, privacy and anonymity were the most important considerations (Rooke, 2013). Consent was achievable in this study since participation was active rather than passive and was completely voluntary. Participants in the users’ questionnaire were not put under any pressure as it was done online, and they were not asked to provide names, addresses or any other private information. Participants were not even persuaded by offering them any return or by requiring their participation to gain access to a certain service or page as is done in some instances (Shapiro and Ossorio, 2013). A short ad for the questionnaire appeared in the Facebook newsfeeds and sidebars of part of the targeted audience which was bounded by the conditions of age (> 15 years old) and location (living in Amman). Viewers who were not interested in the ad were allowed by Facebook to hide the ad and never to encounter it again, just in two clicks (Facebook, 2015). Personal information requested in the questionnaire aimed at avoiding bias and detecting unwanted responses by reaching wrong people in terms of residence or age. In order to increase the reliability of responses, the web-based survey service, Surveymonkey, gives the researcher the chance to prevent multiples responses from the same IP address (Surveymonkey, 2014). This choice was taken for this questionnaire to guarantee that every counted response was made by a different individual.

32 | P a g e

Participants in the planners’ questionnaire were all addressed in a formal way and were made aware of the nature of the research. Their names were mentioned after taking their clear permission, in order to increase the reliability of the results. One urban planner requested that only his first name is mentioned and this was respected. Another planner, who was the last to respond, requested not mentioning his name at all and that was respected (See Table 1). Subjective comments made by specialists and by the researcher with regard to Jordanian cultural and social attributes were clearly addressed as such. For example, interpretations made by the researcher, which normally appeared in the Discussion chapter, were not attributed to any participant and were all put into context. Data was clearly cited and every opinion or statement which belongs to another source was attributed to its writer throughout this dissertation.

33 | P a g e

4- FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

4.1 Secondary Findings

Throughout the Amman Transport and Mobility Master Plan 2010 the objective of reducing car use and car ownership in Amman is associated with a temporal factor. For example, reducing car dependency is to be achieved on the long-term and after integrating the BRT within a hierarchy of services that include light Rail (GAM, 2010; Smadi, 2010). Through a piecemeal integrated strategy for transportation, GAM aims to achieve a modal shift by the year 2025 represented by decreasing private vehicle trips from 4.5 million to just under 2 million and increasing public transport trips from 1.5 million to 5.5 million. Furthermore, Vehicle Kilometres should be constrained to current levels and journey time by public transport should be also reduced to 30 min (GAM, 2010). The official website of Amman BRT, operated by GAM, mentions that the BRT system will save 85 million kilometres that are currently travelled by private vehicles. Each bus will take around 150 passengers which is equivalent to the capacity of 110 private vehicles given that the current average in Amman is 1.4 people per vehicle (GAM, 2015a). One of the most important targets of the municipality for the year 2025 is to raise the ridership of public transport in Amman from 14% to 40% (Smadi, 2010). The head of Greater Amman Municipality Committee stated that each BRT bus will be able to reduce the number of private vehicles in the streets by 50 cars considering that currently each private car is occupied by only one driver according to recent studies (Rum News, 2011).

It is worth mentioning in this context there is another BRT project that will take place in Amman soon: Amman-Zarqa BRT project which is adopted by the Jordanian Ministry of Transport and is supposed to be accomplished by 2018. Amman-Zarqa BRT is deeply connected to Amman BRT and both projects are supposed to be integrated (ِAbuzeinah, 2014). In 28-03-2014 the Minister of Transport declared that around 4,200 passengers are expected to benefit from the Amman-Zarqa Bus Rapid Transit during peak hours when the project is completed. She also noted that the buses are expected to take up to 120,000 passengers daily, adding that around 100,000

34 | P a g e people travel from Amman to Zarqa, 22km east of the capital, and vice versa on weekdays (Freij, 2015; Jordan Times, 2014). Given that the share of public transport in Amman is only between 14 to 17% (Imam, 2014), the expectations of the minister that the buses will serve 120,000 passengers daily clearly indicate that she believes that the Amman-Zarqa BRT is able to attract a large number of people who commute by car. Considering the deep connection between the two projects (Amman BRT and Amman-Zarqa BRT), the expectation of the minister of transport reflects a very optimistic attitude regarding the relationship between car ownership and BRT services.

In a report by the World Bank on Public Transport in Jordan in 2014, integrating Amman BRT and Amman-Zarqa BRT was considered very necessary for the success of both projects in achieving considerable ridership. The report expected that the main ridership of Amman BRT will be constituted of commuters who currently depend on the ineffective public buses or the expensive taxis rather than car users. Furthermore, the project, according to the report, will face so many financial, administrative and .(technical challenges in its attempt to achieve its targeted ridership (ِAbuzeinah, 2014

Interestingly, it was pointed out, in an article written by a Jordanian transportation engineer who was part of the BRT project that GAM took into consideration users’ perceptions and circumstances before starting the project (Zureiqat, 2012). According to him, GAM held several focus groups in 2008 to obtain a better understanding of problems people face when using different modes of transport. GAM also conducted a survey of around 10,000 households to assess their transport behaviour. An additional survey was carried out at the University of Jordan, one of the key nodes along the BRT network, to ascertain what students felt they needed in a new public transport system. Depending on the results of these surveys, GAM prepared its final report then adopted the BRT project. It can be said that the review by this engineer was generally enthusiastic about the ability of the BRT to achieve its goals. The engineer further argued that Amman BRT was based on a strong foundation of extensive traffic and public transport data and that Amman transport model of GAM is a powerful planning tool that integrates transport, land use and socio-economic data. Long-term targets of the GAM transport model, as implied by the engineer, should be achieved through an integrated piecemeal approach (Zureiqat, 2012). In contrast, a 35 | P a g e

Jordanian specialist in transport engineering said that he is not optimistic about Amman BRT since its high costs are not consistent with what it would achieve. He pointed that having 21 stops for a route of 31 km’s will make the travel time long and will not attract the targeted ridership (Assawsana, 2011). Similarly, a conference research paper in 2014 doubted that the BRT would be the best choice to increase public transport ridership or attract current car owners and users. It concluded that the distance that will be stolen from public roads will rather increase traffic congestion (Hussien and Sharawneh, 2014). However, from an economic perspective, a good bus system might be more economically feasible for Amman compared to light rail and subway (Al-Asad, 2004).

In 2013, during the suspension of the Amman BRT project, a Jordanian Environmentalist criticized the lack of transparency of the government with regard to the BRT crisis, represented by not publicizing official reports, studies and recommendations or at least giving all Jordanian specialists the opportunity to review them. Given that BRT systems in other contexts have largely succeeded in achieving sustainable transport targets, the environmentalist implied that there might have been political reasons, unknown to the public, behind the crisis that have left the Jordanian public suspicious about the whole concept of the BRT (Wardam, 2013). Another Jordanian environmentalist and sustainability activist considered that the BRT represents a violation to Amman Streets infrastructures and is inconsistent with the international approach towards minimizing carbon emissions, since it will use fossil fuel. The activist said that trams, which are powered by electrical power, and work on the side of the road should have been chosen instead of BRT systems that increase pollution and add to the congestion through their dedicated lanes. The activist also criticized planning authorities for not being transparent enough, and considered that needs and aspirations of the Jordanian public have not been addressed seriously (Burgan, 2013).

Summary

In general, most planning and transport professionals that commented on the BRT project did not focus on its relationship with car use and ownership. Not much has been said by them on how the BRT would be able to attract current car users although 36 | P a g e the objective of attracting car users is implied in GAM’s master plan for transport which mentioned the BRT within policies that aim at reducing car use (GAM, 2010). Attracting car users as an objective was also implied in the figures declared by some government officials on the numbers of people who would benefit from the BRT, which exceeds the numbers of captive riders (Freij, 2015). Planners who were part of the public sector tended to be more optimistic about the BRT in general but no evidence could be drawn on the influence of car ownership on their perceptions.

Apart from planners and transport engineers some critical and even pessimistic reviews were presented by pro-environment activists who hardly addressed the influence of car ownership on the issue but rather implied that users of the streets, including private car users, will be disadvantaged by the lanes dedicated to the BRT (Burgan, 2013; Wardam, 2013).

4.2 Primary Data

4.2.1 Response Rate

For Questionnaire Number 1 (Amman BRT potential users)

According to Facebook, the ad reached 42,917 people from the targeted Audience (People who live in Amman and are above 15 years old). The ad appeared in the newsfeeds or in the side bars of the reached people and website clicks made were 919. People who responded to the questionnaire were 239, but 26 results were disqualified because the respondents skipped all the questions that addressed the research questions and answered just basic information about themselves such as gender, income and. Disqualified responses did not provide any useful information with regard to the research. Twenty-two responses were partial; respondents skipped some questions. The number of responses that could be considered complete was 191. Responses were collected over a period of three weeks.

37 | P a g e

For Questionnaire Number 2 (Planning professionals in Jordan)

The number of planning professionals who were contacted directly through email, phone calls or social media was 40 and 15 of them responded. They belonged to a variety of specializations within the fields of Planning, Engineering and Architecture. Details about respondents can be found in Table 1.

4.2.2 Users Preferences with regard to public transport

Respondents were asked to rank 9 factors according to their importance in influencing their choice of using public transport. 207/213 respondents answered this question and the “MEAN” for each factor has been found. The item with the lowest mean is the item that was ranked most highly. Precise timing scored as the highest of the nine factors, with a mean of 2.84.

Table 2: Ranking of factors affecting Users’ preferences in using Public Transport

Rank the following factors according to their importance in affecting your decision to choose a certain mode of public transport (give numbers from 1-9; 1 for the most important): Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rating Respon Options Average se (MEAN) Count Cost 33 41 25 24 19 19 18 12 16 4.16 207

Precise 65 51 31 17 19 13 5 2 4 2.84 207 Timekeeping

Enough 8 16 33 39 26 33 29 14 9 4.92 207 Stations & Stops

Frequency 37 45 36 43 18 11 11 4 2 3.33 207

Saving Time 11 20 31 23 59 30 19 12 2 4.63 207

Safety 28 18 18 25 21 58 24 11 4 4.65 207

38 | P a g e

Comfort and 13 10 20 20 24 27 73 16 4 5.46 207 chance to sit

Availability 9 4 8 10 8 6 20 93 49 7.16 207 of parking lots near the stops

A practical 3 2 5 6 13 10 8 43 117 7.85 207 system for ticketing and subscriptions answered question 207 skipped question 6 Source: Author

It was observed that the most two important factors to users, precise timing and frequency, are in the heart of the concept of the BRT, especially frequency. It ought to be noted here that although frequency is very important to users, many of them do not link it to the BRT, and might not do so until it operates. Interviewee No. 8 (Urban Planning Professor) said, in the planners’ questionnaire, that there is a large misconception among Jordanian people with regard to the BRT resulting from the word “rapid” which makes people perceive the Bus as fast rather than frequent. It can also be noticed that the Availability of parking lots near the stops was not of high priority to respondents, including those who own cars, which implied that users might be under-informed about how car use can be integrated with the use of the BRT through Park & Ride services.

4.2.3 Planners Perceptions on Users’ Preferences with regard to public transport

Planners who participated in the Questionnaire ranked the factors in the following order according to their importance to Jordanian users:

1- Frequency

39 | P a g e

2- Precise Timing 3- Saving Time 4- Cost 5- Comfort and Ability to sit 6- Safety 7- Enough Stops 8- Availability of Parking lots near stops 9- Practical system for ticketing and subscriptions

Planners were able to predict preferences of Jordanian users with high precision. They expected users, however, to give more importance to comfort, as was seen with the influence of “prestige” on choosing BRT as a mode, where planners also expected it to score higher (See Table 4). Although users’ identities were hidden in the questionnaire, they might have tended to give a lower rank to aspects such as comfort and prestige, with which over concern might be perceived negative in the “social norm”. Therefore, users’ answers might not reflect their precise preference in practice. Planners, on the other hand, are free from the burden of self-image when they talk about users. Planners, as part of this society, might provide a good insight when they are asked about their perception of the community and not about themselves. Interestingly, if users were asked about the social norm, rather than their own preferences, their answers might have been different considerably. According to Interviewee No. 7 (Urban Planner), the current public impression about public transport is very negative in terms of punctuality and cleanness. Public Transport in Jordan is socially stratified and the dominant notion is that its users are the poor.

4.2.4 Acquaintance with Amman BRT

The majority of respondents to the users’ questionnaire (69.61%) said that they have not checked the program, routes or services of the forthcoming BRT. For users who have not checked the services, 36.61% would consider using the BRT either regularly or occasionally while 46.77% of those who have checked the services consider using the BRT regularly or occasionally. Therefore, some negative perceptions can be correlated to the lack of knowledge of the BRT among users. The degree of

40 | P a g e acquaintance with the BRT services had little correlation with regard to car use; 65.66% of regular car and 67.24% of non-car users have not checked the BRT services.

According to Interviewee No. 8 (Urban Planning Professor), there is a lack of information and awareness of the nature of the BRT among Amman's residents. Even the educated people that she spoke to hardly knew what a BRT stands for. GAM planners, in her opinion, need to start “engaging” with the public rather than merely "informing" them. GAM needs a paradigm shift in its interaction with the general public and in how it considers public participation. The onus is on GAM and its planners to raise awareness and explain the general concept as well as the details.

Interviewee No. 7 (Urban Planner) and Interviewee No.11 (Architecture Professor) both stressed that the culture of public transport is missing in Amman. There is a lack of clarity, according to Interviewee No. 11 and Interviewee No.3 (Urban planner) in the BRT concept as perceived by the public, since the BRT is different from the transportation mechanisms that people are used to in Jordan. Interviewee No. 11 also noted that the delay that the project went through reduced the confidence of the public in the BRT and diminished their interest to explore its forthcoming services. Good results of the BRT implementation will need time to manifest, according to Interviewee No.7, and its success highly depends on the promotion of the project and the ability to convince the population to try to use it in order to change their present negative perceptions.

4.2.5 Factors discouraging users to take the BRT when compared to car Respondents were asked to rank 8 factors according to their importance in causing them not to choose to take the BRT, especially if a car was available (i.e. even if they currently do not own cars). 166/213 responded and their answers are shown in Table 3 below. The “MEAN” for each factor has been found and the item with the lowest mean is the one that was given the highest rank.

41 | P a g e

Table 3: Factors causing respondents not to use the BRT.

Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing you not to choose to use the BRT Rating Response Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average Count (MEAN) Control over travel 76 33 29 17 5 4 2 0 2.17 166 route Saving Time 34 69 39 11 9 3 1 0 2.43 166

Storage space in Car 2 10 41 35 35 21 14 8 4.51 166 Trunk

Prestige and Social 2 5 8 27 24 28 21 50 5.93 165 Image

Enjoyment of 9 6 11 24 46 29 31 10 5.13 166 driving

Personal Freedom 11 19 19 32 27 40 13 5 4.46 166 inside one’s own car

Distrusting the 22 18 10 11 8 19 58 20 5.13 166 effectiveness of the BRT 10 6 9 9 12 22 26 72 6.23 166 Cost answered question 166 skipped question 47 Source: Author

Planners were asked to rank the same factors according to their importance in causing users in Amman not to choose the BRT and results are shown in Table 4.

42 | P a g e

Table 4: Specialists’ ranking of factors causing Jordanian users not to take the BRT

Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing Jordanian people not to choose to use the BRT Rating Response Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average Count

Control over 7 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 2.47 15 travel route 2 7 1 1 4 0 0 0 2.87 15 Saving Time

Storage Space in 0 1 1 3 3 1 4 2 5.47 15 Car Trunk

Prestige and 3 4 4 2 1 0 0 1 2.93 15 Social image

Enjoyment of 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 6 6.80 15 Driving

Personal 0 0 2 3 1 3 4 1 5.33 15 freedom inside one's own car 0 0 2 4 1 3 1 4 5.60 15 Cost

Distrusting the 3 0 3 0 1 6 1 1 4.53 15 Effectiveness of the BRT answered question 15 skipped question 0 Source: Author

Table 5: Users vs Specialists Ranking of negative influences with regard to BRT use

Factor Users Mean Planners Mean Control Over Route 2.17 2.47 Saving Time 2.43 2.87 Storage Space in Car Trunk 4.51 5.47 Prestige and Social Image 5.93 2.93 Enjoyment of Driving 5.13 6.80 Personal Freedom inside car 4.46 5.33 Distrusting the BRT 5.13 4.53 Cost 6.23 5.60

Source: Author

43 | P a g e

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated for the Users’ means and Planners’ means (Table 5) using Microsoft Excel and it was found to be = 0.56 which indicates a positive correlation. (Values for this coefficient are between -1: denoting negative correlation, 1: denoting positive correlation and zero denoting no correlation).

To measure the influence of car use on discouraging people from using the BRT, responses were filtered for two sets of respondents: 1- Regular Car-users 2-Respondents who do not own cars and no family cars are available to them for commuting and moving around. Answers of respondents whose families own cars that are available to them (whether they are given a ride or allowed to drive) were excluded in order to achieve more contrast. 60 respondents neither own nor use cars, and 39 of these non-car users responded to this ranking question and the resulting “means” are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: 39 Non-car users ranking of factors negatively influencing their BRT choice compared to car use

Factor Ranking Mean Saving Time 1 2.18 Control Over Route 2 2.33 Storage Space in Car Trunk 3 4.05 Personal Freedom inside car 4 4.64 Enjoyment of Driving 5 5.23 Distrusting the BRT 6 5.31 Prestige and Social Image 7 6.08 Cost 8 6.18 Source: Author

Respondents who either own private cars or have family cars that are available to them at any time were 102/213 and these respondents could be considered regular car users. Of these regular car users, 87 people responded to the ranking question and the resulting “means” are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Regular Car users’ ranking of factors negatively influencing their BRT choice compared to car

Factor Ranking Mean Control Over Route 1 2.11 Saving Time 2 2.54 Personal Freedom inside car 3 4.36 Distrusting the BRT 4 4.57 Storage Space in Car Trunk 5 4.75

44 | P a g e

Enjoyment of Driving 6 5.26 Prestige and Social Image 7 6 Cost 8 6.38 Source: Author

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated for the two sets (Car users and Non car users) using Microsoft Excel and it was found to be = 0.95 which indicates a very strong positive correlation. While their intentions might be very different, the two groups have almost the same perceptions with regard to the factors that might drive them away from using the BRT. Non-car users however tend to distrust the forthcoming BRT more which might be a result of their past experience with public transport. In conclusion, the influence of car ownership and car use is weak with regard to factors discouraging users from using the BRT when compared to car.

An interesting observation is the agreement between most users and planners that “control over route” -which can be linked to “perceived behavioural control” in TPB- is an important factor in discouraging people from using the BRT instead of cars. However, given the small sample of planners, in addition to the diversity of their professional backgrounds, only a general impression can be made with regard to the degree to which planners understand what would discourage users from taking the BRT. Planners seem to understand - to a good extent- what would cause users to favour car use over BRT use (Pearson Coefficient = 0.56).

Other discouraging factors mentioned by interviewed planners were related to the absence of public transport culture in general in the Jordanian community. For example, according to Interviewee No. 7 (Urban Planner), users of the BRT will need to walk from the Bus stop to their specific destination, as with other means of public transport, and walking as an activity is not favoured by many people.

45 | P a g e

4.2.6 Factors encouraging users to take the BRT when compared to car

Respondents were asked to rank 7 factors according to their importance in encouraging them to prefer BRT use over car use. 154/213 responded as shown in Table 8. Planners were asked to make the same ranking and results are shown in Table 9. Means of users’ and planners’ responses are shown in Table 10.

Table 8: Users’ ranking of factors that encourage then to use the BRT when compared to car

Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing you to choose to use the BRT

Answer Rating Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Options Average Count

Cost 56 36 13 22 15 3 9 2.67 154

Saving 26 49 38 15 10 8 8 2.94 154 Time

Interacting 2 9 24 32 25 34 28 4.84 154 with others

Decreasing 11 12 19 33 31 28 20 4.46 154 Air Pollution 12 7 20 15 43 35 21 4.69 153 Safety

Not having 19 22 15 19 20 39 20 4.27 154 to drive

Suffering in 28 19 25 18 10 7 46 4.10 153 parking the car answered question 154 skipped question 59

Source: Author

46 | P a g e

Table 9: Planners’ ranking of factors that encourage then to use the BRT when compared to car

Rank the following factors according to their importance in encouraging Jordanian users to take the BRT instead of the car

Answer Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Response Count Options Average

Cost 4 4 4 2 1 0 0 2.47 15 6 3 2 3 1 0 0 2.33 15 Saving Time

Interacting 0 0 0 0 3 5 7 6.27 15 with Others

Decreasing 0 0 0 0 1 8 6 6.33 15 Air Pollution 0 0 2 3 6 2 2 4.93 15 Safety

Not having to 3 4 4 3 1 0 0 2.67 15 drive Suffering in parking the 2 4 3 4 2 0 0 3.00 15 car

answered question 15 skipped question 0 Source: Author

Table 10: Users vs Specialists Ranking of positive influences with regard to BRT use

Planners Factor Users Mean Mean Cost 2.67 2.47 Saving Time 2.94 2.33 Interacting with others 4.84 6.27 Decreasing Air Pollution 4.46 6.33 Safety 4.69 4.93 Not having to drive 4.27 2.67 Suffering in Parking the car 4.1 3 Source: Author

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated for the two sets (Users and Planners) using Microsoft Excel and it was found to be = 0.75 which indicates a strong positive correlation.

Of the 60 respondents who neither own nor use cars, 37 responded to this ranking question and the resulting “means” were as shown in Table 11.

47 | P a g e

Table 11: Non-car users’ ranking of factors positively influencing their BRT choice compared to car use

Factor Ranking Mean Cost 1 2.3 Saving Time 2 2.84 Safety 3 3.92 Decreasing Air Pollution 4 4.08

Interacting with others 5 4.62

Suffering in Parking the car 6 4.92

Not having to drive 7 5.32 Source: Author

102/213 respondents either own private cars or have family cars that are available to them at any time so these can be considered regular car users. 82 of them responded to this question as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Regular car users’ ranking of factors positively influencing their BRT choice compared to car

Factor Ranking Mean Saving Time 1 2.9 Cost 2 3.06 Not having to drive 3 3.59 Suffering in Parking the car 4 3.64 Decreasing Air Pollution 5 4.68 Safety 6 5.02

Interacting with others 7 5.06 Source: Author

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated for the two sets (Car users and Non car users) and was found to be =.0.43 which indicates a positive correlation that is less than the correlation between car users and non-car users with regard to discouraging influences = 0.95. While car users and non-car users have almost similar perceptions with regard to factors that can favour car commuting over BRT, they agree but to a lesser extent when it comes to factors that favour BRT over car commuting.

Interestingly, Pearson correlation coefficient with planners ranking was 0.92 for car users and 0.28 for non-car users. Planners’ expectations of factors that can encourage users to use the BRT are much more consistent with the perceptions of current car users; planners seems to have a very good understanding of what can cause a car user to choose to make the transition to the BRT. However, although the correlation between planners’ perceptions and non-car

48 | P a g e users’ perceptions was also positive in this regard, consistency is less. It seems that planners are more focused on attracting car users to make the choice since car users are choice riders for the BRT, while most non-car users can be considered captive riders who do not need the same level of encouragement to use it.

4.2.7 Park & Ride Facilities

Responses of 204/213 users to the question “Do you think that the “Park and Ride” services will encourage you to use the BRT? “are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Users responses with regard to Park and Ride services

Do you think that the “Park and Ride” services will encourage you to use the BRT

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count It will largely encourage me to use the BRT 34.8% 71 It might slightly encourage me to use it 32.8% 67 It will not have any effect 13.2% 27 I do not know 19.1% 39 answered question 204 skipped question 9 Source: Author

Interestingly, very close results were obtained for the 102 regular car users (of which 99 answered) and the 60 non-car users (of which 58 answered); the Pearson Coefficient was 0.97. Therefore, no evident influence of car ownership and use is found on users’ perceptions of Park and Ride services although this service is directly related to car use. The weak influence of car use on users’ perceptions of the Park & Ride might be due to the fact that the Jordanian public is still largely uninformed about BRT services. Around twenty percent of respondents frankly declared that they do not know what effect Park and Ride services would have on their preferences.

Planners, on the other hand, seemed to be more optimistic about Park and Ride services. Nine out of fifteen respondents to the planners’ questionnaire said that Park and Ride services would strongly encourage people to use the BRT. According to Interviewee No.7 (Urban Planner), park and ride services will definitely contribute to the success of the BRT, but they will also need time until users adapt to them and become part of users’ transport culture since park and ride services are new to the

49 | P a g e

Jordanian Community. Interviewee No. 1 (Transport Engineer) said that Park and Ride services will greatly help, especially at the ends of routes such as the station of “Sweileh”, which will facilitate mobility for those coming from the north and from areas western Amman like Salt and Baqa’a. A positive result will be that vehicles coming from other governorates will not enter to the city center of Amman. Interviewee No. 15 (Urban Planner) said that park and ride services should become part of any transportation project, providing a parking for every 3-5 km.

Five respondents to the planners’ questionnaire said that park and ride services might slightly encourage users to take the BRT. According to interviewee No.2 (Transport Engineer), park and ride services are of the most important factors especially for private car users. Interviewee No.11 (Architecture Professor) emphasized, with regard to park and ride services, that the public are largely under-informed about the concept of BRT, a comment that is consistent with the users’ findings. Interviewee No.9 (Architect and Planning Academic) said that the influence of park and ride on users’ preferences depends on the quality and inclusiveness of the service.

4.2.8 Attracting Car users

The number of respondents that could be considered regular car users were 102. From this groups, 99 respondents answered about their expectations to use the BRT. Theirs responses are shown in Table 14.

Table 14: Car users’ BRT intentions How often do you expect to use the BRT?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count

I will depend on it for regular trips (study or work) 13.1% 13

I will depend on it for most of my trips 4.0% 4 I will depend on it for less important trips 11.1% 11 I might use it from time to time but I would not depend 35.4% 35

36.4% 36 I would rarely use it or maybe never answered question 99 skipped question 3 Source: Author

50 | P a g e

Sixty respondents to the users’ questionnaire could be considered non-car users. From this group, 58 respondents answered about their expectations to use the BRT. Their responses are shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Non-Car users’ BRT intentions.

How often do you expect to use the BRT?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count I will depend on it for regular trips (study or work) 27.6% 16 I will depend on it for most of my trips 24.1% 14 I will depend on it for less important trips 8.6% 5 29.3% 17 I might use it from time to time but I would not depend I would rarely use it or maybe never 10.3% 6 answered question 58 skipped question 2 Source: Author

Car users were less enthusiastic about the BRT and a smaller portion of them considered depending on it or even using it. Influence of car ownership on users’ perceptions with regard to BRT can be said to be negative in the case of car ownership or regular car use; car users will not be easily convinced to use BRT services even if they are sure that it will save them money, as was seen in Tables 3 and 7.

With regard to the intention to use the forthcoming BRT, current use of Public Transport can be considered a “past behaviour”. Since “past behaviour” can influence people’s intentions according to TPB, current use of public transport was treated as an independent variable and the intention to use the BRT was treated as a dependent variable. Results showed an influence of past behaviour. Current users of public transport were more reluctant to use the forthcoming BRT.

Planners’ responses showed an awareness of the difficulty of attracting car users. Amman BRT, according to Interviewee No. 9 (Architect and Planning Academic), has the potential to attract car users but achieving this in practice will depend on the quality and inclusiveness of the service. The BRT network should cover most of the city areas in order to attract considerable numbers of current car users. Shifting to the BRT is related to the mind-set of individual car owners and their willingness to give

51 | P a g e up their cars, according to Interviewee No. 14 (Architect). In the same context, Interview No.11 (Architecture Professor) does not expect car owners to constitute a considerable amount of BRT users; making that shift needs an integrated plan for transportation.

Due to socio-cultural and economic factors with regard to Jordan and Amman in particular, Interviewee No. 8 (Urban Planning Professor) doubted that those who already own cars will be using the BRT. Considerable sectors in the society are obsessed with prestige and social status and using public transportation denotes a "lower" socio-economic class, while owning a car (and the car's make and model) denotes a higher social status. It all depends, according to Interviewee No.10 (Architecture Professor), on the availability of parking space, stations, quality and frequency of ride, quality of stations and users. For short distance commuters, it is faster by car and more comfortable, but for long distance commuters, the BRT is feasible.

According to Interviewee No.7 (GAM Urban Planner), the absence of public transport culture will cause most BRT users –at least in the beginning- to be people who do not own cars. A similar opinion was expressed by Interviewee No.6 (also a GAM Urban Planner) who expected that car users will be reluctant in the beginning and most of users will be Universities Students. Later when the BRT experience proves successful, car users will be attracted. Less optimistic was their co-worker, Interviewee No. 3 (GAM Urban Planner) who considered that car users will never have a strong motivation to make that transition.

Interviewee No.1 (Transport Engineer), on the other hand, expected car users to constitute a considerable part of the BRT users given the effectiveness of the points of departure of the BRT and the good access to its routes in addition to the attraction nodes along the tracks. He emphasized, however, that the current routes of the BRT are the nucleus from which the network of public rapid transit transport will grow. Interviewee No.12 (Architect) said that the potential of the BRT to attract car users exists, since the same system succeeded to attract car users in other countries. Cultural and social factors will influence preferences, but reaching an effective public transport system will eventually lead to less dependence on private transportation.

52 | P a g e

According to Interviewee No. 13 (Architect and planner), car users might seriously consider BRT use for their daily trips to and from work. This depends, however, on its effectivity and its future extension to include more areas in Amman. Similarly, Interviewee No.5 (Urban Planner) stressed the importance of having supporting systems to transport people from surrounding side streets and residential areas to the main street where a BRT station is located.

In contrast, the BRT will not be able to attract car users according to Interviewee No.2 (Transport Engineer) because it will suffer itself from traffic congestions especially at places like the University of Jordan station. He asked “would you prefer waiting inside your vehicle in a traffic jam or to wait the same period while you are compressed between crowds inside the bus?” Monorails, rather than BRT, will be able to attract car users in Amman.

In summary, most planners are convinced that BRT alone can have a limited influence on car owners’ intentions to use Public transport. To attract car users, the BRT needs to extend its coverage or integrate with other supporting systems. Planners stressed the role cultural and psychological factors might play in hindering a shift in car users’ behaviour. A general conclusion was that if the BRT succeeds to satisfy captive users, car owners might follow later.

4.2.9 Car influence on BRT perceptions, based on geographical attributes

Respondents to the users’ questionnaire were asked whether their residence or work/study place is served by the forthcoming BRT routes. 41% said that they do not know the answer to that question, 37% said that either their residence or their work/study place is served by the BRT and 22% said that they are not served by the BRT. Again, there is an evidence of considerable lack of knowledge about the BRT between Jordanian citizens. Interestingly, responses of those whose residence or work is served by the BRT were only slightly more positive about the BRT, in terms of their intentions to use the BRT, even for those who do not own cars. A possible explanation is implied in what was said by Interviewee No.10 (Architecture 53 | P a g e

Academic) who asserted that while the BRT might be feasible to long distance commuters, people will not tend to consider using it for short distances even if their residence or place of work is served by its routes.

4.2.10 Were car ownership levels considered when Amman BRT was planned?

Planners were asked if they believe that car ownership levels were considered in the planning of Amman BRT, and part of them responded as is shown in Table 16. Their responses varied but a common observation was that there is not much evidence to planners outside GAM that car ownership levels were given consideration. It can be said that, even if car ownership was investigated by GAM planners, whether or not car ownership realities were integrated into the BRT design might remain subject to contested views until proven that it was or was not, in practice.

Table 16: Car ownership levels in Amman and the planning of the BRT – Planners’ Questionnaire

Interviewee Relation Do you think that levels of car ownership in Amman were taken into No. to GAM consideration when Amman BRT was planned? Yes they were, through a statistical study that included 10,000 household. There were 158 car owners among every 1000 citizens. 1 Related In addition to the growth rate in the number of registered cars which reached more than 20% in some years within the period 2005-2009 as a result of several socio-economic factors

I believe this was not addressed correctly, because with the increasing number of vehicles it is wrong to suggest a transport project that would have dedicated lanes when these roads are already 2 congested. Amman streets already suffer from poor design. And by taking part of the existing sidewalks you weaken the ability to service the BRT users because they will need wide sidewalks

3 Related I do not think they were given enough consideration

4 I am sure they were but I think that traffic data is more important. 5 Probably, although these figures are constantly changing and need updating Yes they were considered at the time of preparing traffic and 6 Related transport studies for the project. 9 I do not think so.

54 | P a g e

10 I do not think so I do not know but this should have been considered given that users 12 of private vehicles constitute a significant proportion in the Jordanian Society I believe that the inadequate level of cooperation between GAM and the Ministry of Transport and other governmental institutions 15 might have decreased the opportunity of serious consideration of such data. No, because if this was taken into consideration we would have seen 16 Activist an integrated project with integrated routes Source: Author

55 | P a g e

5- DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion

The main hypothesis of this research has proven to be partially correct. Planning professionals and users have different perspectives with regard to some aspects of the relationship between car ownership and BRT use. However, planners tend to understand much of users’ motives, especially car owners and users. Car ownership has some influence on users’ perceptions with regard to the BRT; car owners and users are less enthusiastic about the BRT concept. However, there are many other influences that affect perceptions of both car users and non-car users that, in the case of Amman BRT, result in highly similar perceptions between those who own or use cars and those who do not. The most important factor that might have accounted for strong correlations between car users and non-car users was that both were under- informed about the project. It can be said that perceptions of developments such as Amman BRT have a political component related to the distrust in the government by the public. Planning professional can be less susceptible to crowd psychology that leaves many lay users sceptical to any governmental initiative although they might be under-informed about it, especially in developing countries. Planners seem to be aware that, in order to maintain an expert role, they need to develop a better understanding of specific planning technical knowledge and of its use in societal conversations (Mazza, 1995). Accordingly, in contrast with the public view that might have some subjective, irrational components of scepticism as a result of past experiences, professionals tended to express their doubt objectively by referring to scientific logic rather than impressions or past experiences.

Planners’ and users’ perceptions have more commonalities than differences. However, more engagement between planners -especially those in charge of developments- and the public was recommended by several interviewed planners. Planners can predict well the “attitudes” of users, and they might be more aware and conscious of the “social norm” which users might deny, but act upon. However, because planning professionals in Jordan belong to the middle class which is highly

56 | P a g e car-dependent, they lack real “past experience” with public transport use and some of their perceptions might be abstract. They might also tend to underestimate some attributes of car use that are related to “perceived control” such as the enjoyment of riding and personal freedom inside the car. Depending on the findings, it can be said that when car ownership levels increase to the extent that makes most people car- dependent, the influence of car ownership anchors itself in the tendencies and intentions of users. In a car dependent context, the ambition of those who do not own cars becomes to buy cars rather than aiming for a reliable public transport system, which was implied in the highly similar results between car users and non-car users with regard to factors that favour car use over BRT use.

It can be argued that people’s practices speak louder than their words and their responses to questions might not be very reliable as they can be subject to psychological factors related to their perceptions of “right” and “wrong” answers even if the question avoids leading them towards a particular direction. Therefore, it might be better to observe people than to ask them to fill a questionnaire. For example, the reason why users underestimated the influence of social image on their preferences while planners gave this factor more importance might be that users were speaking in the first person while planners were referring to the social norm; third person (Westphal, 1998). Therefore, using different instruments to carry the same research in the future is recommended; instruments that observe the practices of people or include social experiments.

In the planning of Amman BRT, planning authorities did not seem to surpass the therapeutic stage. According to the public participation ladder proposed by Arnstien Sherry back in 1969, therapy is within the non-participation stage. The lowest degree of participation involves informing, in which Amman BRT has apparently not succeeded (Arnstein, 1969). There appears to be a gap between the authorities and the public with regard to the BRT project which does not seem to be taken seriously by the public. Nevertheless, assuming that current perceptions of potential users are biased as a result of their scepticism and weak acquaintance with the BRT project or even their bad past experience with public transport does not necessarily mean that their perceptions are fragile or easily changed. According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, social behaviour is reasonable although people’s beliefs may be biased. 57 | P a g e

People’s attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control continue reasonably from their beliefs to produce a corresponding intention, and ultimately a behaviour that is consistent with the overall belief. And since social behaviour is reasoned, past behaviour should have only a limited effect on later behaviour, mediated by intention and perceived behavioural control (Bamberg et al., 2003).

While some behavioural theories, as opposed to the theory of planned behaviour, suggest that behaviour is usually automatic or habitual rather than reasoned (Aarts and Dijksterhuis, 2000), the case of Amman BRT is more likely to be explained by the TPB. For example, past behaviour, in terms of past use or even dependency on public transport, had a limited influence on perceptions as some users who have always been public transport users showed tendencies and intentions that reflect an individual cost- benefit analysis; Reluctance to use the BRT did not prevent respondents from being aware that the BRT can be more economical (See Table 8).

Not only did perceived behavioural control, in terms of “control over route”, mediate between past behaviour and intentions of forthcoming behaviour. Responses have also shown a strong influence of “control over route” in causing users prefer car use over BRT use. The influence of perceived control was not confined to car users, but perceptions of non-car users were also affected by the perceived control over travel route in the case of car use (See Table 4). Users might feel confused with regard to how to they can reach their destinations using the BRT and whether they would need to take several modes of transportation. Even non-car users, according to Interviewee No. 15 (Urban Planner), would perceive using a car to get to their destination more doable than BRT use and would eventually prefer buying a car by instalments than depending on the BRT. Reluctance to public transport use in general, as was found in previous research, can be augmented by perceiving alternatives to driving as hard or unavailable (Mann and Abraham, 2012).

The findings of this research were consistent with the findings of several past studies that suggested that BRT systems have the potential to attract car owners given that they were implemented efficiently and within an integrated strategy for public transport (Deng and Nelson, 2011; Hensher and Li, 2012; Satiennam et al., 2015). At the same time, individual perceptions of car use were found to influence users' 58 | P a g e intentions with regard to public transport, which was a common finding with several studies carried in various transport contexts with regard to transportation behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2003; Pedersen et al., 2012; Redman et al., 2013). Findings have also shown consistency with the basic principle behind the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and thus supported the academic tendency, manifested through many past research, to employ this theory in understanding ridership and commuting patterns (Bamberg et al., 2003; Beale and Bonsall, 2007; Mann and Abraham, 2012). The challenge the findings of this research pose to past literature is that they imply that planners can better represent car users which questions their impartiality and brings the question of advocacy to the heart of public transport literature.

5.2 Conclusion

The influence of car ownership on users’ perceptions of the BRT is subject to a set of socio-economic, individual and psychological factors. While it might be tempting to some planners to think that perceptions of users are fragile and subject to change given that most of users are currently under-informed about the BRT and do not have the curiosity to know about it, these perceptions can be more consistent and uncompromising. Furthermore, although planners are in general more optimistic about the BRT, they tend to connect its success in attracting car users with its future extension and its integration with supporting transport services.

Planners are able to predict the perceptions of car users more efficiently. This can be understood knowing that most of them belong to car users. However, this stronger correlation between planners and car users can be an issue given that most ridership of public transport comes from non-car users. Transport planning, although more rational and objective in its nature than landscape or urban planning, still has a wide area for contesting approaches to solutions, including BRT. Therefore, users’ participation is vital for tipping the scale in a particular solution’s favour.

59 | P a g e

5.3 Recommendations for Policy and Practice

More should be put into the promotion of the BRT. The public should be attracted to know about the BRT and its qualities that can attract different kinds of users. The BRT should be promoted as a part of an integrated transportation strategy rather than being presented as an individual development which can attract negative comments from users (based on past bad experience in addition to the fuss that accompanied the project) and from planning professionals (based on its limited ability, given its existing routes, to induce a paradigm shift in transport).

Cooperation is recommended between different transport planning authorities (GAM, Ministry of Transport and Land Transport Regulatory Commission) in planning and promoting public transport, and most importantly in informing the public about it. At the same time, empowering every public transportation entity within the government is required since every system is as strong as its weakest element. Amman BRT will need complementary systems from light rail to supplying systems that operate through large and medium buses and combined transport in order to secure pedestrian paths and corridors that are able to support urban transport.

Transport planning authorities in Jordan should engage with users and receive their feedback in the earliest stages of a development and their perceptions should be taken into consideration. Users’ perceptions should be taken seriously and they should not be passive receivers whose needs are taken into consideration merely by making them subject to some statistical studies prior to a transportation development. Numbers of private cars per household, licensed drivers and trips travelled by car should be integrated more into the planning of transport projects that aim at causing a modal shift from car use to public transport. Regular statistical research ought to be carried in this regard.

60 | P a g e

5.4 Further Research

The researcher recommends approaching the same research question using different methods and instruments. Further investigation can use ethnography or design special social experiments. It is recommended to repeat the same research after the operation of the BRT to investigate to what extent the perceptions of users have changed. A larger sample of planning specialists who are familiar with the Jordanian transportation context can be conducted in order to have a statistical significance.

There is a need to conduct research on car use habits among transport planners and engineers and investigate their ability to advocate the needs of captive riders. Results of this dissertation implied that the mind-set of Jordanian planners might be influenced by the fact that most of them are regular car users. The question that can be tackled in further research is whether planners are able to advocate the needs of public transport users when most of them depend on cars.

61 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarts, H. and Dijksterhuis, A. (2000) 'Habits as Knowledge Structures: Automaticity in Goal-Directed Behavior', Journal of personality and social psychology, 78 (1), pp. 53-63.

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Gifford, R., et al. (2009) 'Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality?' Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 12 (4), pp. 317-324.

,Alghad Newspaper .البنك الدولي: قطاع النقل العام مصدر قلق لألردن (Abuzeinah, Y. (2014 Tuesday 26th August, Amman.

Al Tal, R. (2006) Structures of authority: a sociopolitical account of architectural and urban programs in Amman, Jordan (1953-1999). Binghamton: ProQuest.

Ajzen, I. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Al-Asad, M. (2008) A New Amman, for Better and for Worse. [Online] Availabe from: http://www.csbe.org/publications-and-resources/urban-crossroads/a-new- amman-for-better-and-for-worse/ [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Al-Asad, M. (2004) Public Transport. [Online] Available from: http://csbe.org/publications-and-resources/urban-crossroads/public-transportation [Accessed 12 July 2015].

Alnawaiseh, N.A., Hashim, J.H. and Md Isa, Z. (2015) Relationship between Vehicle Count and Particulate Air Pollution in Amman, Jordan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27 (2), pp. 1742-1751.

Alpkokin, P. and Ergun, M. (2012) Istanbul Metrobus: First intercontinental bus rapid transit. Journal of Transport Geography, 24 pp. 58-66.

Andrews, C.J. (2002) Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding. 1st ed. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.

Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), pp. 216-224.

.الباص السريع من االنطالق إلى التوقف: حكاية مشروع حيوي ضاع في اللجان (Assawsana (2011 [Online]. Available from: https://www.assawsana.com/portal/pages.php?newsid=55874 [Accessed 19 July 2015].

62 | P a g e

Ayan, N. (2014) Egypt and Jordan lead Facebook use in MENA [Online]. Available from: http://en.webrazzi.com/2014/03/28/egypt-and-jordan-lead- facebook-use-in-mena/ [Accessed 11 July 2015].

Babalik-Sutcliffe, E. (2002) Urban rail systems: Analysis of the factors behind success. Transport Reviews, 22 (4), pp. 415-447.

Babbie, E.R. (2001) The practice of social research. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I. and Schmidt, P. (2003) Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Roles of Past Behavior, Habit, and Reasoned Action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25 (3), pp. 175-187.

Beale, J.R. and Bonsall, P.W. (2007) Marketing in the bus industry: A psychological interpretation of some attitudinal and behavioural outcomes. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 10 (4), pp. 271-287.

Bergmann, S., Hoff, Thomas, & Sager, Tore. (2008). Spaces of mobility essays on the planning, ethics, engineering and religion of human motion. London: Equinox.

Bhat, C.R. and Pulugurta, V. (1998) A comparison of two alternative behavioral choice mechanisms for household auto ownership decisions. Transportation Research Part B, 32 (1), pp. 61-75.

Boas, T. (2014) Sampling Social Media: Using Facebook to Recruit Online Survey Respondents [Online]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4180341/ [Accessed 12 July 2015].

Brown, J., Thompson, G., Bhattacharya, T., et al. (2014) Understanding Transit Ridership Demand for the Multidestination, Multimodal Transit Network in Atlanta, Georgia: Lessons for Increasing Rail Transit Choice Ridership while Maintaining Transit Dependent Bus Ridership. Urban Studies, 51 (5), pp. 938-958.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, E.A. and Hvizdak, E.E. (2009) Online Survey Tools: Ethical and Methodological Concerns of Human Research Ethics Committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4 (2), pp. 37-48.

Online]. Available] الباص السريع فشل ألنه لم يطرح على الحوار الشعبي (Burgan, B. (2013 from: http://alsawt.net/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B5- %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9- %D9%81%D8%B4%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%86%D9%87- %D9%84%D9%85-%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%AD- %D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7/ [Accessed 20 July 2015]

63 | P a g e

Cervero, R. (2006) Alternative approaches to modeling the travel-demand impacts of smart growth. Journal Of The American Planning Association, 72 (3), pp. 285- 295.

Chakraborty, A. (2012) Recognizing Uncertainty and Linked Decisions in Public Participation: A New Framework for Collaborative Urban Planning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29 (2), pp. 131-148.

Chee, W.L. and Fernandez, J.L. (2013) Factors that Influence the Choice of Mode of Transport in Penang: A Preliminary Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91 pp. 120-127.

Clark, A. (1998) The qualitative-quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post-positivism and reconciliation. Journal of advanced nursing, 27 (6), pp. 1242-1249.

Comerio, M.C. (1981) Pruitt Igoe and Other Stories. JAE, 34 (4), pp. 26-31.

Coombe, R.D. (1985) Urban transport policy development: two case studies in the Middle East. Transport Reviews, 5 (2), pp. 165-188.

Corburn, J. (2003) Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22 (4), pp. 420-433.

Currie, G. and Delbosc, A. (2011) Understanding bus rapid transit route ridership drivers: An empirical study of Australian BRT systems. Transport Policy, 18 (5): 755-764.

Curry, N. (2012) Community Participation in Spatial Planning: Exploring Relationships between Professional and Lay Stakeholders. Local Government Studies, 38 (3), pp. 345-366. de Groot, J. and Steg, L. (2006) Impact of transport pricing on quality of life, acceptability, and intentions to reduce car use: An exploratory study in five European countries. Journal of Transport Geography, 14 (6), pp. 463-470. de Luca, S. (2014) Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transport Policy, 33 pp. 110-124.

Dekay, M. (2011) Integral Sustainable Design: Transformative Perspectives. [Kindle Edition]. Available from: Amazon.com [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Demery, L.W. (2004) Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil - An Information Summary. Vallejo: Publictransit.us.

Deng, T. and Nelson, J. (2011) Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review of the Literature. Transport Reviews, 31 (1), pp. 69-96.

64 | P a g e

Denscombe, M. (2007) The good research guide : for small-scale social research projects. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010) Ground rules for social research: guidelines for good practice. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N.K. (1970) Sociological methods: a sourcebook. 1st ed. London: Butterworths.

Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Ettema, D., et al. (2010) Experimental simulation of car users' switching to public transport. Transportation Letters, 2 (3), pp. 145-155.

European Urban Knowledge Network (2013) Factsheet: Public Participation in the Development Process [Online]. Available from: http://www.eukn.eu/fileadmin/Lib/files/EUKN/2013/Factsheet.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Facebook (2015) Facebook Data Policy [Online]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/policy.php [Accessed 1 August 2015].

FitzRoy, F. and Smith, I. (1998) Public transport demand in Freiburg: why did patronage double in a decade? Transport Policy, 5 (3), pp. 163-173.

Freij, M. (2015) Amman-Zarqa BRT to serve 4,200 passengers at peak hours [Online] Available from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/amman-zarqa-brt- serve-4200-passengers-peak-hours-%E2%80%94-shbeeb [Accessed 2 August 2015]

Greater Amman Municipality (2015a) Greater Amman Municipality official website [Online]. Available from: http://www.ammancity.gov.jo [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Greater Amman Municipality (2015b) Official Site of Amman Bus Rapid Transit [Online]. Available from: http://www.ammanbrt.jo/ar/default.asp [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Greater Amman Municipality (2010) Transport and Mobility Master Plan for Amman: Final Report. Amman: Greater Amman Municipality.

Ghazal, M. (2012) Internet penetration tops 55% by end of June [Online] Available from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/internet-penetration-tops- 55-end-june [Accessed 16 July 2015]

Gilligan, C., Kypri, K. and Bourke, J. (2014) Social networking versus facebook advertising to recruit survey respondents: a quasi-experimental study. JMIR research protocols, 3 (3), pp. e48.

Goodman, A., Guell, C., Panter, J., et al. (2012) Healthy travel and the socio- economic structure of car commuting in Cambridge, UK: A mixed-methods analysis. Social science & medicine, 74 (12), pp. 1929-1938.

65 | P a g e

Hamed, M.M. and Olaywah, H.H. (2000) Travel-related decisions by bus, servis taxi, and private car commuters in the city of Amman, Jordan. Cities, 17 (1), pp. 63- 71.

Handy, S. (2000) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. American Planning Association.Journal of the American Planning Association, 66 (3), p. 342.

Healey, P. (2009) The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28 (3), pp. 277-292.

Healy, P. (2002) On Creating the "City" as a Collective Resource. Urban Studies, 39 (10), pp. 1777-1792.

Hensher, D. (2007) Sustainable public transport systems: Moving towards a value for money and network-based approach and away from blind commitment. Transport Policy, 14 (1), pp. 98-102.

Hensher, D. and Li, Z. (2012) Ridership drivers of bus rapid transit systems. Transportation, 39 (6), pp. 1209-1221.

Hensher, D., Mulley, C. and Yahya, N. (2010) Passenger experience with quality- enhanced bus service: the tyne and wear ‘superoute’ services. Transportation, 37 (2), pp. 239-256.

Hussien, M. and Sharawneh, O. (2014) 'Comparison between Monorail System and BRT System in Amman City'. The Fourth Jordan International Conference and Exhibition for Roads and Transport - High Priority Issues in the Future Transport Sector. Amman, 12-13 March 2014.

Imam, R. (2014) Measuring Public Transport Satisfaction from User Surveys. International Journal of Business and Management, 9 (6), pp. 107-114.

Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., and Yamamoto, T. (2011) Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), pp. 765-789.

Isaac, J.C. (1990) Realism and Reality: Some Realistic Reconsiderations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (1), pp. 1-31.

Ison, S. (2008) Implementation and Effectiveness of Transport Demand Management Measures. [Online] Ashgate. Available from: Ebrary. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/bham/detail.action?docID=10254939 [Accessed 17 July 2015].

Jordan Times (2014) Amman’s population rises to around 4 million — Biltaji. [Online] Available from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/amman%E2%80%99s-population-rises- around-4-million-%E2%80%94-biltaji [Accessed 21 July 2015].

66 | P a g e

Jordan Times (2014) Around 35,000 Syrian cars are in Jordan — Interior Ministry [Online] Available from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/around- 35000-syrian-cars-are-jordan-%E2%80%94-interior-ministry [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Jordan Times (2014) Work on Zarqa-Amman BRT project to begin 2016 [Online] Available from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/work-zarqa- amman-brt-project-begin-2016%E2%80%99 [Accessed on 16 July 2015].

Kay, J.H. (1997) Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took over America and How We Can Take It Back. Reprint ed. Berkeley: University of California.

Kerr, A., Lennon, A. and Watson, B. (2010) The call of the road: factors predicting students’ car travelling intentions and behaviour. Transportation, 37 (1), pp. 1-13.

Kitamura, R. (1989) A causal analysis of car ownership and transit use. Transportation, 16 (2), pp. 155-173.

Knussen, C. & McFadyen, A. (2010) Ethical Issues Involved In Using Survey Monkey. [Online]. Available from: http://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/gsbs/content/downloads/Survey%20Monke y.doc [Accessed 27-07 2015].

Manderscheid, K. (2014) The Movement Problem, the Car and Future Mobility Regimes: Automobility as Dispositif and Mode of Regulation. Mobilities, 9 (4), pp. 604-626.

Mann, E. and Abraham, C. (2012) Identifying Beliefs and Cognitions Underpinning Commuters' Travel Mode Choices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (11), pp. 2730-2757.

May, T. (2011) Social research issues, methods and process. 4th ed. Maidenhead, England: McGraw Hill.

Mazza, L. (1995) Technical knowledge, practical reason and the planner's responsibility. The Town Planning Review, 66 (4), p. 389.

Mejia-Dugand, S., Hjelm, O., Baas, L., et al. (2013) Lessons from the spread of Bus Rapid Transit in Latin America. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50 pp. 82-90.

Menckhoff, G. (2005) Latin American Experience with Bus Rapid Transit. Melbourne: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Miller, M.A., Cevero, R. and Murakami, J. (2009) Direct Ridership Model of Bus Rapid Transit in Los Angeles County. Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies.

Moyer, M. (2009) Bus Rapid Transit. Scientific American, 301 (6), p. 53.

67 | P a g e

Nasrudin, N., Nor, A.R.M., Noor, H.M., et al. (2013) Urban Residents’ Awareness and Readiness for Sustainable Transportation Case Study: Shah Alam, Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105 pp. 632-643.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Newman, P., Kenworthy, J. and Balsas, C. (2001) Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Urban Affairs Review, 36 (3) pp. 429-432.

Niño-Zarazúa, M. (2012) Quantitative Analysis in Social Sciences: A Brief Introduction for Non-Economists. Munich Personal RePEc Archive [Online] Available from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39216/ [Accessed 28 July 2015].

Nurdden, A., Riza, A.O. and Ismail, A. (2007) Effect of Transportation Policies on Modal Shift from Private Car to Public Transport in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7 (7), p. 1013.

Oxford Business Group (2014) Increasing viability: With political hurdles now behind it, Amman BRT moves forward. [Online] Available from: http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/analysis/increasing-viability-political-hurdles- now-behind-it-amman-brt-moves-forward [Accessed 19 July 2015].

Pedersen, T., Kristensson, P. and Friman, M. (2012) Counteracting the focusing illusion: Effects of defocusing on car users' predicted satisfaction with public transport. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32 (1), pp. 30-36.

Potter, R.B., Darmame, K., Barham, N., et al. (2009) “Ever-growing Amman”, Jordan: Urban expansion, social polarisation and contemporary urban planning issues. Habitat International, 33 (1), pp. 81-92.

Rasouli, S. and Timmermans, H. (2014) Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 31-60.

Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., et al. (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25 pp. 119- 127.

Reed, J. (2013) Syrian refugees test the resources of Jordan’s capital. [Online] Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f805978-48a8-11e3-8237- 00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ZMRWHjqD [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Robson, C. (2011) Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley.

Roo, G.D. and Porter, G. (2006) Fuzzy planning: the role of actors in a fuzzy governance environment. Aldershot: Ashgate. Available from: Ingram Digital [Accessed 25 July 2015].

68 | P a g e

Rooke, B. (2013) Four Pillars of Internet Research Ethics with Web 2.0. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11 (4), pp. 265-268.

[Online] .إختيار مشروع الباص السريع جاء بعد دراسات معمقة وطويلة الغرايبة (Rum News (2011 Available from: http://www.rumonline.net/index.php?page=article&id=59438 [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Rydin, Y. (2011) The purpose of planning: creating sustainable towns and cities. Bristol: Policy Press.

Safdie, M. and Kohn, W. (1998) The City after the Automobile: An Architect’s Vision. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Satiennam, T., Fukuda, A. and Oshima, R. (2006) A Study on the introduction of Bus Rapid Transit System in Asian developing cities: A Case Study on Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Project. IATSS Research, 30 (2), pp. 59-69.

Satiennam, T., Jaensirisak, S., Satiennam, W., et al. (2015) Potential for modal shift by passenger car and motorcycle users towards Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in an Asian developing city. IATSS Research.

Schiefelbusch, M. (2010) Passengers as drivers of innovation in public transport planning? Conceptual issues and experiences. SIET.

Schiefelbusch, M. (2009) Public Transport and Its Users: The Passenger's Perspective in Planning and Customer Care. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.

Schiefelbusch, M. (2010) Rational planning for emotional mobility? The case of public transport development. Planning Theory, 9 (3), pp. 200-222.

Shannon, T., Giles-Corti, B., Pikora, T., et al. (2006) Active commuting in a university setting: Assessing commuting habits and potential for modal change. Transport Policy, 13 (3), 240-253.

Shapiro, R.B. and Ossorio, P.N. (2013) Research ethics. Regulation of online social network studies. Science (New York, N.Y.), 339 (6116), 144.

Smadi, A. (2010) 'Amman Transportation Strategy: from Planning to Implementation', Regional Conference on Sustainable Urban Transport Damascus. Syria, April 11-13, 2010.

Soltani, A., Dayarian, N. and Namdarian, A. (2012) Feasibility of transport demand management through a bottom-up planning approach. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 7 (4) pp. 63-71.

Sonuparlak, I. (2011) Amman Bus Rapid Transit Project Faces Delays. [Online]. Available from: http://thecityfix.com/blog/amman-scraps-bus-rapid-transit-project/ [Accessed 19 July 2015].

69 | P a g e

Surveymonkey (2014) IP Tracking. [Online] Available from: http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/How-do-I-turn-off-the-IP- addresses-collection-on-the-responses [Accessed 25 July 2015].

Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S. and Read, A.D. (2004) Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41 (3), pp. 191-214.

Transit Cooperative Research Program (2007) Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide: 118. Fairfax: Kittelson and Associates.

Tumlin, J. (2012) Sustainable transportation planning: tools for creating vibrant, healthy, and resilient communities. 1st ed. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Vischer, J.C. (2008) Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36 (3) pp. 231-240.

Wagner, J. (2013) Measuring Performance of Public Engagement in Transportation Planning Three Best Principles. Transportation Research Record; Transp.Res.Record, (2397) pp. 38-44.

Wahl, C. (2013) Swedish municipalities and public participation in the traffic planning process - Where do we stand? Transportation Research Part A-Policy And Practice; Transp.Res.Pt.A-Policy Pract., 50 pp. 105-112.

Wardam, B. (2013) Five possible explanations for the mystery of Amman BRT. [Online] Available from: http://www.addustour.com/16954/%D8%AE%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A9+%D8% AA%D9%81%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA+%D8%AD%D9% 88%D9%84+%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B2+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A 7%D8%B5+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%80%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9!. html [Accessed 18 July 2015].

Wen-Hsiu Huang and Ming-Che Chao (2014) The Impacts of the Mass Rapid Transit System on Household Car Ownership in Taipei. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, 2 (2) p. 191.

Westphal, Kenneth R. (1998) Pragmatism, Reason, & Norms: A Realistic Assessment. 1st ed. New York: Fordham University Press.

Wildemuth, B.M. (1993) Post-Positivist Research: Two Examples of Methodological Pluralism. The Library Quarterly, 63 (4), pp. 450-468.

Wulz, F. (1986) The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7 (3), pp. 153-162.

Wyse, S.E. (2014) Advantages and Disadvantages of Face-to-Face Data Collection. [Online] Available from: http://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages- disadvantages-facetoface-data-collection/ [Accessed 3 August 2015].

70 | P a g e

Zaiontz, C. (2015) Real Statistics Using Excel: Basic Concepts of Correlation. [Online] Available from: http://www.real-statistics.com/correlation/basic-concepts- correlation/ [Accessed 20 July 2015].

Zureiqat, H. (2012) The Road Not Taken. [Online] Available from: http://www.brt.cl/the-road-not-taken-amman-bus-rapid-transit-system/ [Accessed 21 July 2015].

71 | P a g e

APPENDICES

. Appendix A: Users’ Questionnaire

o Are you a current user of public transport in Amman?

- Always -Sometimes -Rarely -Never

o How satisfied are you with the current condition of public transport in Amman?

-Very Satisfied -Satisfied -Neutral -Unsatisfied -Extremely unsatisfied

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in affecting your decision to choose a certain mode of public transport.

- Cost - Frequency - Saving Time - Availability of Parking lots near the stops - Precise timekeeping - Enough stations and stops - Safety - Comfort and chance to sit - A practical system of ticketing and subscriptions

o Do you own a private car?

- Yes I have my own car - My family owns a car and they drive me sometimes - My family owns a car and they drive me regularly - My family owns a car that is available for me to drive sometimes - My family owns a car that is available for me to drive anytime I want - No I do not have a car, and none of the above applies to me. o If you own a car, how much is it worth?

72 | P a g e

- Less than 3000 JD's - 3000 - 6000 JD's - 6000 - 10000 JD's - 10,000 - 15,000 JD's - More than 15,000 JD's - I do not know

o How many cars does your family possess?

- None - One - Two - Three or more

o In your opinion, the number of private cars in the roads of Amman is:

- In accordance with the city capacity - Exceeds the city capacity - I do not know

o Have you checked the program and services of the forthcoming Amman BRT?

-Yes -No

o Is your residence or work/study place located within Amman BRT Routes?

- My residence - My work or study place - Both - Neither - I do not know

o Do you expect to depend on the BRT?

- I will depend on it for regular trips only (study/work) - I will depend on it for most of my trips - I will depend on it for trips that are not very necessary - I might use it sometimes but I will not depend on it - I will rarely use it or maybe never o Do you think that the “Park and Ride” services that are going to be provided by the BRT will encourage you to use it?

- It will encourage my very much to use the BRT - It might slightly encourage me to use the BRT

73 | P a g e

- It will have no effect on my choice to use the BRT - I do not know

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing you not to choose to use the BRT:

- Control over travel route - Saving Time - Storage space in Car Trunk - Prestige and Social Image - Enjoyment of driving - Personal Freedom inside one’s own car - Distrusting the effectiveness of the BRT

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing you to choose to use the BRT:

-Cost -Saving Time -Interacting with other people -Decreasing Air pollution -Safety -Not having to drive -Suffering in finding a space for parking the car

74 | P a g e

. Appendix B: Professionals’ Questionnaire

o Please Enter your name & Occupation: …………………………..

o How satisfied are you with the current condition of public transport in Amman?

-Very Satisfied -Satisfied -Neutral -Unsatisfied -Extremely unsatisfied

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in your opinion in affecting the decision of Jordanian users to choose a certain mode of public transport.

- Cost - Frequency - Saving Time - Availability of Parking lots near the stops - Precise timekeeping - Enough stations and stops - Safety - Comfort and chance to sit - A practical system of ticketing and subscriptions

o Do you believe that people who own private cars in Amman would constitute a considerable amount of the forthcoming BRT users? Or was the BRT originally planned for people who do not own cars? Explain your answer.

o Do you think that the “Park and Ride” services that are going to be provided by the BRT will encourage Jordanian users?

- It will encourage them very much to use the BRT - It might slightly encourage them to use the BRT - It will have no effect on their choices - I do not know

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing Jordanian users not to choose to use the BRT:

- Control over travel route

75 | P a g e

- Saving Time - Storage space in Car Trunk - Prestige and Social Image - Enjoyment of driving - Personal Freedom inside one’s own car - Distrusting the effectiveness of the BRT

o Rank the following factors according to their importance in causing Jordanian users to choose to use the BRT:

-Cost -Saving Time -Interacting with other people -Decreasing Air pollution -Safety -Not having to drive -Suffering in finding a space for parking the car

o As a professional, how effective do you expect the BRT to be in attracting car users? Explain your answer.

o Was the ratio of car ownership in Amman taken into consideration when planning and designing the BRT? How? (Asked mainly for municipality officials and professionals who worked with the BRT project).

o Do you have any further comments

76 | P a g e

. Appendix C: Respondents Demographics

(For the users’ questionnaire)

Table C-1: Distribution of respondents by Gender

Gender

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Male 73.7% 157 Female 26.3% 56 answered question 213 skipped question 0

Table C-2: Distribution of respondents by Age groups

Age Group

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Less than 18 years old 5.6% 12 18-24 31.0% 66 25-35 32.9% 70 36-50 19.2% 41 51-60 7.5% 16 More than 60 3.8% 8 answered question 213 skipped question 0

Table C-3: Distribution of respondents by Household Income

Household Income

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Less than 400 JD's per month 18.3% 39 500 -1000 36.6% 78 1000-1500 13.1% 28 1500-2000 8.9% 19 2000-2500 5.6% 12 More than 2500 JD's per month 17.4% 37 answered question 213 skipped question 0 JD: Jordanian Dinar = 0.90 GBP

77 | P a g e

Table C-4: Distribution of respondents by Household Size

Household Size

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count 1 2.8% 6 2 8.5% 18 3 9.9% 21 4 22.5% 48 5 19.7% 42 6 19.7% 42 7 8.0% 17 More 8.9% 19 answered question 213 skipped question 0

Table C-5: Distribution of respondents by Occupation

Occupation

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Student 26.8% 57 Public Sector Employee 12.7% 27 Private Sector Employee 39.4% 84 Self-employed 10.8% 23 Unemployed or Retired 10.3% 22 answered question 213 skipped question 0

78 | P a g e