Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Investigating Satisfaction and Its Determinants of BRT-Lite Services in Indonesian Cities

Martina Cecilia ADRIANA*a, Muhamad RIZKIb, Tri Basuki JOEWONOc aPT.Mitra Pembangunan Jaya, Tangerang Selatan, 15413, aE-mail: [email protected] bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung 40117, Indonesia* bE-mail: [email protected] cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung 40117, Indonesia cE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Passenger satisfaction significantly affects behaviour towards public transport. With emerging BRT-Lite development in Indonesia, satisfaction of the services reflects the quality and performance to meet the passengers need. This paper investigates passenger satisfaction level of four BRT-lite in Indonesian cities, consists of shelter and bus service attributes, users personal and travel characteristics. Passenger satisfaction for key service attributes of bus and shelter was assessed using Customer Satisfaction Index and Ordinal Logistic Regression. The results of this study found that passenger in , Surakarta, and Bandung tend to rate high satisfaction level for most attributes, whereas less satisfaction is found in Bogor. Specific attributes do have significant influence on satisfaction level which also causing the negative results in Bogor. Interesting finding found in this paper is that BRT- Lite which has the lowest satisfaction rate resulting in possibility to reduce the sustainability of the BRT operation.

Keywords: Passenger Satisfaction, Public Transport, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction Index, BRT-Lite

1. INTRODUCTION

Rapid urbanization and high motorization in the last decade in Indonesia cities lead to many urban problems such as severe traffic congestion, air pollution, greenhouse gasses emission, and traffic accidents. Public transportation (PT) provides the most promising and direct solution to tackling the issues without restraining economic growth. PT has been continuously expanded in developed and developing countries to provide sustainable and inclusive service for people’s mobility needs. From past decades, Indonesian government has planned several programmes for public transport improvement and development. However, due to the fiscal limitation, road-based PT (i.e. BRT and regular bus services) still becomes a priority choice for city development. In particular, since BRT have success records in some countries, Indonesian government emphasize BRT-lite (ITDP, 2007) for many Indonesian cities. Established in 2000, Transmilenio is the first BRT system in the world which provide rail-system transport into high-quality bus system infrastructure (Wienstock, 2016). Adopting the performance and amenity of rail-transit system, BRT provides high capacity and faster

*Corresponding author

1447

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

speed yet at a relatively lower cost. Since its first introduction, BRT system has quickly known and spread to all over the world, particularly to developing countries like Indonesia. While Bogota Transmilenio had the highest BRT system, Indonesia prefers to apply BRT-lite or semi-featured BRT to cities, except for Jakarta. Adopting some BRT features, commonly BRT-lite has no physically segregated lane and have kerb-side boarding platform. However, the degree of BRT-lite in Indonesian cities is diverse that resulting in distinct service deliverables. For instance, Perusahaan Daerah Jasa Transportasi (PDJT), as a BRT-Lite local enterprise in Bogor tend to provide medium bus while in Bandung the bus operators prefer the big bus (Prayudyanto et. al., 2016a). Not only the bus, shelter quality and its accessibility also vary between cities. Further, scholars acknowledge that the service quality will influence the satisfaction of passenger and consequently influence travel behavior indirectly including mode choice (Joewono and Kubota, 2007; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983;Lai and Chen, 2011; Nathanail, 2008; Sánchez-Pérez et al., 2007; White, 2009) Customer satisfaction is strongly correlated with service quality. Customer satisfaction is defined as the measurement of services performance through the various attributes and/or overall services related to customer needs (Hill et al., 2003 and Tanese et al, 2003). Further, scholars have translated customer satisfaction into evaluation measurement in various method (Eboli and Mazzula, 2009b & Nathanail, 2008), which provide valuable information from passenger point of view. Study by Coffel (1995) found that passenger satisfaction of public transport has significant influence on passenger decision to use it as a primary transport mode. Conversely, declining satisfaction level can result in discontinuing of public transport use. Lai and Chen (2011) underlined that passenger behavioural intention significantly relies on their satisfaction of specific attributes such as vehicle safety, facility cleanliness, and complaint handling. White (2009) also added other services that can influence behaviour such as vehicle comfort, quality of information, and staff attitudes towards passenger. Based on past studies above, understanding the passenger satisfaction impact on their behaviour is important to provide, maintain, and improve public transit services. Further, passenger behaviour generated by their satisfaction using public transit is a prime determinant of long-term financial performance (Lai and Chen, 2011) and considered as a major source of competitive advantage (Lam et al., 2004). In an effort to make public transport more attractive, the evaluation of satisfaction will benefit for determining the priority of improvement. Literatures have identified important attributes, which influence passenger satisfaction level on public transport in general, however, rare study is found specifically on BRT-lite. One example of the limited studies is Joewono et al. (2017). Therefore, with various degree of BRT-lite implementation in Indonesia, this study aims to compare passenger satisfaction and identify the significant attributes that affecting it. With various degree of BRT-Lite in Indonesia, comparison on BRT-Lite level is relevant to be studied. Comparison of BRT-Lite service will give substantial information for evaluation of service as well as recommendation for policy development. According to that, this paper investigates satisfaction level on passenger for its services in four BRT-lite cases in Indonesian cities: (1) Bali, (2) Bandung, (3) Bogor, and (4) Surakarta. The reason for selecting these cities is to represent various socio-demography and geographical characteristics as well as their BRT-Lite service characteristics. All of them are big cities, on which Bali, Bandung, Surakarta are the centre of agglomeration area while Bogor is a satellite city of Jakarta Megapolitan. Based on past studies above, hypothesis of this study is the quality of infrastructure and service of BRT-Lite influence passengers satisfaction. Further, drivers that influence overall satisfaction will be examined from service attributes, passenger characteristic, and travel characteristic. The findings of this study may provide useful information to bus operator and policymaker to

1448

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

develop their business and strategic plan. In the following sections, previous studies on BRT implementation in Indonesia and satisfaction evaluation are reviewed. The data collection and data analysis method will be described in section 3. Section 4 will provide the results of satisfaction analysis. The last section will be followed by discussion and conclusion.

2. BRT SYSTEM AND QUALITY

2.1 BRT in Indonesian Cities

BRT was firstly introduced in 2004 through Trans Jakarta full-featured system. The implementation vastly spread and becomes a crucial step and triggerfor other cities to improve their public transport. Until 2018, there are 17 cities in total have implemented BRT system, 16 are BRT-lite and only one full-featured BRT system.All the BRT-Lite tend to have numbers of common features. According to the physical services, BRT-lite offers a higher standard of comfort from the previous city bus. No priority is given to the bus, on which the lane is mixed with the current traffic. All of the stations are on the kerb-side and high- platform, where buses are only permitted to stop. All utilized flat-fare with free transfers. Various structures of operator are found in cities, however, PT. Damri as a state-owned enterprise also provides services in several Indonesian cities. Some of the cities also have more than one operator consortium which involving private company. In order to operate, generally, government provide subsidies in various form as a payment model for instance by buy the service payment and/or operational subsidies. Several local governments also provide the buses for BRT operation at no cost. Further, in 2015, Central Government also supporting the bus provision to cities in Indonesia to support BRT-Lite implementation at the local level. Table 1. Operated BRT in Indonesia Cities No City BRT Name Operation Year BRT Type 1 DKI Jakarta Trans Jakarta 2004 Full-featured system 2 Batam Trans Batam 2005 Semi-featured system 3 Bogor Trans Pakuan 2007 Semi-featured system 4 Yogyakarta 2008 Semi-featured system 5 Bandung Trans Metro Bandung 2009 Semi-featured system 6 Semarang Trans Semarang 2009 Semi-featured system 7 Pekanbaru Trans Metro 2009 Semi-featured system 8 Manado Trans Kawanua 2009 Semi-featured system 9 Gorontalo Trans Hulontalangi 2010 Semi-featured system 10 Palembang Trans Musi 2010 Semi-featured system 11 Surakarta 2010 Semi-featured system 12 Ambon Trans Ambonia 2011 Semi-featured system 13 Bali Trans Sarbagita 2011 Semi-featured system 14 Bandar Lampung Trans Bandar Lampung 2011 Semi-featured system 15 Tangerang Trans Jabodetabek Tangerang 2011 Semi-featured system 16 Padang Trans Padang 2014 Semi-featured system 17 Makassar Trans Mamminasata 2014 Semi-featured system Source: Ilahi et al., 2015 and Ministry of Transportation (MOT), 2018 This paper focus on fourcities as a sample of BRT-lite implementation which consists of: (1) , (2) Bandung, (3) Bogor, and (4) Surakarta. Bandung has the biggest

1449

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

population and the densest city among the others. Bogor has the second biggest population, yet less dense compared to Surakarta which has a smaller area. Bogor also have unique characteristics as a part of Jakarta Metropolitan Area (JMA). Bali is the least dense city even with population bigger than Surakarta. It is also note that Bali have substantial tourism activities that drive their economy. Moreover, the detail information about those cities and BRT implementation are described in the section below.

Table 2. Summary of BRT Services in Four Cities No City Population (people) Area (km2) Density (People/km2) 1 Bali 897,300 127.78 7.022 2 Bandung 2,481,469 167.31 14,831 3 Bogor 1,047,922 118.5 8,843 4 Surakarta 512,226 44.04 11,630 Source: (BPS, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d)

Trans Sarbagita (Bali) Denpasar, located in Bali provincial island, has a population of 897,300 people with total area of 127.78 Km2 make it the densest region in Bali with population density of 7.022 people/Km2. (BPS, 2016a). Trans Sarbagita was operated for the first time in 2011 with 25 units of bus. Two corridors were served: corridor 1: Kota – GWK (44.2 Km) and corridor 2: Batubulan – . In the future, Trans Sarbagita is planned to extend its network become 18 corridors with total 875.46 Km (Bali Governor Decree, 2010).Trans Sarbagita is expected to have an increasing income from ridership so that subsidy can be reduced. However, the number of subsidies go up each year from 5 billion in 2011 to 8.5 billion in 2014 (Bali Department of Transport, Information, and Communication, 2011; 2014) while its service performance becomes inefficient. The low load factor and buses reduction causing the long headway. These conditions may endanger its sustainability which prone to the discontinue of services (Jawa Pos, 2018).

Trans Metro Bandung Bandung, the capital city of , has a population of 2,481,469 people with total area of 167,31 km2 and population density 14,831 people/km2 (BPS, 2016b). Trans Metro Bandung firstly operated in 2009 with two main corridors: corridor 1: Cibeureum – Cibiru and corridor 2: Cibeureum – Cicaheum (until the survey taken) which were served by 9 operated medium and big buses respectively. Third corridors are opened in the late of 2015 from Cicaheum – Sarijadi. In the future, Bandung government have planned for 13 complete corridors that will serve Bandung City and its agglomeration. From 2015 Bandung have develop and improve their pedestrian facilities and their shelter to support their cities BRT-Lite system as well as the BRT-Lite in the agglomeration areas. The services are heavily subsidized by Local Government.

Trans Pakuan (Bogor)

Bogor, located in West Java, has a population of 1,047,922 people. With total area of 118.5 Km2, population density in 2015 reached 8,843 people/Km2 (BPS, 2016c). Bogor have operated the Trans Pakuan since 2007 that served the city and extend into low-density areas. Until 2016, three (3) TransPakuan corridors have been opened with total fleet of 30 buses

1450

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

which consist: (1) Corridor 1: Terminal Bubulak – Shelter Cidangiang, (2) corridor 2: Shelter Cidangiang – Harjasari, (3) Corridor 3: Shelter Cidangiang – Sentul City. TransPakuan is fully managed by Perusahaan Daerah Jasa Transportasi, a city-owned company. In 2016, TransPakuan covers only 60% of operating cost from fare revenue and receive 40% from government subsidy which approximately IDR 7.3 billion per year for those three corridors (Weinstock, 2016). Bus operator was unable to deliver good service quality. The lack of maintenance made the bus looks old and in the poor condition (Weinstock, 2016). Shelters were not well maintained, dirty, painted with graffiti and sometimes vehicle parked in front of them. It the operation, sometimes people were found to be alighted not in the shelter. Trans Pakuan is planned to operate 7 corridors in the future, however, due to the deficit operational cost, Trans Pakuan has stopped operating since the beginning of 2017 (Kompas, 2017).

Batik Solo Trans (Surakarta)

Surakarta is located in which has population of 512,226 people. With total area of 44.04 Km2, population density in 2015 reached 11,630 people/Km2 (BPS, 2016d).Batik Solo Trans start introduced in 2010 and have implemented two corridors since 2015, with 9 other corridors plan in the future. Corridor 1 runs from Terminal Palur to AdiSumarmo Airport covers 26 Km while corridor 2 begins from Purwosari Stationto Terminal Palur for 10 Km. Batik Solo Trans are managed by two companies: (1) PT. Damri (SOE) for corridor 1 and (2) PT. Bengawan Solo Trans (private company) for corridor 2. Table 3 shows the summary of services and management structure in four cities. Trans Sarbagita has the longest corridors among the other cities that reach until 68.8 km. Bus number vary in each city based on the demand. All the bus used is the combination of medium and big bus, except for Bogor which only operate medium bus. Bus tariff is almost the same which around IDR 3000 – 3500 except for several routes like the 3rd corridor in Bogor which up to IDR 5000.

Table3.Summary of BRT Services in Four Cities Trans Sarbagita Trans Metro Bandung Trans Pakuan Batik Solo Trans Variables Cor.1 Cor.2 Cor.1 Cor.2 Cor.1 Cor.2 Cor.3 Cor.1 Cor.2 Corridor 44.2 68.8 20 12 11.5 10 5 26 10 Length (Km) Bus Amount 10 14 9 9 30 20 Bus Type Medium Big Medium Big Medium Medium & Big Fare(Rp) 3500 3000 3000 5000 3500 06:00 06:30 Operational 05:00 - 05:00 - 06:00 - 06:00 - 05:20 – – – 06.00 - 18.00 Hours 21:00 21:00 18:00 20:00 21:00 19:00 21:30 Headway 15 15 N/A N/A 10 30 8-10 (minutes) PT. PT. PT. PT. PT. Bianglala Perusahaan Daerah PT. Bengaw Operator RestuMu Damri Damri Metropol JasaTransportasi Damri an Solo lya (SOE) itan Trans Source: Bali Province Website, 2013; Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA), 2012; Moovit Website, 2018; Prayudyanto et al., 2015; Prayudyanto et al., 2016b;Rumawi, 2017; Saputra and Widyasmara, 2017; Waro et al., 2016; ‡Rp. 13,750 equal to 1 USD at 2016

1451

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Operational hour of bus services also different for each corridor. Batik Solo Trans has the shortest bus services which only start from 6:00 and finish only until 18:00. One of Trans Metro Bandung corridor has the same operational hour until 18:00 but other corridors operate until 20:00. Trans Sarbagita synchronously has the longest operational hours from 05:00 until 21:00. Different operational time found in Trans Pakuan, two corridors operate until 9:00 – 21:30, while one corridor only until 19:00. Generally, Trans Sarbagita has the longest headway, which may be caused by the length of the corridor compared to other cities. Special headway occurs in Trans Pakuan corridor 3, where the bus goes to the less dense area. Lastly, for the management structure, three cities have similar management system where bus operator consists of two: private company and SOE. In particular, Bogor is managed only by one city-own company.

2.2 Satisfaction of Public Transport

Satisfaction is an overall affective response to a perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and perceived performance after consumption (Oliver, 1980). There are two different concepts of customer satisfaction: (i.) specific-transaction satisfaction of service encounter and (ii.) customer’s overall evaluation of a service (Gustafsson and Johnson, 2004). Specific transaction satisfaction (STS) is the result of cognitive judgment of service attributes encounters (Cronin, 2003; Dell’Olio et al., 2010; Lai and Chen, 2011; WallinAndreassen, 1995) while overall satisfaction is response to affective judgment between expectations and perception. Overall satisfaction is more holistic evaluation after a service delivery experience, whereas specific transaction satisfaction (STS) is more specific (attribute based) of service encounters. By way of explanation, STS pertains as an ex-post evaluation of services and as precursory for overall satisfaction (Dell’Olio et al., 2010; Fornell, 1992). Both of STS and overall satisfaction will be considered by customer in evaluating the service value (WallinAndreassenand Lindestad, 1998). Literatures have found that customer satisfaction significantly influence customer behaviour intention in various industries (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Petrick and Backman, 2002), including public transit services (Joewono and Kubota, 2007; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Lai and Chen, 2011; Nathanail, 2008; Sánchez-Pérez et al., 2007; White, 2009). For overall public transport, on- time performance, travel speed, and service frequency as the most important attributes for public transport users’ satisfaction, followed by personnel behaviour and vehicle tidiness (Mouwen, 2015). The satisfaction level heavilydepend on the services of the product. Various type of modes will result in different satisfaction level due their nature of service and their specific characteristics of infrastructure. In fact, the magnitude between the specific characteristics is varies in influencing the overall satisfaction within each mode. Study in Netherlands finds that metro users underlined the on-board information and price and less emphasis on driver’s behaviour than users of buses (Mouwen, 2015). Meanwhile, regional train users tend to concern for on-board information, on-time performance, and speed and less underline on the ticket-selling network than bus users. The study also found that overall, users of rail services are less satisfied than bus services users specifically on attributes of cleanliness, personnel behaviour, price, and reliability. Previous study above underline that service characteristics is key determinant for travel satisfaction. Surprisingly, bus services with higher quality of services is having more positive satisfaction than railway services in Netherland. However, the bus service which widely applied in many cities in developing countries mostly is less appropriate than in developed countries. With lack of infrastructure and low service standard, the satisfaction will differ than

1452

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

the developing countries.With different standard of living, significant motorization, different economy characteristics, and unique culture of developing countries, then it is important to have different point of view to increase public transport usage.The investigation of the role of characteristics of the BRT service and its relations with the satisfactionis substantial for making policy to improve public transport services.This study will focus on both satisfaction type specific transaction satisfaction and overall satisfaction to get more complete evaluation on attributes and holistic view of BRT-Lite system. STS is used to clarify the expectancy gap of each attributes, while a holistic view is applied to conceptualize the cumulative satisfaction as a consequences of individual attributes satisfaction (Fornell, 1992).

3. METHOD

3.1 Data Collection

As the main focus of this study, attributes of public transport services were identified in all four cities. Works of literature have long identified the service's attributes on bus transit. In this study, national and international literatures were reviewed. Minimum standard services of Transportation Ministry are listed such as Minimum Operational Standard for Road-Based Mass Transit in Transport Ministerial Regulation No 27/2015 with emphasize on Safety and Convenience attributes. Moreover, BRT attributes also been reviewed from The BRT Standard (ITDP, 2014) such as ticketing system, shelter accessibility, service hours of operation, or information board. Other supporting guidelines such as GIZ sourcebook were used to complete safety, security, convenience, and equality attributes. Furthermore, those satisfaction and importance level were derived into 2: shelter facility as a supporting facility and bus as main variables of transit system. Table 4summaries the important attributes that relevant to the BRT-lite system for this paper.

Table4.Summary of BRT-Lite Attributes Shelter Facility Components Bus Facility Components Shelter distance from home Waiting Time Shelter distance to Accessibility destination Travel time Shelter Roof Tariff Operational Temperature Control Stopping time Seating comfortability Operational hour Seating capacity Convenience Ticketing system Cleaning Facilities Seating Capacity Ladder Seating comfortability Sign of smoking prohibition Information board Security officer Cleaning Facilities Convenience Emergency Call Box Security Officer Services CCTV camera Temperature Control Emergency information Supporting facilities Safety Board and Alighting entrance Security officer Security Shelter Entrance Disabled and Emergency button Priority seat elderly People Emergency information Board and alighting Facility Facility Safety tools Safety Special waiting room Woman and Handling facility Sign of special area Pregnant Woman First-aid Information board Facility Board and alighting facility Disable and Priority seat Elderly People Audio information Facility

1453

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Sign of special area Woman and information board Pregnant Woman special entrance access Facility Source: Kunieda and Gauthier, 2007; Fjellstrom, 2003; ITDP, 2014; Transport Ministerial Regulation No 27/2015; Wright and Wright, 2004

The data obtained by interviewed respondents independently in each city. Passengers in high demand shelter and bus were asked about the importance and satisfaction. Sampling was obtained by applying Israel formula (2012) taking into account 5% and 10% of margin error. Based on total passenger of BRT-Lite, the sample gathered from each city are (1) Bali: 127 respondents, (2) Bandung: 378 respondents, (3) Bogor: 226 respondents, (4) Surakarta: 275 respondents. The surveys were conducted in the separate times. Survey in Bogor was run on August 2015 and then continue in Solo on 10 September 2015, Bandung 14 – 15 December 2015, and Bali from 22 January 2015– 25 January 2016. In the interview, passengers were asked about their personal and travel characteristics. Second, Importance-Satisfaction related to service quality of public transport area were asked both for bus and shelter with some main attributes such as accessibility, convenience, safety, security, priority passenger facilities and bus operational. Each of those variables is breakdown into several numbers of components on a six-point scale (i.e. from very dissatisfied/very unimportant to very satisfied/very important). In addition, passenger was questioned on their general satisfaction towards bus and shelter facilities on a six-point scale (from very dissatisfied to very satisfied) as their overall satisfaction.

3.2 Data Analysis

Data were analysed using Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) developed by Eboli and Mazzula (2009b). CSI was selected to evaluate the quality of servicesso that priority of improvement can be identified according to passenger expectation. CSI method was assessedby satisfaction and importance level response of individualattributes. Furthermore, model estimation was performed by Ordinal Logistic Regression (OLR) to estimate the probability of passenger to rate the overall service quality on the satisfaction level of socio-demography, travel characteristic, and service attributes. OLR models are very suitable for customer satisfaction analysis because surveys are generally conducted using ordinal verbal scales of measurement (Eboli and Mazzulla, 2009a) to find significant factors affecting passenger satisfaction towards BRT-Lite services.

4. FINDINGS AND RESULTS

4.1 Respondent’s Characteristics

Table 5 displays data description of the respondents in each city with total data of 1006 respondents (Bali= 276; Bandung=378, Bogor=226, Surakarta: 275). It shows that most respondents are female (>50%) and are dominated by student/college student (>40%) in all four cities. The age distribution of respondent is varied with the highest proportion in 4 cities are between 18 – 25 years old and then followed by passenger in 26 – 40 years old, except in Solo where the second highest passenger are >40 years old (29.1%). The main reason to use BRT-Lite is due to the route suitability (>30%). In Bali and Bandung, the second and third reason for using BRT are due to travel cost (19 – 25%) and

1454

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

convenient reason (16-18%), while in Bogor convenient and travel time become the second highest reason. An interesting finding is found in Solo, where there are 21.7% decide to use BRT due to no other transport options after the convenient factor (27.3%). The options for transport are the worst compared to other cities, which may describe the lack of transport accessibility by respondents in Solo. Most of the respondents in all 4 cities have no car (58- 75.8%) but >69% have motorcycle. Overall, most of respondent own at least one vehicle (74.6% - 84.9%) but still using public transport. This may a good sign, even most of them own vehicle, they still choose public transport as the main daily mode.

Table 5.Respondents’ Personal and Travel Characteristics Percentage (%) Variables Trans Trans Metro Trans Batik Solo Sarbagita Bandung Pakuan Trans Male 44.0 48.1 47.4 38.8 Gender Female 56.0 51.9 52.6 61.2 <18 years 18.9 23.1 15.5 18.2 18-25 years old 43.3 41.9 43.4 30.9 26-40 years old 26 19.1 24.3 23.6 Age >40 years old 11.8 15.9 16.8 27.3 Civil Servant 6 4 7.3 8.6 Retired/Not working 2 2.5 0.4 0.7 Private company employee 18.7 14.3 18.4 20.5 Entrepreneur 9.3 11.5 14.5 6.3 Student/college student 50 47.4 47.9 40.7 Housewife 2.0 12.5 6.0 7.5 Lecturer/teacher/Academics 6.0 3.3 3.4 8.6 Occupation Others 6.0 4.5 2.1 7.1 No other options 12 11 6 21.7 Route Suitability 39 37 41 32.2 Travel time 6 4 12 5.6 Travel distance 6 7 8 4.5 Reason for Travel cost 19 25 11 5.2 using Public Convenient 18 16 22 27.3 Transport Others 0 0 0 3.5 0 69.3 58.7 71.2 75.8 Car 1 car 28.3 32.5 24.8 20.8 Ownership >1 2.4 8.8 4 3.4 0 20.5 23.5 31 23 Motorcycle 1 48.8 38.9 48.7 41.2 Ownership >2 30.7 37.6 20.3 35.8 Vehicle No 15.1 14.8 25.4 29.1 Ownership Yes 84.9 85.2 74.6 70.9

As appears in Table 6, survey also captures the transfer passenger did. Respondents in Trans Pakuan Bogor tend to have the highest frequency of transfer (mean=1.85; Minimum=1; maximum=7), while Bali has the lowest frequency transfer (mean=1; minimum=0; maximum=3). It reflects that Trans Pakuan tends to have indirect routes from passenger’s origin-destination.

Table 6.Transfer Frequency of BRT-LiteUsers Travel from Origin to Destination Transfer Frequency Trans Sarbagita Trans Metro Bandung Trans Pakuan Bogor Batik Solo Trans Mean 1 1.45 1.8 1.05 Minimum 0 0 1 0 Maximum 3 4 7 5

1455

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

4.2 Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Index (CSI)

Table 7 displays interesting fact of satisfaction and importance level description. Importance level of shelter attributes are high but not followed by high satisfaction level. It reflects that many shelter facility attributes which are importantly rated by respondents haven’t met their expectations. In Trans Sarbagita (Bali), respondents are most satisfied with shelter roof (92.9%) yet most dissatisfied with special waiting room for woman and pregnant woman (39.4%) which indicates that passengers are happy with the shelter roof condition. In Bandung, respondents are most satisfied with shelter distance to destination (74.1%) and most disappointed with CCTV camera (28.5%). It reflects that shelter locations are strategic enough to passenger destination. Ladder become the most satisfying shelter attributes in Bogor (74.3%), while sign of special area for woman and pregnant woman become the most disappointed one (19.9%). In Surakarta, respondents mostly rated high satisfaction on shelter distance to destination (84.6%) yet most disappointed with CCTV camera (44.3%). Generally, respondents rated the highest satisfaction on shelter distance to destination (79.2%) in all four cities and then followed by ladder (76.1%) and shelter roof (75.4%). The CCTV camera becomes the most dissatisfying attributes (35.7%) after the special waiting room (36.8%) and special area sign (38.9%) for woman and pregnant woman. Based on the city, shelter in Bali have the highest satisfaction level (68.4%) and then followed by Surakarta (63.8%) at the second and Bandung at the third place (53.7%). Bogor has the lowest satisfaction rate (44.4%) on shelter facility.

Table7: Description of Satisfaction-Importance Analysis on Shelter Shelter Proportion (%) of Satisfaction Proportion (%) of Importance Code Service Facility TS TMB TPB BST TS TMB TPB BST Accessibility Shelter distance from home 1 69.3 65.6 65.8 77.4 100.0 94.7 93.8 94.9 Shelter distance to destination 2 84.3 74.1 73.8 84.6 98.4 95.2 97.3 95.2 Convenience Shelter Roof 3 92.9 73.2 64.0 71.5 97.6 98.9 95.6 98.9 Temperature Control 4 71.7 55.8 44.2 70.1 97.6 91.5 93.8 99.3 Seating comfortability 5 77.2 60.6 49.1 72.4 100.0 97.9 96.4 98.2 Seating capacity 6 66.1 52.0 40.4 66.7 100.0 97.6 94.7 97.8 Cleaning Facilities 7 64.6 44.7 51.8 72.4 100.0 98.9 97.8 98.2 Ladder 8 81.0 70.6 74.3 78.5 99.2 94.7 95.1 97.8 Sign of smoking prohibition 9 80.3 62.6 53.8 65.1 96.8 96.6 95.1 95.3 Security Security officer 10 72.4 52.8 47.8 56.6 97.6 97.4 95.1 85.5 Emergency call box 11 52.4 38.2 32.4 44.7 94.5 95.2 92.4 79.6 CCTV camera 12 51.6 28.5 18.6 44.3 96.1 95.0 92.0 84.7 Safety Emergency information 13 65.4 49.6 28.9 60.2 96.1 96.8 94.2 93.1 Board and alighting entrance 14 83.3 61.6 50.9 67.8 99.2 96.0 95.1 94.9 Disabled and elderly people facility Shelter entrance 15 81.7 53.3 47.3 64.4 100.0 97.6 96.0 92.0 Priority seat 16 68.5 52.0 36.3 64.0 99.2 98.9 95.1 93.1 Board and alighting facility 17 77.2 48.4 44.2 58.2 100.0 96.8 96.0 91.6 Woman and pregnant woman facility

1456

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Special waiting room 18 39.4 35.8 20.8 51.3 97.6 95.2 92.9 78.9 Sign of special area 19 42.5 42.7 19.9 50.5 96.8 95.2 91.1 80.3 Information board 20 47.2 51.5 23.5 55.6 96.0 96.3 93.8 82.8 Note: TS: Trans Sarbagita, TMB: Trans Metro Bandung, TPB: Trans Pakuan Bogor, BST: Batik Solo Trans

Furthermore, finding shows that respondents rate high importance to most of shelter facility attributes. Respondents in Bali, Bandung, Bogor rate disable and elderly facility at the highest importance, while Solo prefer convenience as the most important variables. Other variables show the various responses of importance level in each city. Moreover, satisfaction importance matrices reflect that most attributes are distributed in the top- right matrices, except for Trans Metro Bandung, indicating that most shelter attributes have met passenger expectations. Batik Solo Trans has 11 shelter attributes that meet passenger expectation but none of it exceed the expectation which defines the most effective provision of shelter facility. Since attributes in that area have a significant impact on passenger satisfaction, the city should maintain or slightly increase the performance of those attributes. Two attributes still need emphasis of improvements such as emergency information and board and alighting entrance.

Figure 1. Satisfaction-Importance Analysis Matrices of Shelter Facility

Trans Pakuan has 9 shelter attributes that meet passenger expectations which need to be maintained or slightly increase. Three areas still need emphasis on improvements such as seating capacity as well as priority seat and entrance for disabled and elderly people. Only one exceeded passenger expectations that is the shelter location which is close enough to passenger’s home. There are 8 shelter attributes in Trans Sarbagita that meet passenger expectation that need to be maintained or slightly increased. Four attributes already exceed their expectation, while 2 areas still need pressure on improvements such as seating capacity and cleaning facility.Bandung has the most attributes that need to be improved with only 3 attributes meeting passenger satisfaction. There are 8 attributes passenger expect it to perform better because it can affect their satisfaction such as seating capacity, cleaning facilities, security officer, emergency information, and 3 disable and elderly facilities.

1457

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Combining the importance level to satisfaction analysis, the results for each city shows different result from previous analysis. Bogor has the lowest average satisfaction level among other cities but particularly has many performed attributes compare to Bandung. With the importance analysis, Bandung has the most shelter attributes that need to be improved. Table 8 shows interesting fact of bus satisfaction and importance level description. Importance level of all bus attributes are high but not followed by high satisfaction level. It reflects that bus facility attributes which are importantly rated by respondents haven’t meet their expectations. In all four cities, respondents rated the top 3 most satisfying attributes: (1) tariff (91.6%), (2) Officer services (87.8%), and (3) travel time (87.6%). In contrast, respondents are likely dissatisfied with special area sign for woman and pregnant woman (48.7%), first air (50.4%), and information board for woman and pregnant woman (53.5%). According to the city analysis, Trans Sarbagita is the most satisfying on bus facilities (77.2%), followed by Trans Metro Bandung (75.7%), Batik Solo Trans (73.8%), and the least is Bogor which only rated by 53.9%. Table8.Description of Satisfaction-Importance Analysis on Bus Bus Facility Proportion (%) of Satisfaction Proportion (%) of Importance Code Service Facility TS TMB TPB BST TS TMB TPB BST Operational Waiting time 1 60.3 74.6 63.3 69.5 98.4 97.9 95.6 96.4 Travel time 2 92.9 83.1 87.1 87.2 99.2 97.9 96.9 97.8 Tariff 3 97.6 90.2 93.8 84.7 98.4 97.4 98.2 96.4 Stopping time 4 85.7 82.8 84.5 87.3 96.8 97.4 97.8 95.3 Operational hour 5 82.4 75.4 68.0 74.2 100.0 96.0 99.1 96.7 Ticketing system 6 87.3 81.0 85.0 85.0 98.4 95.0 97.3 92.7 Convenience Seating Capacity 7 80.2 77.0 49.3 80.0 99.2 97.9 95.6 96.7 Seating comfortability 8 92.1 85.4 61.5 87.6 100.0 99.5 96.5 98.2 Information board 9 69.8 77.3 32.7 75.6 100.0 96.3 93.8 96.4 Cleaning Facilities 10 76.2 69.5 62.8 83.5 100.0 98.1 97.3 98.9 Officer Services 11 92.1 89.4 85.8 84.0 100.0 98.7 96.4 98.2 Temperature Control 12 89.7 88.6 65.0 85.5 96.8 96.8 95.6 98.2 Supporting facilities 13 86.5 81.7 53.5 88.9 98.4 96.3 95.6 99.3 Security Security officer 14 72.2 74.6 43.4 72.3 96.8 96.3 96.0 89.4 Emergency button 15 69.0 69.7 24.4 62.4 97.6 96.0 94.2 87.6 Safety Emergency information 16 65.9 70.8 36.3 70.5 100.0 97.1 94.7 95.3 Safety tools 17 77.8 74.8 42.9 76.9 100.0 98.1 95.6 96.7 Handling facility 18 88.1 88.1 52.7 79.9 99.2 98.7 96.9 97.5 First-aid 19 61.6 56.1 25.3 58.5 98.4 97.1 95.1 92.7 Disabled and elderly people facility Board and alighting facility 20 81.0 63.3 50.0 58.5 100.0 97.4 95.1 91.6 Priority seat 21 77.6 76.3 44.2 63.6 99.2 98.7 95.6 91.6 Audio information 22 69.6 61.3 28.3 56.6 98.4 97.4 92.5 91.9 Woman and pregnant woman facility Sign of special area 23 51.2 67.6 24.8 51.3 99.2 96.3 94.2 85.8 Information board 24 54.5 64.6 37.2 57.7 100.0 97.3 95.1 85.5 Special entrance access 25 69.9 68.7 45.1 62.5 98.4 97.3 95.1 86.2 TS: Trans Sarbagita, TMB: Trans Metro Bandung, TPB: Trans Pakuan Bogor, BST: Batik Solo Trans

1458

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

In more detail, tariff (97.6%) is the most satisfying attributes in Bali, while sign of special area for woman and pregnant woman (51.2%) is the least satisfying. In Bandung, tariff (90.2%) is also rated as the most satisfying items by respondents, whereas first-aid tool (56.1%) is the least satisfying. Trans Pakuan comes with the same result for tariff at the most satisfying items (93.8%) and emergency button at the least satisfying (24.4%). It means that the tariff of Trans Sarbagita, Trans Metro Bandung, and Trans Pakuan meet passenger expectation that comes with a reasonable price. Surakarta shows different result where respondents most satisfied with supporting facilities (88.9%), while special area sign (51.3%) is the least rated attributes. Furthermore, finding shows that respondents give high rating on importance to most bus attributes. The most important attributes are cleaning facilities (98.6%), seating comfortability (98.5%), and officer services (98.3%). Further, matrices of bus facility (Fig.2 ) display that most attributes are in the top-right areas, except for Bogor, which indicate many bus attributes have met passenger expectations. Batik solo Trans has 13 items that meet passenger expectations with only one exceed expectation which defines the bus effectively provided. Bus operator should maintain or slightly increase the performance of 13 attributes. Emphasis for improvement is needed on bus waiting time and emergency button. Trans Sarbagita has nine performed attributes but also have five attributes that need to be improved. To meet passenger expectations, operator needs to focus on information board, cleaning facilities, emergency button, sign of special area, and information board. Other 5 items are exceeding expectation which needs to be maintained or slightly decrease the performance. In Bandung, eight attributes reach passenger expectations that need to be maintained or slightly increase. Improvement needs to be focused on seven attributes such as bus waiting time, cleaning facilities, safety tools, two disabled and elderly facilities, and two woman and pregnant woman facilities.Interesting result is found in Bogor, where only eight items reach passenger satisfaction, two exceed their expectations, and two items need to be improved. Interesting findings rely on 13 items in the less important area, on which respondents don’t feel the importance of the attribute’s performance. It may indicate the less expectations on bus attributes related to their past experience.

Figure 2. Satisfaction-Importance Analysis Matrices of Bus Facility

1459

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

4.3 Model Estimation This section presents the estimation results of models in measuring overall satisfaction with socio demography, travel characteristic, and services attributes rated by respondents in four cities. Models are developed in two separate design based on the literatures and operational minimum standards. Models estimation are performed by Ordinal Logistic Regression (OLR). The dependent variable was based on the respondent’s perception on overall satisfaction rating from 0 as “very dissatisfied to 6 as “very satisfied”. Dummy variables of socio- demography and travel characteristic are employed to get clearer understanding of each categorical variables. In order to test the goodness of the models, the overall model fit test showed that the null hypothesis of the model with independent variables being as good as the model without independent variables can be rejected on every model. This means that the two models have good fitness since models with predictors are better than models without predictors. The parallel line test showed a greater p-value than the level of confidence for all of the models. It indicates that each group mutually aligned and therefore the OLR model is suitable for the data variation and consequently further interpretation. With significant effect found in various variables and based on the statistical and practical significance, the overall model results are highly acceptable.

4.3.1 Model of shelter satisfaction model

Similar to previous literatures, the model shows that shelter distance from home has a positive significant impact on overall satisfaction (see Table 9). It can only positively be rated if it can minimize travel time through shelter access (Burkhardt, 2003; de Oña et al., 2013). Temperature controller, seating comfortability, and ladder also drive positive effect to overall satisfaction at 99% significant level. Model found that security camera is a significant attribute in influencing satisfaction which reflect the security concern at the shelter. Other interesting results is that disabled and elderly people facilities as well as woman and pregnant woman facilities also associated with higher overall satisfaction towards shelter. Priority seat and shelter entrance for disabled and elderly as well asspecial waiting room for woman and pregnant woman aremost likely associated with positive satisfaction. The improvement of attributes mentioned above needs to be highlighted for shelter design as the implication to positive overall satisfaction is high. Model also shows thatpassenger with shorter travel distance (0-5 Km) occur to feel more dissatisfied rather than long travel distance (>15 Km) at 99% and 95% significant level. Older people (>40 years old) tend to feel dissatisfied with shelter condition. Lastly, the model show that users in Bali tend to satisfied with the shelter, while passengers in Bogor and Bandung tend todissatisfied.

Table9.Overall Shelter Satisfaction Models Shelter Variables Estimate p-value Threshold [Overall Shelter Satisfaction = Very Dissatisfied] 0.91 0.239 [Overall Shelter Satisfaction = Dissatisfied] 7.05*** 0.000 [Overall Shelter Satisfaction = Satisfied] 13.5*** 0.000 Accessibility Shelter distance from home 0.23*** 0.003

1460

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

Shelter distance to destination 0.093 0.299 Convenience Shelter Roof 0.133 0.146 Temperature Controller 0.35*** 0.000 Seating comfortability 0.30*** 0.003 Seating capacity 0.049 0.593 Cleaning Facilities 0.045 0.610 Ladder 0.33*** 0.001 Sign of smoking prohibition -0.025 0.755 Security CCTV camera 0.17* 0.051 Safety Boarding and Alighting Facilities 0.141 0.125 Disabled and elderly people facilities Shelter entrance 0.30*** 0.004 Priority seat 0.38*** 0.000 Boarding and Alighting Facilities -0.060 0.564 Woman and Pregnant Woman Facilities Special waiting room 0.29*** .012 Sign of special area 0.21 0.107 Information Board -0.008 0.941 Personal and Travel Characteristics Travel distance = 0-5 Km [D] -0.66*** 0.013 Travel distance = >15 Km[D] -0.46* 0.055 >40 years old [D] -0.62** 0.020 <18 years old [D] -0.27 0.297 Bali [D] 0.337 0.397 Bandung [D] -0.297 0.383 Bogor [D] -0.315 0.349 Goodness of Fit Parameters 1191.940; 708.905 -2LL (0); -2LL (β); [χ2;df.;p-value] [483.035; 24; 0.000] Cox and Snell R2; Nagelkerke R2; McFadden R2 [0.502; 0.611; 0.404] Test of Parallel Lines [χ2; df.; p-value] [53.094; 48; 0.284] [D] = dummy variables 1 if yes; 0 otherwise; *Significant at level of 90 percent; **Significant at level of 95 percent; ***Significant at level of 99 percent

4.3.2 Model of bus satisfaction model

Overall bus satisfaction models, as appears in Table 10, show that waiting time has a positive significant impact on overall satisfaction which in line with previous studies (dell’Olio et al., 2011; Nwachukwu, 2014; Tyrinopoulos& Antoniou, 2008). On the contrary, waiting time due to unreliability can lead to negative satisfactionon passenger particularly those with several transfers (Rietveld et al., 2001). Passengers are likely to be vulnerable to expected waiting times associated with unreliable services. Literatures also show that operational hours influence the positive overall satisfaction (Burkhardt, 2003; Krizek and El-Geneidy, 2007; Weinstein, 2000). However, in this study, the operational hour of bus resultsin a negative impact (95% significant level) to passenger. This condition may relate to short operational hours of bus service. Seating comfortability and cleaning facilities are also found to be positively impactful attributes to overall bus satisfaction. Route suitability is found as having significant influence on overall bus satisfaction.Security and safety variables are also found to associated to higheroverall bus satisfaction specifically on security officer, emergency button, and emergency information. This findingemphasizes passenger concern on security and safety issue. Moreover, special area sign and special entrance access for woman and pregnant woman are also found

1461

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

assignificant attributes in influencing overall bus satisfaction. Furthermore, people with master and doctoral education background tend to have negative satisfaction toward bus service.which The possible reason is that they tend to have higher expectation compared to other education groups. Again, respondents in Bogor tend to dissatisfied to overall satisfaction bus service. Respondents in Bali and Bandung tend to satisfy with the bus service.

Table 10. Overall Bus Satisfaction Models Bus Variables Estimate p-value Threshold [Overall bus satisfaction = very dissatisfied] -0.870 0.410 [Overall bus satisfaction = dissatisfied] 4.748*** 0.000 [Overall bus satisfaction = satisfied] 11.302*** 0.000 Operational Waiting time 0.34*** 0.000 Travel time 0.092 0.360 Tariff 0.168 0.116 Stopping time 0.170 0.112 Operational hour -0.20** 0.023 Ticketing system -0.100 0.297 Convenience Seating comfortability 0.35*** 0.000 Cleaning facilities 0.27*** 0.002 Officer services 0.028 0.785 Supporting facilities 0.071 0.422 Security Security officer 0.19** 0.035 Emergency button 0.29*** 0.006 Safety Emergency information 0.27*** 0.010 Disabled and Elderly People Facilities Priority seat 0.141 0.109 Woman and Pregnant Woman Facilities Sign of special area 0.23** 0.042 Information board -0.107 0.308 Special entrance access 0.25*** 0.011 Personal and Travel Characteristics Education = S2 and S3 [D] -1.48*** 0.003 Bali [D] 0.255 0.518 Bandung [D] 0.111 0.724 Bogor [D] -0.93*** 0.004 Have no vehicle [D] 0.108 0.661 Reason for choosing PT = Route suitability [D] 0.40** 0.051 Goodness of Fit Parameters 1130.275; 724.372 -2LL (0); -2LL (β); [χ2;df.;p-value] [405.903; 23; 0.000] Cox and Snell R2; Nagelkerke R2; McFadden R2 [0.401; 0.521; 0.349] Test of Parallel Lines [χ2; df.; p-value] [57.134; 46; 0.126] Notes: *Significant at level of 90 percent; **Significant at level of 95 percent; ***Significant at level of 99 percent

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

1462

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

With the limitation of the fiscal capacity and land availability, BRT-Lite system is still chosen by many cities in Indonesia asa promising solution tosolve urban transport due to its semi- rapid services yet in the relatively low-cost investment. The evaluation of passenger satisfaction that reflects the different service quality will provide information on how service could be improved and determine where priority should be set. This study tries to investigate passenger satisfaction in various BRT-Litedegree of service in Indonesia cities and more importantly to find important factor affecting passenger satisfaction. According to CSI result, Bali and Surakarta mainly have good satisfaction result from respondent for both bus and shelter facility. Many of attributes have met their expectation and effectively provided. In general, Bandung has good satisfaction result for bus and shelter, however, improvement is still required on shelter attributes. Bogor has the lowest satisfaction for bus and shelter as well, which reflecting the low service quality.TheCSI method shows that Bali and Surakarta led the highest satisfaction results for shelter and then followed by Bandung and Bogor. CSI matrices display that many shelter attributes already meet passenger satisfaction, except in Bandung, where many attributes need to be improved. Moreover, the determinantsof passenger satisfaction were investigatedthrough ordinal logit models. To increase the satisfaction of users regarding the shelter, attributes that should be improved are seating comfortability, stairs, CCTV camera, shelter entrance & priority seat for disabled and elderly people as well as special waiting room and nursery room. In an attempt to improve public transport satisfaction, those facilities are important to createpositive waiting experience. The correlation is in line with the previous study revealingthat improved waiting experience will increase positive satisfaction (Lai & Chen, 2011; Nwachukwu, 2014; Tyrinopoulos & Antoniou, 2008). In addition, models also found that passenger who travels in shorter distance tend to rate more negative result than the longer distance. It may be associated with the travel time expectations related to distance, where short distance traveler expected shorter waiting time and overall travel time. Different results found in bus service quality. The highest satisfaction rating is found in Bali and Bandung, and then followed in Surakarta and Bogor at the last. CSI matrices indicate that Bus in Bogor has the least attributes that meeting passenger satisfaction compared to other cities where many attributes meet passenger satisfaction. Model estimate shows that improvement in waiting time, operational hour, seating comfortability, cleaning facilities, security officer, emergency button, emergency information, sign of special area and nursery room (special entrance access for woman and pregnant woman) can increase overall satisfaction towards BRT Bus. Moreover, models also show that route suitability has positive associationwith overall satisfaction. It is related to the nature of public transport that naturally associated to transfer activities (Krygsman et al., 2004). Suitability of route choice will decline transfer frequency as well as increase accessibility, therefore, the travel will be more efficient.Similar with the suggestion ofGuihaire and Hao (2015) that public transport system (i.e. network design, frequency setting, timetable development, bus and driver scheduling) should be designed to minimize number of transfer and consequently reducing transfer cost. With increasing degrees of accessibility for a specific location due to route suitability, some travelers who have tighter time and space constraints, such as having higher number of trips or visiting more activity locations and having more spread out activity spaces on a day, may take PT more often (Dharmowijoyo et al., 2016; Dijst et al., 2002; Susilo and Kitamura, 2005). Futhermore, the route factor probably correlated to the negative results towards Bogor bus satisfaction, which has the highest transfer frequency. The findings of this study support study reported by Murtejo and Pamungkas (2012; 2016) that improving the route is one of the main priorities for urban transport reform in Bogor. It is interesting also to note that respondents with master

1463

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

and doctoral education associated with negative satistfaction. This is most probably related to their experience and standard of service that most likely higher than others. The evaluation result in Bogor might be associated with the discontinuingservice of the BRT-Lite. This relation can be supported by the rationale of satisfaction that is usually seen as the main driver of consumer loyalty (Olsen, 2007), whichdefined as the commitment or willingness to repurchase a preferred service in the future (Oliver, 1997). The low passenger satisfaction in Trans Pakuan Bogor may lead to the unwillingness of people to reuse BRT-lite and therefore result in its ridership. The decreasing ridership can create negative long-term financial performance which leads to bankruptcy in Bogor. Knowing the result of the CSI and model estimations, improvement to the specific attributes should be emphasized in order to increase passenger satisfaction. Findings on influence attributes should be highlighted for future development and improvement of BRT- lite in Bogor and other cities in Indonesia. The findings could be used as a basis for policy maker or bus operators to improve the services such as shelter and bus in the form of infrastructure (i.e. roof, chair, etc.) as well as the service (i.e. location, route, tariff, etc.). Another interesting finding in this study shows that the lowest satisfaction in Bogor may reduce the sustianaibility of the BRT-Lite services. Along with the findings of this study, there are some limitations. This study only covers the satisfaction from user’s perceptionon infrastructure and the services while the impact on public transport use (i.e. increasing usage, mode share) remains missing. In addition, this study doesn’t explore the effect of travelers’ attitude and their experience using PT on satisfaction. Understanding user’s attitude and their experience will help better understanding of users’ behaviour as their decision is a reflection of their belief, memory, and complex trade-off. Thus, the research of users’ attitude and experience of public transport user could be the next research agenda. Further studies also have to consider the actual service performance data such as actual headway, actual travel time, andfinancial aspect (i.e. subsidy and budget for improving infrastructure)provided by citiesthat might be a significant factor in influencing users’ mode choice and therefore may affect the sustainability of BRT-Lite’s operation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper employed data from a project entitled Bus Transit Satisfaction Survey in 2015 and 2016. Data was obtained as a part of the Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project (SUTIP) in the Indonesia Ministry of National Development Planning which under the cooperation of Republic of Indonesia and Federal Republic of Germany. The project funded by the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Federal Republic of Germany. The author thanks all parties who have participated in data collection. All statements and interpretations in this study are the authors’ responsibility and only reflect the authors’ view.

1464

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993) The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing science, 12(2), 125-143. 2. Bali Department of Transportation Information and Communication.(2011 & 2014)Report of Responsibility Statement. 3. Bali Governor Decree No 1186/03-f/Hk/2010 Concerning Determination of Trans Sarbagita Main Route. 4. Bali Province Website.(2013) Clarification News of Trans Sarbagita. 5. BPS.(2016a) Bali Province in Figures 2016. 6. BPS.(201b) Bandung City in Figures 2016. 7. BPS.(2016c) Bogor City in Figures 2016. 8. BPS.(2016d) Surakarta City in Figures 2016. 9. Burkhardt, J. (2003) Critical measures of transit service quality in the eyes of older travelers.Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1835), 84-92. 10. Coffel, K. (1995) Customer satisfaction index for the mass transit industry. 11. Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of marketing, 56(3), 55-68. 12. Cronin Jr, J. J. (2003) Looking back to see forward in services marketing: some ideas to consider. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 13(5), 332-337. 13. Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., &Cecín, P. (2010) Modelling user perception of bus transit quality. Transport Policy, 17(6), 388-397. 14. Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., &Cecin, P. (2011) The quality of service desired by public transport users. Transport Policy, 18(1), 217-227. 15. De Oña, J., De Oña, R., Eboli, L., &Mazzulla, G. (2013) Perceived service quality in bus transit service: a structural equation approach. Transport Policy, 29, 219-226. 16. Dharmowijoyo, D.B.E., Susilo, Y.O., &Karlstöm, A. (2016) The day-to-day variability in travellers’ activity-travel patterns in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Transportation 43(4), 601-621 17. Dijst, M., de Jong, T., & van Eck, J. R. (2002). Opportunities for transport mode change: an exploration of a disaggregated approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(3), 413-430. 18. Eboli, L., &Mazzulla, G. (2009a) An ordinal logistic regression model for analysing airport passenger satisfaction. EuroMed J. Bus. 4, 40e57. 19. Eboli, L., &Mazzulla, G. (2009b) A new customer satisfaction index for evaluating transit service quality. Journal of Public transportation, 12(3), 2. 20. Fornell, C. (1992) A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. Journal of marketing, 56(1), 6-21. 21. Friman, M. (2010) Affective dimensions of the waiting experience.Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 13(3), 197-205. 22. Guihaire, V., &Hao, J. K. (2008). Transit network design and scheduling: A global review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(10), 1251-1273. 23. Gustafsson, A., & Johnson, M. D. (2004) Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction model.Journal of Service Research, 7(2), 124-141.

1465

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

24. Hill, N., Brierley, J., & MacDougall, R. (2003) How to measure Customer Satisfaction. 2. painos. GOVER.Hampshire. 25. Ilahi, A., Waro, A.I., Sumarsono, P. (2015) Public Transport Reform in Indonesian Cities. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 26. ITDP.(2007). : Planning Guide. 3rd Edition. New York: USA. 27. ITDP.(2014). The BRT Standard. 2014 Edition. 28. Jawa Pos. (2018) The reason why Trans Sarbagita is difficult to be saved, ironic. Retrieved January 20, 2019. Accessed from: https://radarbali.jawapos.com/read/2018/04/27/68585/ini-alasan-bus-trans-sarbagita- sulit-diselamatkan-mengenaskan 29. JICA.(2012) Final Report: Project for The Study on Jabodetabek Public Transportation Policy Implementation Strategy in the Republic of Indonesia (JAPTraPIS). Volume 2. 30. Joewono, T. B., & Kubota, H. (2007) User satisfaction with paratransit in competition with motorization in Indonesia: anticipation of future implications. Transportation, 34(3), 337-354. 31. Joewono, T. B., San Santoso, D., Ramadhan, H. J., Rahmadiensyah, R. H., Ramdhan, B. P., Oktano, L. Y., & Stefani, F. (2017) Identifying Characteristics of BRT-Lite System: Learning from Trans Metro Bandung, Indonesia. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 12, 14-34. 32. Kompas. (2017) Had a problem, TransPakuan Bogor Starts Operating Again. Retrieved January 15, 2019. Accessed from: https://regional.kompas.com/read/2017/11/22/17485121/sempat-bermasalah-bus- transpakuan-bogor-kembali-beroperasi 33. Krizek, K. J., & El-Geneidy, A. (2007) Segmenting preferences and habits of transit users and non-users.Journal of public transportation, 10(3), 5. 34. Kunieda, M., & Gauthier, A. (2007) Sustainable Transport: A sourcebook for policy- makers in developing cities. Module 7a: gender and urban transport: smart and affordable.Deutsche GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. 35. Krygsman, S., Dijst, M., &Arentze, T. (2004). Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio. Transport Policy, 11(3), 265-275. 36. LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983) A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of marketing research, 20(4), 393-404. 37. Lai, W. T., & Chen, C. F. (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers— The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport policy, 18(2), 318-325. 38. Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004) Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 32(3), 293-311. 39. Ministry of Transportation.(2018)LaporanKinerjaKementerianPerhubunganTahun 2017. 40. Moovit Website.(2018) Batik Solo Trans – Surakarta.Retrieved January 5, 2019. Accessed from: https://moovitapp.com/index/en/public_transit-lines-Surakarta-4385- 937155 41. Mouwen, A. (2015) Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 1-20.

1466

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

42. Murtejo, T.,Pamungkas, M.A. (2012). Travel time analysis of Trans Pakuan and Paratransit in Bogor. Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 43. Murtejo, T.,Pamungkas, M.A. (2016).Bus Management Company for Urban Transport Reform in Bogor.Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 44. Nathanail, E. (2008) Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic railways.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(1), 48-66. 45. Nwachukwu, A. A. (2014) Assessment of passenger satisfaction with intra-city public bus transport services in Abuja, Nigeria. Journal of Public Transportation, 17(1), 5. 46. Oliver, R. L. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.Journal of marketing research, 17(4), 460-469. 47. Oliver, R. L. (1997)Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGrawHill, New York. 48. Olsen, S. O. (2007) Repurchase loyalty: The role of involvement and satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 24(4), 315-341. 49. Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002) An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 38-45. 50. Prayudyanto, M.N., Waro, A.I., Rizki, M. (2015) Study of Number and Satisfaction Level of Transit System User Batik Solo Trans – Kota Solo.Final Report.Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 51. Prayudyanto, M.N., Rizki, M., Ningtyas, D.U. (2016a) Report of Public Transport Service Analysis of Greater Bandung Area. Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 52. Prayudyanto, M.N., Ningtyas, D.U., Nugroho, T.S., Rizki, M. (2016b) Fact Finding Report: Transportation Development in Bandung Agglomeration.Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 53. Rietveld, P., Bruinsma, F. R., & Van Vuuren, D. J. (2001) Coping with unreliability in public transport chains: A case study for Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(6), 539-559. 54. Rumawi, G.P.S. (2017) Performance Study and Vehicle Operating Cost Analysis of Bus Batik Solo Trans (BST) Corridor II Surakarta Using Ministry of Transportation Method. Final Thesis.University of SebelasMaret. 55. Sánchez Pérez, M., Carlos Gázquez Abad, J., MaríaMarín Carrillo, G., & Sánchez Fernández, R. (2007)Effects of service quality dimensions on behavioural purchase intentions: A study in public-sector transport. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(2), 134-151. 56. Saputra, E., &Widyasmara, C. (2017) The effect of urban spatial structure on rapid bus transit services in Yogyakarta and Surakarta, Indonesia: A comparative study of the Trans Jogja and the Batik Solo Trans. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 10(2). 57. Susilo, Y.O. & Kitamura, R. (2005) An analysis of the day-to-day variability in individuals’ action space: exploration of 6-week mobidrive travel diary data. Transportation Research Record 1902, 124–133

1467

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.13, 2019

58. Tanese, A., Negro, G., &Gramigna, A. (Eds.).(2003) La customer satisfaction nelleamministrazionipubbliche.Valutare la qualitàpercepitadaicittadini. Rubbettinoeditore. 59. Transport Ministerial Regulation No 27/2015 concerning Minimum Operational Standard for Road-Based Mass Transit 60. Tyrinopoulos, Y., & Antoniou, C. (2008) Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transport Policy, 15(4), 260-272. 61. WallinAndreassen, T. (1995) (Dis) satisfaction with public services: the case of public transportation. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 30-41. 62. WallinAndreassen, T., &Lindestad, B. (1998)Customer loyalty and complex services: The impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. International Journal of service Industry management, 9(1), 7-23. 63. Waro, A.I., Maeztri, D., Ilahi, A. (2016) Fact Finding Report of Sarbagita Agglomeration. Part of Sustainable Urban Transport Improvement Project. BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas). Jakarta, Indonesia 64. Weinstein, A. (2000). Customer satisfaction among transit riders: How customers rank the relative importance of various service attributes. Transportation Research Record, 1735(1), 123-132. 65. Weinstock, A. (2016) Roadmap to Bus Rapid Transit in Bogor. UN Habitat. 66. White, P.R. (2016)Public transport: its planning, management and operation. 5th Edition.Routledge. 67. Wright, L. and Fjellstrom, K. (2003) Mass Transit Options. Sustainable Transport: A Source for Policy Makers in Developing Cities. Module 3a.Deutsche GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH 68. Wright, L. (2004) Bus Rapid Transit. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policymakers in Developing Cities. Module 3b.Deutsche GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.

1468