Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
Research On Service Performance and Quality Of Bus Rapid Transit Transjakarta
Ellen Sophie Wulan TANGKUDUNG Rachma FITRIATI Lecturer, Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering Departement of Administration Sciences Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Social and Political Sciences University of Indonesia University of Indonesia Kampus UI, Depok 16424, Indonesia Kampus UI, Depok 16424, Indonesia Telp/Fax (62-21) 7270029 / (62-21) 7862962 Telp/Fax (62-21) 78849145 [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract: Bus Rapid Transit system is one of the public transport facilities in Jakarta. This study use SERVQUAL, IPA, travel time and headway performance analysis. The methodologies of this study are direct observation, survey and interview to the passengers. Separated and dedicated lane for BRT is the key of the busway operation reliability, and it is proved by the fastest travel time and best headway in Corridor 1. Expectation of Transjakarta public service quality by operators and acceptance of public service quality by the society as end user, strengthen one another.The highest quality of service priority level found at the emphaty dimension, on the contrary the lowermost quality of service priority level present at tangible dimension.
Keywords : Service, Performance, Quality
1 INTRODUCTION
Jakarta is facing so many problems about urban mobility which reflected in the worsening traffic congestion, unreliable public transportation service and increasing of private-owned vehicle. The use of private transportation is an indicator and inclusion phenomenon in transportation sector. This caused the socio-cultural implication that is less supportive to the manifestation of fairness in transportation which can widen the gap in transportation accessibility, and also increase the social exclusion in society.
Jakarta Regional Government’s strategy to provide social transportation needs by building Buss Rapid Transit (BRT), is one of the alternatives to reduce the traffic congestion and chaos in capital streets. Mass transportation system not only just fastens people’s mobility to reach their destinations, but also to give comfort, security and safety to the society. For urban transportation development, has to be developed by referring to public needs which also considers the efficiency and effectively aspects (Wright 2005).
The existence of Transjakarta is so relevant to the people’s needs which want a fast mobility. But in fact, the BRT Transjakarta system development is not immediately supported by commitment of controlling the integrated public transportation system that can fulfill
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
society’s need on the whole. As a result, the expected quality of the trip that is shown by quick travel time does not always occur in Transjakarta. However, BRT Transjakarta has been the favorite public transportation as compared to other public transportations. The thing is, how to strengthen the Transjakarta existence as the rapid mass transportation that can optimally support the society’s needs of fast mobility.
Thus, the purpose of this research is to to identify and analyse the social construction process to create the discipline and promptness in society in transportation system, which is shown in the quality of BRT Transjakarta.
2 LITERATUR REVIEW
2.1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT is a transportation system based on high quality buses that travel fast, comfortable and effective through the separated lane, and quick operation by certain frequency also the excellent marketing and customer service (BRT Planning Guide, 2007). Basically, BRT can compete with performance and comfort with rail-based modern transportation system at much lower cost. BRT is the rapid transportation mode which combines the quality of rail- based transportation and the flexibility of bus transportation (Thomas, 2001).
According to BRT Planning Guide, the signature of BRT is perceived by the infrastructure or the availability of other physical infrastructures, such as, the special lane is median of the road, the integrated network between the route and corridor, the availability of station that is accessible, comfortable, safe and protected from weather and stations that provide the access of platforms and vehicle floor, also the special station or terminal which connect the main route, feeder route and other transportation modes and also the improvement in public spaces along the route. Whereas in operational aspect, BRT has fast service with certain frequency between the origin point and the main destination point, the proper capacity with passengers’ along the corridor needs, the ticket checking before departures also integrated cost in the route, corridor and feeder vehicles. In this case, travel time and headway in Transjakarta operation are the optimal measurement of the service performance to success of BRT system.
2.2. Transjakarta Service Performance
Headway is a measurement of the distance or time between vehicles in a transit system. The precise definition varies depending on the application, but it is most commonly measured as the distance from the tip of one vehicle to the tip of the next one behind it, expressed as the time it will take for the trailing vehicle to cover that distance. A "shorter" headway signifies a more frequent service. Headway is a key input in calculating the performance capacity of any transit system. A system that requires large headways has more empty space than passenger capacity, which lowers the total number of passengers being transported for a given length of line. In this case, the capacity has to be improved through the use of larger vehicles. On the other end of the scale, a system with short headways, like cars on a freeway, can offer very large capacities even though the vehicles carry few passengers. Headways have an enormous impact on ridership levels above a certain critical waiting time. Following Boyle, the effect of changes in headway is directly proportional to changes in ridership by a simple conversion factor of 1.5. That is, if
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
headway is reduced from 12 to 10 minutes, the average rider wait time will decrease by 1 minute, the overall trip time by the same one minute, so the ridership increase will be on the order of 1 x 1.5 + 1 or about 2.5%. The passenger capacity of the bus lane is simply the product of vehicle capacity and the passenger capacity of the vehicles.
2.3. Transjakarta Service Quality Public service reformation alone is a prime mover which is considered as a strategic way to start the reform of good governance practice (Dwiyanto 2005, Afrial 2009). Public service reformation is considered as and entry point and prime mover, because the attempt to realize the values that reflect the good governance in public sercive can be done more real and easier. Besides, the new paradigm of good governance is bt reinventing government (Osborne & Gaebler 1996, Sancoko 2010). Reinventing government principle is to transport the business performance into the bureaucrat performance. The government officials have always to work hard to increase the productivity of government-owned resources. To accomplish the bureaucrate performance like in private business performance, Osborne & Gaebler describe the ten principles of reinventing government. In context of this Transjakarta research, one of the ten principles of reinventing goeverment is that government has to be customer-oriented. Means, government has to endeavor to give service based on customers’ expectation (customers: the public service users) – not by what government officials want to do (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). The concept of quality being the benchmark of success of an organization does not only exist in business organization, but also to the government institution as the public service provider. Government is required to always conduct a survey on the demand and appraisal of the society to the service given. Moreover, the quality is an important thing in service management. State and government system become the pedestal in citizen cervice in obtaining the assurance of their rights, therefore the quality of services will be so important (Zauhar 2001, Prasojo, Pradana and Hiqmah 2006). Initially, instruments to measure service quality were developed by market researchers to evaluate which service satisfies customers (Jiang, Kelin, and Carr, 2002, Afrial, 2009). In its relation to public service quality provided for by the government, Levine (1990) explains that public service products in a democratic country must at least fulfil three indicators: responsiveness, responsibility, and accountability. Albrect (1985) and Zemke (1990), on the other hand, view that public service quality is a result of interactions among three aspects, i.e. service systems established by organizations of service providers, human resources providing the service, marketing strategies, and customers or service users. The three aspects are associated to one another, interrelated and linked together by an organizational culture directed to fulfil the needs of customers. On a different note, Gibson, Ivancevic, and Donelly (as quoted by Dwiyanto, 2005) include the dimension of time. In this case, public service performance consists of the aspects of production, quality, efficiency, flexibility, and satisfaction for short-term measurement; the aspects of competition and development for for medium-term measurements; and the aspect of business continuity for long-term measurement. Moreover, the measurement of service quality is determined by numerous intangible factors and it involves some psychological aspects which are difficult to measure (Zeithamal,
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
Parasuraman, and Berry, 1990). Ideally, the measurement of service quality is carried out in two interrelated dimensions in the service process, i.e. satisfaction evaluation in the dimension of service users and evaluation in the dimension of the service providers. Subsequently, Zeithamal et al. (1990) developed service quality gap model into a multi- dimensional measurement scale instrument known as SERVQUAL. In its development, the ten dimensions are simplified into five service quality dimensions (Zeithamal, 1990), which are: tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The measurement of service quality is carried out in two interrelated dimensions in the service process, i.e. satisfaction evaluation from the dimension of service users and the dimension of service providers. Zeithamal et al. (1990) states that the key factors which affect service users’ expectations are mouth to mouth information, service users’ personal needs, external communications, and service users’ past experiences, as reflected in the service quality assessment model. In addition, Martilla and James (1977) also introduced the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method, also known as quadrant analysis (Brandt, 2000, Latu and Everett, 2000, Setiawan, 2000), to measure the relations between consumers’ perception and product/service quality improvement priorities. Similar with SERQUAL, the IPA method was initially used for market research. However, IPA has generally been accepted and is used in various fields due to its easy application and its display of analysis results makes performance improvement suggestions easier (Martinez, 2003). The main function of IPA is to display information related to service factors, which, according to the consumers, significantly affects their satisfaction and loyalty and considerably needs improvement since such services are currently not satisfactory. IPA combines the measurement of importance level and satisfaction levels factors in a two-dimensional graph, easing the data explanation and providing constructive suggestions. By using importance performance analysis, we can measure the conformity between the expected TransJakarta public service quality (referred to as importance level) with the TransJakarta public service quality received by service users as end users (referred to as performance level). It is in such conformity that the study of TransJakarta service quality becomes one of the important factors to improve the service quality of mass transportation provided by the Government of DKI Jakarta. Moreover, the service quality study is a part of a multidisciplinary social engineering study on TransJakarta mass rapid transit system that can be used as a model for other major cities in Indonesia.
In the end, assessing the quality of public services and analyzing the customer satisfaction rate, needs benchmarking of rapid transportation system (Camp 1989, Keehley 1997, Spendolini 1992, Gilbert 2008). Thus, the efficiency and effectivity of transportation system in DKI Jakarta is expected to be obtained, and also it proves the government alignments to the public service reformation to the mass public transportation (Fitriati, 2009 and 2010).
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Travel Time and Headway
Travel time can be predicted when using Transjakarta bus, it eases the society to predict the time needed to reach a destination. A 3.500 IDR ticket price to reach destination point is valid in all corridors, can be treated as measurement of saving in daily transportation cost. The service rate shows the reliability and quality of Transjakarta trip which stated by travel time, including the running time, boarding/alighting time, delay time and headway.
Running time is also used to figure out the average speed of Transjakarta buses, where reliability of the service is accomplished when the highest speed is 30 km/h and the lowest speed is 18 km/h. Travel time survey was conducted by onboard surveying, calculating the running time, delay time and also boarding and alighting time. Travel time survey was conducted in all corridors 1 to 8 plus additional route, that is Pulo Gadung – Ragunan, Pulo Gadung – Kalideres, Cililitan PGC – Senen Sentral, Cililitan PGC – Ancol. The travel time survey was carried out within working days in 2 shifts, morning shift at 06.00-10.00 and afternoon shift at 16.00-20.00.
Service capacity of Transjakarta is determined by the headway or time gap between departures. The vehicle capacity of a single lane of vehicles is simply the inverse of the headway. This is most often expressed in vehicles-per-hour:
3600 n , where n is the vehicle per hour and T is the travel time T
Ridership of single lane can determine by the relation of headway and the vehicle capacity
3600 n P passanger T where:
npassenger is the number of passengers per hour or ridership T , is headway, in seconds P is the vehicle capacity
Headway measurement was conducted in all eight busway corridors, observed from certain bus stops, with 2 shifts time that is morning shift at 06.00-10.00 (peak time) and afternoon shift at 10.00-14.00 (off-peak time).
3.2. Service Quality
The approach used is quantitative-positivistic approach (Neuman, 1997). The objective and focus of the study are directed to analyse and illustrate objectively and logically the nature of
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
the phenomena or social condition of the object – in this case, TransJakarta public service quality. The target population is TransJakarta passengers from all eight corridors. The sample-taking technique was purposive sampling using nonprobability samples (Sekaran, 2003). This is due to: (1) the absence of a population framework suitable to describe TransJakarta users; and, (2) TransJakarta BLU Management only possesses the number of tickets sold in a given period, instead of a complete database of TransJakarta users. Afterwards, data collection was carried out by giving questionnaires to 450 respondents (end users) on weekdays (Monday to Friday) and weekends (Saturday and Friday) during business hours from October 2009 to February 2010. The forty questions are structured to adhere to the five dimensions of SERVQUAl and Importance Performance Analysis/ The questions are obtained from field studies on public needs assessments based on five service quality dimensions, as well as previous literatures on TransJakarta service quality – studies carried out by Sugihardjo (2005), Kompas national newspaper, as well as Indonesian Consumers Organization (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia). A preliminary survey was carried out to evaluate the questionnaire, in addition to validity and reliability tests, in order to test whether every question is valid and reliable. The test, was done using the SPSS 15 application, with the following steps: (1) the questions are grouped according to the five SERVQUAL dimensions. The questions are given a scale of 1 to 5 (scale 1: NR: not relevant; scale 2: VP: Very Poor or NVI: Not Very Important; scale 3: P: Poor or NI: Not Important; scale 4: G: Good or I: Important; scale 5: E: Excellent or VI: Very Important); (2) the data is processed using the SPSS 15 application; (3) validity and reliability of the questions are obtained from the test results.. Validity and reliability tests can be viewed from four stages. First, corrected item-total correction (r result) value is compared to the r table. Second, validity is determined by the value of r result, which must not be a negative integer and r result > r table. Third, reliability test is determined by the α value found in the analysis result, which is then compared with the r table. Fourth, reliability test is considered reliable should the r α is positive and r α > r table. After the data were collected, it is analysed using Importance Performance Analysis/IPA (Martila and James, 1977, Setiawan, 2005). Load balancing for the questions, both performance indicators and service importance, are presented in a table of frequency. Service quality is determined by the concordance of expected service and perceived service for each service question. As such, concordance is the ratio of performance level to importance level:
X i Tki 100% Yi where Tki = Respondent concordance level for indicator i Xi = Service performance assessment score for indicator i Yi = Importance assessment score for indicator i
After respondent concordance level has been found, Cartesian diagram is used for IPA analysis. Each question is described or mapped in a Cartesian diagram. The horizontal axis X is the performance index or average performance level for each indicator whereas the horizontal axis Y is the importance axis or average importance level for each question, formulated as follows:
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
X Y X i Y i n n where Xi = Performance index or average performance level for indicator i Yi = Importance index or average importance level score for indicator i N = Total respondent
The performance and importance indices of the forty service quality attributes are then presented in a Cartesian diagram. The diagram is then divided into four quadrants, limited by two perpendicular axes ( , ), where is the average performance index for every service quality attributes, and is the average importance index for every service quality attributes. Each of axes is calculated using the following formula:
where K = the number of indicators/attributes which affect customer satisfaction (in this study, K = 40) Both axes are perpendicular in the diagram, thus forming four quadrants which divide forty service quality attributes into four service elements groups based on relative respondent assessment of performance attributes (respondent perception) and relative respondent assessment of importance attributes (respondent expectations).
Quadrant 4 Quadrant 1 CONCENTRATE HERE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK High Importance High Importance Low Performance High Performance
Quadrant 3 Quadrant 2 LOW PRIORITY POSSIBLE OVERKILL Low Importance Low Importance Low Performance High Performance
Source: Martilla and James (1977) Figure 1 Importance Performance Analysis Quadrant Divisions The IPA graphic interpretation, as shown in Figure 1, is divided into four quadrants based on importance performance analysis measurement results (Brandt, 2000; Setiawan, 2005; Afrial, 2008 and 2009). First Quadrant, “Keep up the Good Work” (high importance & high performance). The factors found in this quadrant is considered as supplemental consumer satisfaction factors, so that the management is obliged to make certain that the performance of the institution it is running is able to maintain its performance, and, as such, is the main improvement priority. The second Quadrant is “Possible Overkill” (low importance & high performance). Factors found in this quadrant is
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
considered to be of low importance, as such, the management need to allocate resources associated with the such factors to other factors which are of higher priority and require improvement, such as the fourth quadrant. The third Quadrant is “Low Priority” (low importance & low performance). Factors found in this quadrant provide low satisfaction and at the same time are considered as of low importance by consumers, and, as such, the management does not need to prioritize or provide ample attention to such factors. The fourth Quadrant is, “Keep up the Good Work” (high importance & high performance). Factors found in this quadrant are considered as factors of high importance by consumers; however, current conditions are yet to be satisfactory, and, as such, the management is obliged to allocate adequate resources to improve performance of such factors. Factors found in this quadrant are improvement priorities.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Reliability Rate of BRT Services
Corridor 2 is a dedicated corridor with no traffic disturbance by other transportation mode, since the beginning of the operation of this BRT system. But with the length of the corridor that is 12.9 km, then the speed of the vehicle in the Running Time without considering the boarding/alighting time and delay time was 28.81 km/h. The quality of service could be determined by supply function, among others total travel time. The average speed of Transjakarta buses in corridor 1 as calculated was 17.31 km/h, still under the minimum speed for reliability service of Transjakarta. But for reliability dimension, the Transjakarta bus users prefer to choose punctuality of headway than the travel speed.
Table 1: Average Running Time, observed in Morning peak hours and Afternoon peak hours
Corridor 1- Running Time (hours) Trip 1 Trip 2 Trip 3 Trip 4 Trip 5 Average Morning Blok M - Kota 0.52 0.42 0.53 0.38 0.41 0.45 Peak Kota- Blok M 0.47 0.57 0.34 0.50 0.47 0.46 Afternoon Blok M - Kota 0.44 0.43 0.45 0.50 0.45 Peak Kota- Blok M 0.40 0.39 0.49 0.38 0.41 0.43
Average peak time 0.45 Source : Data Processed by Researcher of Multidiscipline Research UI, 2010
In quality service measurement on reliability dimension, shows that the headway punctuality attributes get the highest score to Importance rate or expectation of Transjakarta user. The suitable headway for service provider and operator of Transjakarta can determine the operational capacity in one round. Headway become one of indicators of Mininum Service Standard of Transjakarta, that is: Headway setting for end point bus stop at peak time < 5 minutes and at off peak time < 10 minutes, while deviation of planned headway is measured
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
by standard deviation (in %), headway realization is 50% in peak time and 40% in off-peak time for achievement target in 2010. In 2013, this deviation will be targeted to reduce into 20% in peak time and 10% in off-peak time.
Tabel 2: Average Total Travel time, observed in Morning peak hours and Afternoon peak hours
Corridor 1 – Total Travel Time Trip 1 Trip 2 Trip 3 Trip 4 Trip 5 Average (hours) Morning Blok M - Kota 0.63 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.65 Peak Kota- Blok M 0.69 0.66 0.87 0.83 0.76 0.71 Afternoon Blok M - Kota 0.74 0.91 0.84 0.74 0.81 Peak Kota- Blok M 0.72 0.67 0.86 0.77 0.75 0.78 Average 0.74 Source : Data Processed by Researcher of Multidiscipline Research UI, 2010
The headway measurement was conducted in peak hours (06.00-10.00) and off-peak hours (10.00-14.00) in certain bus stops on both ways, in all eight busway corridors. The summary of the survey could be seen in Table 3. Average headway data from corridor 1 to 8, is only 2 minutes 42 seconds, still pass the minimum service standard. Best headway average is occured in Corridor 1 route Blok M - Kota that is less than 2 minutes and maximum headway 12 minutes is occurred in off-peak hours. But maximum headway for 38 minutes occurs in Corridor 8 route Harmoni – Lebak Bulus in morning peak hours. Thus, with such long headway and deviation more than 50%, much exceed the Minimum Service Standard in peak hours. This 26 kms long corridor 8 is clearly having lack of buses. 4.2 Priority Level of Service Quality based on Transjakarta User Perception
Based on Transjakarta user perception, respondents give the priority quality level on each dimension (table 1). The result of the research shows the fact that the Transjakarta user give the highest priority level to empathy dimension – that measures the attitude, attention and thoughtfulness of the service provider to the customer, as much as 24.5%. this result support the result of suitability measurement level resut which is a ratio between the perceived service and expected service.
In contrast, the lowest level of quality priority assessment is in tangible dimension – measures the physical insfrastructure that Transjakarta has and give service to the society, as much as 17.24%. This result supports the measurement of expected service result. This fact shoes even more that Transjakarta users give the lowest score to the Tangible dimension. In other words, the Tangible dimension is considered to have the lowest priority amongst all.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
Table 3 Headway Survey Summary Corridor Average Max. Survey Time
06.00-10.00 Blok M - Kota 0:01:30 0:08:41 Kota - Blok M 0:01:26 0:07:11 1 10.00-14.00 Blok M - Kota 0:01:39 0:10:40 Kota - Blok M 0:01:44 0:12:09 06.00-10.00 Pulo Gadung - Harmoni 0:01:43 0:07:12 Harmoni - Pulo Gadung 0:01:42 0:08:28 2 10.00-14.00 Pulo Gadung - Harmoni 0:01:29 0:09:45 Harmoni - Pulo Gadung 0:01:55 0:09:27 06.00-10.00 Kali Deres - Pasar Baru 0:01:53 0:06:43 Pasar Baru - Kali Deres 0:02:18 0:12:26 3 10.00-14.00 Kali Deres - Pasar Baru 0:02:33 0:08:18 Pasar Baru - Kali Deres 0:02:10 0:13:28 06.00-10.00 Pulo Gadung - Dukuh Atas 2 0:02:45 0:08:00 Dukuh Atas 2 - Pulo Gadung 0:03:01 0:20:00 4 10.00-14.00 Pulo Gadung - Dukuh Atas 2 0:03:51 0:17:18 Dukuh Atas 2 - Pulo Gadung 0:03:24 0:14:16 06.00-10.00 Kp. Melayu - Ancol 0:01:43 0:12:25 Ancol - Kp. Melayu 0:01:46 0:08:50 5 10.00-14.00 Kp. Melayu - Ancol 0:02:30 0:16:06 Ancol - Kp. Melayu 0:02:30 0:12:32 06.00-10.00 Ragunan - Dukuh Atas 2 0:02:26 0:15:15 Dukuh Atas 2 - Ragunan 0:02:42 0:16:33 6 10.00-14.00 Ragunan - Dukuh Atas 2 0:03:09 0:13:07 Dukuh Atas 2 - Ragunan 0:03:09 0:15:59 06.00-10.00 Kp. Rambutan - Kp. Melayu 0:01:50 0:09:14 Kp. Melayu - Kp. Rambutan 0:02:08 0:13:35 7 10.00-14.00 Kp. Rambutan - Kp. Melayu 0:02:31 0:10:42 Kp. Melayu - Kp. Rambutan 0:02:05 0:07:28 06.00-10.00 Lebak Bulus - Harmoni 0:06:51 0:23:59 Harmoni - Lebak Bulus 0:05:11 0:38:00 8 10.00-14.00 Lebak Bulus - Harmoni 0:04:30 0:22:57 Harmoni - Lebak Bulus 0:06:08idors 0:34:02 Average of all corridors 0:02:42 Maximum of all corridors 0:38:00 Average jam 06.00-10.00 (morning pick hour) 0:02:33 Average jam 10.00-14.00 (off –peak hour) 0:02:50 Maximum in morning peak hours 0:38:00 Maximum in off –peak hours 0:34:02 Source: Data Processed by Researcher of Multidiscipline Research UI, 2010
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
Tabel 4: Average Assessment on Priorty Level Based on Transjakarta User Perception
Rank Dimension Score Average (%) 1 Empathy 10538 24,5 % 2 Realibility 8793 20,44 % 3 Assurance 8253 19,19 % 4 Responsiveness 7523 17,51 % 5 Tangible 7414 17,24 %
Source: Data Processed by Researcher of Multidiscipline Research UI, 2010
Source: Data Processed by Researcher of Multidiscipline Research UI, 2010 Figure 2: Cartesius Diagram of Transjakarta Services
Meanwhile, to measure all the performance index and importance index from 40 attributes of quality service, then the satisfaction rate analysis (IPA) of Transjakarta users was conducted and shown in 4-quadrants Cartesius Diagram (Figure 2). Quadrant 1 shows the factors that affect the service quality of Transjakarta, including the important attribute for the Transjakarta users but not or not yet satisfactory, so that this could be the main priority for improvement. This indicator or attributes that goes into this quadran is: attribute 37, that the ticket operators have to be friendly.
For quadrant 2, it shows the factors that affect the service quality of Transjakarta, including the factor that is considered as important by Transjakarta users and the execution is already satisfactory so it needs to be maintained. Int his case, there is no indicator goes into quadran 2, which shows that service quality of Transjakarta have not really satisfy the customers.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
Meanwhile in quadrant 3, it shows the factors that affect the quality service of Transjakarta, including the factors that are consideres as less important to the Transjakarta users and the service is so-so, or even not satisfactory, so this does not become the priority for improvement. Lastly, quadran 4 shows the factors that affect the quality service of Transjakarta, including the factors which considered as less important but conducted so well by the provider of Transjakarta so that it satisfy the Transjakrta users. These attributes in this quadran is exceeding the Transjakarta usesrs’ expectation, so it seems that these attributes are overlooked. The attributes that go into this quadran are the lighting is pass the standard (atribut 11), passengers are easy to access the bus stops (atribut 14), clean floor/skywalk (atribut 15), no damages in skywalk (atribut 17), proper bus (atribut 26), punctual of ticket outlets (atribut 27), passengers get information easily (atribut 28) and no much time needed to buy tickets (atribut 29). Based on respondent’s explanation in in-depth interview, the result in quadran 4 occurs because Transjakarta users do not use TransMileneo in Bogota, Colombia as a benchmark in assessing the service quality of BRT in DKI Jakarta. Althought the government of DKI Jakarta uses this TransMileneo as a benchmark for Transjakarta. The facts from the research even show that Transjakarta users use public transportation – which have already been using before, like PPD, Mayasari Bakti, metromini, mikrolet, and other public transportation – as the benchmark of assessing the service quality of BRT. Surely the service quality of those public transportation is far less satisfactory. Therefore the assessment of service quality like lighting, air conditioned-vehicle, the open time of ticket outlets, skywalk, special bus stops and etc, (always) exceed the expectation of the customer. Considering these attributes were not found in other public transportation, so the comparison cannot be measured. The Service Quality measurement, based on the perception of Transjakarta bus users, shows that not all services of the bus failed. Based on the measurements of Service Quality level with appropriateness of both dimensions between the expected public service quality of Transjakarta bus and the received service quality by the people as the end users there is a balance. The measurements have similarities in the lowest and highest points, both in the measurement of priority level of service quality, the result of service quality and service quality itself, the measurement of the interval level between the performance index and interest index, as well as the measurement of service quality appropriateness level by using Importance Performance Analysis (IPA). The highest Service Quality priority level is in the dimension of empathy, and vice versa, the lowest level is in the tangible dimension. There are two attributes in the highest interval of tangible dimension: the number of users in a bus stop and in the bus, in accordance with the maximum capacity. On the contrary, the lowest interval is in the attributes of: users or candidates of users who can easily get to a Transjakarta bus stop, both by using private vehicles and other public transport facilities. The interesting finding is that the Transjakarta bus users do not refer to the performance of TransMileneo in Bogota, Columbia, as a benchmarking of Transjakarta Service Quality— whereas the local government of DKI Jakarta used TransMileneo as a benchmarking of Transjakarta (see benchmarking in Camp, 1989; Keehley, 1997; Spendolini, 1992). The Transjakarta users compare the bus more with the other public transport that they have used
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
so far, such as regular bus, metromini (medium-sized city bus), mikrolet (paratransit) and other public transports.
5. CONCLUSION
Reliability of Transjakarta Bus is stated by average headway data from all busway corridors is only 2 minutes 42 seconds, still passes the minimum service standards. Best average headway is proves to occur in Corridor 1 (Blok M- Kota route), that is < 2 minutes on peak hours and 12 minutes maximum in off-peak hours. But maximum headway, 38 minutes occurred in Corridor 8 (Harmoni – Lebak Bulus route) on morning peak hours. Too long headway in this 26 kms long corridor clearly shows that this corridor is lacking of buses.
The travel time of Transjakarta bus in Corridor 1 which is steril from other vehicle in peak hours has not shown the good performance level, because it does not reach the 30 km/h speed in running time. The problem occur on delay in intersections, where no exclusive green light for busway.
Quality service analysis based on Transjakarta users’ perception shows that the service of Transjakarta is not all bad. Moreover, the calculation of service wuality rate with the suitability rate in all dimensions – between the perceived services and the expected services, are reinforcing one another. This calculation has the same result in lowest and highest score, in priority lecel of service quality with SERVQUAL with performance index gap and importance index gap as well as the assessment of suilability rate of publich service quality by using Importance-Performance Analysis/IPA. Highest service priority level is on empathy dimension, and in contrast, the lowest priority level is in tangible dimension. Means, the Transjakarta users pat more attention to the service quality of empathy dimension, and less attention the tangible dimension. The highest gap in tangible dimension, such as: optimal capacity of passengers in bus attribute. This gap shows that the worst of Transhajarta is in maximum capacity, in bus stop as well in the bus. In contrary, the lowest gap is in the easy access of passengers to reach the bus stop, by using their own vehivcle or other public transportation (score -0.01). Means, the Transjakarta users assess the lowest gap in the easy access to Transjakarta bus stop attribute. As with other studies on service quality or customer satisfaction which employ descriptive statistical analysis, there are limitations. In general, this study has to be postponed from time to time to find whether service quality has reached service users’ expectations or not at a certain period (this study was carried out between 2009 and 2010). In addition, studies on service quality have only illustrated quantitative questions, such as proper or improper values or satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Qualitative questions, such as what makes service quality well or not, or whether service users will keep using the services are rarely answered. On those bases, it is suggested to complement this quantitative analysis with an in-depth analysis by means of exploring quantitative aspects of TransJakarta public service quality. The improvement of Transjakarta service quality is expected to support to urban culture development, so that the culture of mass transportation in urban area can be in line with the socio-economic and cultural development in the city.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This writing is a part of a research titled “The Study of Social Engineering Process in Bus Rapid Transit System of Transjakarta - A Way to Improve the Quality of Urban Life” Thankyou to the Research and Community Service Directorate of University of Indonesia for funding the research in the scheme of Multidiscipline Research in 2009.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, Karl. 1985. Service within: Solving the Middle Management Leadership Crisis, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. ------and Ron Zemke. 1990. Service America! Doing Business in the New Economy, Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Erwin Bahill, A.T. and Gissing B. 1998. Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, Volume 28, Number 4, pp. 516-527, November 1998 Boyle, Daniel "Fixed Route Transit Ridership Forecasting and Service Planning Methods", Synthesis of Transit Practice, Volume 66 (2006), Transportation Research Board, ISBN 030909772X Camp, Robert C. 1989. The Search For Industry Best Practices That Lead To Superior Performance. Oregon USA : American Society for Quality Control Press Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. 1999. Pedoman Perencanaan Jalur Pejalan Kaki pada Jalan Umum, No. 032/T/BM/1999 Dwiyanto, Agus, dkk. 2005. Reformasi Birokrasi Publik di Indonesia, Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan, Yogyakarta : Universitas Gadjah Mada Dwiyanto, Agus. 2005. Mewujudkan Good Governance Melalui Pelayanan Publik, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press Fitriati, Rachma. 2009. Quo Vadis Keberlangsungan Program Bus TransJakarta. Jurnal Forum Ilmiah Indonusa, Vol 6 No. 2 Mei 2009, h.108-116, Jakarta: Penerbit Pusat Pengelola Jurnal Ilmiah Universitas Indonusa Esa Unggul, Jakarta Fitriati, Rachma. 2010. Gagalkah TransJakarta? Kajian Kualitas Layanan pada Sistem Angkutan Massal TransJakarta. Jurnal Integritas Manajemen Bisnis Prasetia Mulya ISSN 1979-2964, Jakarta Gilbert, Alan. 2008. Bus Rapid Transit: Is Transmilenio a Miracle Cure?, Transport Journal Reviews, Volume 28, Issue 4 July 2008, pages 439 – 467, Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK Jiang, James J., Garry Klein L. Christopher. Carr. 2002. Measuring Information System Service Quality: SERVQUAL from the Other Side. MIS Quartely, Vol. 26, No. 2 Juni Keehley, Patricia et al., 1997. Bencmarking for Best Practices in The Public Sector, California: Jossey Bass Publishers Latu, T.M., & Everett, A.M., 2000, Review of Satisfaction Research and Measurement Approaches, Departement of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Publications/004~Science-and-Research/Older-series/PDF/ IR183.pdf Lenvine, Charless H, et al. 1990. Public Administration: Chalenges, Choice, Consequences. Illinois, Scot Foreman Lovelock, Christhoper. 1994. How Product + Service = Competitive Advantage: McGRAW-HILL Book Co-Singapore Martilla, John A. and James, John C. Importance-Performance Analysis, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 77-79 (article consists of 3 pages), Published by: American Marketing Association, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250495 Martinez, C.L., 2003, Evaluation Report: Tools Cluster Networking Meeting #1, CenterPoint Institute, Inc., Arizona. Neuman, Willam Lawrence, 1997. Sosial Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approach 3rd , Allyn and Bacon,USA Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler,1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Public Sector, New York: Penguin Books. Osborne, David, and P. Plasterik, 1996. Banishing Bureaucracy, the Five Strategy Reinventing Government: Persus Books Publishing. Prasojo, Eko, Aditya Perdana dan Nor Hiqmah, 2006. Kinerja Pelayanan Publik, Persepsi Masyarakat Terhadap Kinerja, Keterlibatan dan Partispasi Masyarakat Dalam Pelayanan Bidang Pendidikan, Kesehatan dan Kependudukan, Jakarta : YAPPIKA Sancoko, Bambang. 2010. Pengaruh Remunerasi terhadap Kualitas Pelayanan Publik Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi: Bisnis & Birokrasi Volume 17 No. 1 Januari-April, Penerbit Pusat Kajian Administrasi FISIP UI Sekaran, Uma. 2003. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc Setiawan, Rudy. 2005. Analisa Tingkat Kepuasan Pengguna Kereta Api Komuter Surabaya – Sidoarjo, Simposium VIII FSTPT, Universitas Sriwijaya, 5-6 Desember Spendolini, Michael J. 1992. The Benchmarking Book, New York : Amazon Sugihardjo, 2005, Evaluasi Program Busway di DKI Jakarta, Tesis Program Pasca Sarjana Departemen Ilmu Administrasi FISIP Universitas Indonesia, Belum Dipublikasikan, Jakarta, Indonesia Thomas, E. 2001. Bus Rapit Transit, Presentation at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting, Chicago. Wright, Hook (editor). 2007. Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, published by Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), New York. Zeithaml, Valarie, A., Parasuraman, A Berry, Leonard, L. 1995. Delivering Quality Service, Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, New York : The free Press, Macmillan Inc