A comparative MADM approach for prioritizing factors influencing service quality of Intermediate Public Transport as access mode to metro stations in Delhi, India

Figures & data

Table 1. List of IPT service quality attributes considered in the study (Kar et al., 2022b).

Attributes (symbol)	Description	Source
Information at IPT Stop (T.Inf1)	It indicates that information such as vehicle number, vehicle route, vehicle arrival time are available through digital displays at bus stops, auto or taxi stands.	(Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Tarigan et al., 2014)
On-board Information (T.Inf2)	It indicates that information on various stoppages along the travel route, real-time vehicle location, navigation till the end stoppage with the estimated time of arrival are available through digital displays inside the IPT mode.	(Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Tarigan et al., 2014)
Cleanliness (Clean)	It indicates that the IPT mode is maintained clean and sanitized regularly.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Rahman, Das, Hadiuzzaman, & Hossain, 2016)
Riding Comfort (Comf)	It indicates the easiness in travel while riding the IPT mode to access the metro stations.	(Javid et al., 2020; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Phun et al., 2018)
Convenience (Conv)	It indicates the suitability and practicality with which users access the metro stations using the IPT mode.	(Javid et al., 2020; Phun et al., 2018)
Frequency (Freq)	It indicates the lapse in time between the availability of two consecutive IPT modes to users at the IPT stop.	(Joewono & Kubota, 2007)
Seat Availability (Seat_Av)	It indicates that adequate seating space is available in the IPT mode for users.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Javid et al., 2020; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Rahman et al., 2016)
Luggage Space (Lugg_Sp)	It indicates that sufficient space is available for users to keep their luggage in the IPT mode.	(Joewono & Kubota, 2007)
Accessibility in Bad Weather (Bad_Wea)	It indicates Ease of accessing and traveling in the access mode during bad weather conditions	Contextual
Universal Design Considerations (Unv_Des)	It indicates Availability of all suitable facilities in the access mode for comfortable use by all user groups, including infants, aged, expecting ladies and differently-abled people	(Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs Government of India, 2021; Ministry of Urban Development [MoUD], 2014)
Safety (Saf)	It indicates that safety of users is ensured while traveling in IPT modes against challenging traffic conditions.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Harding et al., 2016; Javid et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2016)
Security (Sec)	It indicates that security of users against theft and violent activities is ensured at the IPT stop and inside the IPT mode.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Rahman et al., 2016)
Access Time (At)	It indicates the time taken by users in walking from home until reaching the point of boarding the IPT mode.	(Gadepalli, Tiwari, & Bolia, 2020; Goel & Tiwari, 2016; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Wen, Wang, & Fu, 2012)
Waiting Time (Wt)	It indicates the time passed while waiting for the IPT mode at the stop/boarding point.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Gadepalli et al., 2020; Joewono & Kubota, 2007; Wen et al., 2012)
Egress Time (Et)	It indicates the time spent by users in reaching inside the metro stations after getting out of the IPT mode.	(Gadepalli et al., 2020; Goel & Tiwari, 2016)
In-Vehicle Travel Time (IVTt)	It indicates the time spent by the users in the IPT mode while accessing the metro stations.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Gadepalli et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2016; Yang, Zhao, Wang, Liu, & Li, 2015)
Travel Fare (Far)	It indicates the cost of using the IPT mode to access the metro stations.	(Chowdhury et al., 2018; Javid et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2016; Wen et al., 2012)
Travel Incentives (Incen)	It indicates the enticements offered by government on using IPT modes for accessing metro stations to promote IPT mode ridership.	(Yang et al., 2015)

Figure 1. Frequency composition of perceived importance of respondents toward IPT service quality attributes.

Figure 2. Descriptive statistics of survey respondents.

Table 2. Importance-based attribute prioritization using RIDIT.

Reference data
Attributes	(0)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	Total respondents
T.Inf1	5	34	163	281	199	419	1101
T.Inf2	3	40	144	246	224	444	1101
Clean	0	1	9	138	198	755	1101
Comf	2	3	14	186	289	607	1101
Conv	1	3	11	178	304	604	1101
Freq	2	3	21	267	246	562	1101
Seat_Av	0	1	24	125	220	731	1101
Lugg_Sp	2	5	25	253	289	527	1101
Bad_Wea	0	1	6	115	157	822	1101
Unv_Des	0	9	29	96	103	864	1101
Saf	0	1	10	62	130	898	1101
Sec	0	1	6	60	144	890	1101
At	1	1	29	191	391	488	1101
Wt	0	2	25	251	335	488	1101
Et	0	4	17	254	334	492	1101
IVTt	0	1	13	199	322	566	1101
Far	0	10	36	138	160	757	1101
Incen	9	34	96	238	254	470	1101
Frequency (fj)	25	154	678	3278	4299	11384	19818
0.5 fj	12.5	77	339	1639	2149.5	5692
Fj	12.5	102	518	2496	6284.5	24518
Rj	0.0006	0.0051	0.0261	0.1259	0.3171	1.2372

Table

Comparison data
Attributes	(0)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	RIDIT score (ρi)	Rank
T.Inf1	2.9E-06	0.0002	0.0039	0.0321	0.0573	0.4708	0.5643	18
T.Inf2	1.7E-06	0.0002	0.0034	0.0281	0.0645	0.4989	0.5952	17
Clean	0	4.7E-06	0.0002	0.0158	0.0570	0.8484	0.9214	5
Comf	1.1E-06	1.4E-05	0.0003	0.0213	0.0832	0.6821	0.7869	8
Conv	5.7E-07	1.4E-05	0.0003	0.0204	0.0876	0.6787	0.7868	9
Freq	1.1E-06	1.4E-05	0.0005	0.0305	0.0709	0.6315	0.7334	11
Seat_Av	0	4.7E-06	0.0006	0.0143	0.0634	0.8214	0.8996	7
Lugg_Sp	1.1E-06	2.3E-05	0.0006	0.0289	0.0832	0.5922	0.7050	12
Bad_Wea	0	4.7E-06	0.0001	0.0132	0.0452	0.9237	0.9822	4
Unv_Des	0	4.2E-05	0.0007	0.0110	0.0297	0.9708	1.0122	3
Saf	0	4.7E-06	0.0002	0.0071	0.0374	1.0091	1.0538	1
Sec	0	4.7E-06	0.0001	0.0069	0.0415	1.0001	1.0485	2
At	5.7E-07	4.7E-06	0.0007	0.0218	0.1126	0.5483	0.6835	13
Wt	0	9.3E-06	0.0006	0.0287	0.0965	0.5483	0.6742	15
Et	0	1.9E-05	0.0004	0.0291	0.0962	0.5528	0.6785	14
IVTt	0	4.7E-06	0.0003	0.0228	0.0927	0.6360	0.7518	10
Far	0	4.7E-05	0.0009	0.0158	0.0461	0.8506	0.9134	6
Incen	5.2E-06	0.00016	0.0023	0.0272	0.0732	0.5281	0.6309	16
Kruskal-Wallis Value (W) = 27235.76; Chi-Squared Value χ^2(18-1) = 27.587 at 0.05 significance level

Note: Higher the RIDIT Score, higher is the Rank. Numbers in brackets () indicate the importance levels of respondents on a 0–5 scale; 0 implies not important, and 5 implies extremely important.

Table 3. Importance-based attribute importance using GRA.

Attributes	Smax	Smin	dmax	dmin	Average grey score	Rank
T.Inf1	5	0	5	0	0.7321	18
T.Inf2	5	0	5	0	0.7471	17
Clean	5	1	4	0	0.8879	5
Comf	5	0	5	0	0.8401	9
Conv	5	0	5	0	0.8415	8
Freq	5	0	5	0	0.8151	11
Seat_Av	5	1	4	0	0.8800	6
Lugg_Sp	5	0	5	0	0.8065	12
Bad_Wea	5	1	4	0	0.9093	4
Unv_Des	5	1	4	0	0.9151	3
Saf	5	1	4	0	0.9357	1
Sec	5	1	4	0	0.9349	2
At	5	0	5	0	0.8059	13
Wt	5	1	4	0	0.7982	15
Et	5	1	4	0	0.8001	14
IVTt	5	1	4	0	0.8291	10
Far	5	1	4	0	0.8793	7
Incen	5	0	5	0	0.7660	16

Note: Higher the average gray score, higher is the rank.

Table 4. User stated importance-based attribute prioritization using TOPSIS.

Attributes	Si^+	Si^–	Cj*	Rank
T.Inf1	0.1651	0.1688	0.5057	17
T.Inf2	0.1527	0.1855	0.5485	16
Clean	0.0351	0.2897	0.8919	2
Comf	0.0461	0.2581	0.8486	9
Conv	0.0363	0.2651	0.8796	7
Freq	0.0604	0.2496	0.8052	15
Seat_Av	0.0336	0.2843	0.8944	1
Lugg_Sp	0.0582	0.2431	0.8068	14
Bad_Wea	0.0384	0.2975	0.8856	4
Unv_Des	0.0523	0.2908	0.8475	10
Saf	0.0408	0.3055	0.8821	5
Sec	0.0385	0.3057	0.8880	3
At	0.0419	0.2509	0.8569	8
Wt	0.0483	0.2561	0.8413	13
Et	0.0481	0.2566	0.8420	12
IVTt	0.0363	0.2691	0.8810	6
Far	0.0506	0.2765	0.8454	11
Incen	0.1752	0.1747	0.4994	18

Note: Higher the TOPSIS score (C_j*), higher is the rank.

Table 5. Results of Spearman’s rank order correlation analysis.

		RIDIT	GRA	TOPSIS
RIDIT	ρ	1.000	.996**	.777**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000	0.000
	N	18	18	18
GRA	ρ	.996**	1.000	.802**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000		0.000
	N	18	18	18
TOPSIS	Ρ	.777**	.802**	1.000
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000
	N	18	18	18

Kar, M., Sadhukhan, S., & Parida, M. (2022b). Assessing commuters’ perceptions towards improvement of intermediate public transport as access modes to metro stations. Transport Policy, 129, 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.10.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9119-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tarigan, A. K. M., Susilo, Y. O., & Joewono, T. B. (2014). Segmentation of paratransit users based on service quality and travel behaviour in Bandung, Indonesia. Transportation Planning and Technology, 37(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.870792

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chowdhury, T. D., Uddin, M. S., Datta, D., & Taraz, M. A. K. (2018). Identifying important features of paratransit modes in Sylhet City, Bangladesh: A case study based on travelers perception. Civil Engineering Journal, 4(4), 796–811. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-0309134?

 Google Scholar

Rahman, F., Das, T., Hadiuzzaman, M., & Hossain, S. (2016). Perceived service quality of paratransit in developing countries : A structural equation approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 93, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Javid, M. A., Hussain, S., & Anwaar, M. F. (2020). Passenger’s perceptions on prospects of Qingqi paratransit public transport service in Lahore. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44(1), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00273-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phun, V. K., Kato, H., & Yai, T. (2018). Traffic risk perception and behavioral intentions of paratransit users in Phnom Penh. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Government of India. (2021). Harmonised guidelines & standards for universal accessibility in India 2021.

 Google Scholar

Ministry of Urban Development. (2014). National Urban Transport Policy. Govt. of India.

 Google Scholar

Harding, S. E., Badami, M. G., Reynolds, C. C. O., & Kandlikar, M. (2016). Auto-rickshaws in Indian cities: Public perceptions and operational realities. Transport Policy, 52, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gadepalli, R., Tiwari, G., & Bolia, N. (2020). Role of user’s socio-economic and travel characteristics in mode choice between city bus and informal transit services: Lessons from household surveys in Visakhapatnam, India. Journal of Transport Geography, 88, 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.08.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goel, R., & Tiwari, G. (2016). Access-egress and other travel characteristics of metro users in Delhi and its satellite cities. IATSS Research, 39(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2015.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wen, C. H., Wang, W. C., & Fu, C. (2012). Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(2), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.09.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yang, M., Zhao, J., Wang, W., Liu, Z., & Li, Z. (2015). metro commuters’ satisfaction in multi-type access and egress transferring groups. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 34, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.11.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request.