Enhancing urban mobility: comparative analysis of improvement priorities for conventional and electric buses in Kathmandu city

Figures & data

Table 1. Factor examined based on the SQ of buses.

Authors	Mode	Attributes analysed	Critical attributes	Approach
Eboli and Mazzulla (2007)	Bus service in University of Calabria	Four attributes (service planning & reliability, comfort & other factors, network design, safety and cleanliness)	Service planning & reliability	Structural equation modelling (SEM)
De Oña et al. (2012)	Granada metropolitan bus transit system	Twelve attributes (safety, information, security, punctuality, fare, cleanliness, temperature, space, proximity, frequency, courtesy and accessibility)	Frequency (pre-evaluation) and proximity, safety and speed (post-evaluation)	CART (classification and regression tree) model
De Oña et al. (2013)	Transport consortium of Granada (Spain)	Twelve attributes (punctuality, speed, proximity, fare, cleanliness, space, temperature, information, safety, courtesy and accessibility)	Service, cleanliness and others (information, safety, accessibility, courtesy)	Structural equation modelling
Deb and Ali Ahmed (2018)	Service quality of bus in Agartala City, India	Sixteen attributes (safety, cleanliness, comfortability, Overcrowding, frequency, fare, speed, Journey time, waiting time, punctuality, cleanliness, information, accessibility, space, courtesy)	Safety, comfort, accessibility and timely performance	Linear regression and structural equation modelling
Das and Pandit (2013)	Service quality of bus transit, Kolkata, India	Twenty-four attributes (proximity, pedestrian quality, feeder service, service hour, waiting time, headway of service, delay time, transfer distance, crowding level, route and network information, arrival and departure time, fare amount, safety, security, comfort)	Access, transfer, crowdedness, personnel, information, fare system and others	Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Wong et al. (2017)	Level of satisfaction of public transport buses in high density city, Hongkong	Nine attributes (seat availability, travel stability, waiting time, driver’s attitude, Ease of boarding and alighting, Internal temperature, walking distance to bus stop, travel time and condition of stations.	Seat availability, condition of station, driver’s attitude, ease of boarding and alighting,	Ordered logit model
Sam et al. (2018)	Bus service quality in Kumasi	Nine attributes (security, comfort, cleanliness frequency, travel time, reliability, punctuality, waiting time and network coverage)	service reliability and responsiveness	SERVQUAL methodology
Morton et al. (2016)	Bus transit, Scotland	Nine attributes (frequency, punctuality, reliability, cleanliness, availability, comfort, security, information and accessibility)	Frequency, security, comfort, reliability and cleanliness	Structural equation model

Figure 1. Study area map (a) administrative boundary of Nepal, (b) Kathmandu valley area, (c) survey area with bus routes of conventional buses and (d) survey area with bus routes of electric buses.

Table 2. Descriptive analyses and performance strength of attributes of service quality (rating of satisfaction).

Notation	Service quality attributes (evaluated on five-point Likert scale)	Conventional buses					Electric buses
		Mean (perf. score)	Std. dev.	Min.	Max.	Performance strength	Mean (perf. score)	Std. dev.	Min.	Max.	Performance strength
SQ1	Frequency	3.73	0.739	1	5	Strong	2.75	1.143	1	4	Weak
SQ2	Network coverage	3.28	0.706	1	5	Strong	2.66	0.882	1	4	Weak
SQ3	Convenient bus stop accessibility	2.97	0.737	1	4	Weak	3.06	0.672	1	4	Weak
SQ4	Availability of walking infrastructure	3.10	0.830	1	5	Strong	3.02	0.974	1	5	Weak
SQ5	Availability of travel-related information at bus	2.15	0.783	1	5	Weak	2.16	0.794	1	5	Weak
SQ6	Real time information inside bus	1.99	0.919	1	4	Weak	3.36	1.101	1	5	Strong
SQ7	Information available at other communication technologies (application)	2.38	1.101	1	5	Weak	3.03	1.383	1	5	Weak
SQ8	Punctuality	2.97	0.962	1	5	Weak	3.19	0.824	1	5	Weak
SQ9	Regularity	4.00	0.823	1	5	Strong	4.08	0.798	1	5	Strong
SQ10	Passenger waiting time	3.04	0.719	1	5	Strong	3.08	0.689	1	5	Weak
SQ11	Journey time	2.89	0.847	1	5	Weak	2.86	0.838	1	5	Weak
SQ12	Driver/conductor attitude	3.30	0.812	1	5	Strong	3.50	0.928	1	5	Strong
SQ13	Level of comfort	3.11	0.769	1	5	Strong	3.27	1.036	1	5	Strong
SQ14	Comfort while alighting and boarding	3.12	0.800	1	5	Strong	3.51	0.930	1	5	Strong
SQ15	Cleanliness	2.95	0.794	1	4	Weak	3.45	1.107	2	5	Strong
SQ16	Seat availability/maintenance at bus stop	3.40	0.853	1	5	Strong	3.50	1.038	1	5	Strong
SQ17	Conditions	2.76	0.919	1	4	Weak	3.49	0.968	1	5	Strong
SQ18	Shelter availability at bus stop	2.67	0.738	1	4	Weak	2.71	0.705	1	4	Weak
SQ19	Security against crimes/ thefts	2.79	0.902	1	5	Weak	3.45	0.943	1	5	Strong
SQ20	Lighting inside bus	3.55	0.817	1	5	Strong	3.90	0.987	2	5	Strong
SQ21	Lighting at bus stop	2.59	0.711	1	5	Weak	3.19	0.961	1	5	Weak
SQ22	Security to women against harassment	2.70	1.017	1	5	Weak	3.59	1.027	1	5	Strong
	Average reference score	2.97					3.24
OS	Overall satisfaction (after evaluation)	2.99	0.806	1	5		3.51	0.796	1	5

Note: Perf. score: performance score; std. dev: standard deviation; Min.: minimum; max.: maximum.

Figure 2. Overview of socio-demographic and trip characteristics.

Figure 3. Methodology flow chart: (a) determination of performance strength of attributes; (b) determination of important attributes of SQ by OLR and RF approaches and (c) illustration of three factor theory (TFT).

Table 3. Recoding strategies for five-point Likert scale.

Original rating in survey	Coding for high performance dummy variables	Coding for low performance dummy variables
Worst (1)	0	1
Poor (2)	0	1
Neutral (3)	0	0
Good (4)	1	0
Excellent (5)	1	0

Table 4. Ordinal logistic regression results for conventional buses and electric buses.

Attributes	Notation	High-performance		Low-performance
		Coefficient	p Value	Coefficient	p Value
Conventional buses
Frequency	SQ1	0.36	.198	0.56	.233
Network coverage	SQ2	0.57	.026*	0.25	.505
Convenient bus stop accessibility	SQ3	0.22	.399	0.20	.477
Availability of walking infrastructure	SQ4	−0.28	.261	0.56	.043*
Availability of travel-related information at bus	SQ5	0.29	.48	0.93	.017*
Real time information inside bus	SQ6	−0.04	.922	0.10	.812
Information available at other communication technologies	SQ7	0.91	.004*	0.94	.015*
Punctuality	SQ8	0.46	.103	0.22	.368
Regularity	SQ9	0.47	.186	−0.29	.543
Passenger waiting time	SQ10	0.41	.094	−0.00	.99
Journey time	SQ11	0.60	.018*	0.46	.066
Driver/conductor attitude	SQ12	0.12	.661	0.76	.012*
Level of comfort	SQ13	0.09	.704	−0.04	.871
Comfort while alighting and boarding	SQ14	0.26	.288	0.02	.93
Cleanliness	SQ15	0.20	.419	0.33	.185
Seat availability/maintenance at bus stop	SQ16	0.18	.532	0.19	.558
Conditions	SQ17	−0.003	.989	0.15	.535
Shelter availability at bus stop	SQ18	0.20	.517	−0.0	.722
Security against crimes/ thefts	SQ19	0.14	.595	0.27	.269
Lighting inside bus	SQ20	−0.25	.373	0.08	.817
Lighting at bus stop	SQ21	0.13	.703	0.44	.083
Security to women against harassment	SQ22	0.75	.008*	0.50	.075
Electric buses
Frequency	SQ1	−0.43	.124	0.36	.343
Network coverage	SQ2	−0.46	.197	0.31	.408
Convenient bus stop accessibility	SQ3	0.38	.249	0.40	.425
Availability of walking infrastructure	SQ4	0.54	.103	0.93	.031
Availability of travel-related information at bus	SQ5	−0.39	.456	−0.96	.057
Real time information inside bus	SQ6	0.57	.073	0.54	.188
Information available at other communication technologies	SQ7	0.20	.465	0.24	.522
Punctuality	SQ8	0.37	.221	−0.57	.269
Regularity	SQ9	0.39	.315	−0.23	.759
Passenger waiting time	SQ10	−0.14	.661	−0.70	.209
Journey time	SQ11	0.18	.6	0.70	.101
Driver/conductor attitude	SQ12	0.28	.39	0.44	.335
Level of comfort	SQ13	0.58	.074	1.89	.001*
Comfort while alighting and boarding	SQ14	1.23	.001*	1.03	.038*
Cleanliness	SQ15	−0.37	.176	−0.20	.634
Seat availability/maintenance at bus stop	SQ16	0.45	.241	0.43	.38
Conditions	SQ17	0.38	.307	0.38	.433
Shelter availability at bus stop	SQ18	0.39	.354	−0.20	.604
Security against crimes/ thefts	SQ19	−0.22	.468	0.044	.933
Lighting inside bus	SQ20	0.10	.755	−0.44	.343
Lighting at bus stop	SQ21	0.23	.417	0.16	.714
Security to women against harassment	SQ22	0.6	.023*	0.5	.27

*p value <0.05.

Figure 4. Random forest results for electric buses.

Figure 5. Random forest results for conventional buses.

Table 5. Rules for determining the ranking of attributes which affect overall satisfaction.

Performance Type	Importance Type	Priority Ranking
Weak	Basic	1
Weak	Performance	1
Strong	Exciting	2
Strong	Performance	2
Weak	Exciting	3
Strong	Performance	4
Weak	Unimportant	5
Strong	Unimportant	5

Table 6. Importance type of each type of service quality attributes.

	Conventional buses					Electric buses
	Low performance		High performance		Overall importance type	Low performance part		High performance part		Overall importance type
Variables name	OLR	RF	OLR	RF		OLR	RF	OLR	RF
Frequency (SQ1)		0		17.16	Unimportant		26.13		26.80	Performance
Network coverage (SQ2)		6.54	*	29.28	Exciting		12.44		28.23	Exciting
Convenient bus stop accessibility (SQ3)		8.71		19.27	Unimportant		17.63		10.36	Important
Availability of walking infrastructure (SQ4)	*	10.79		24.02	Performance	*	21.46		26.69	Performance
Availability of travel-related information at bus (SQ5)	*	14.98		5.35	Basic		12.03		28.93	Exciting
Real time information inside bus (SQ6)		17.87		0	Basic		24.10		18.24	Basic
Information available at other communication technologies (SQ7)	*	100	*	100	Performance		21.56		20.81	Basic
Punctuality (SQ8)		16.84		49.41	Performance		21.73		22.23	Basic
Regularity (SQ9)		0.30		14.65	Unimportant		2.44		10.46	Unimportant
Passenger waiting time (SQ10)		9.27		21.48	Unimportant		5.57		11.96	Unimportant
Journey time (SQ11)		5.61	*	35.31	Exciting		29.92		13.43	Basic
Driver/conductor attitude (SQ12)	*	14.13		23.39	Basic		26.10		25.98	Performance
Level of comfort (SQ13)		6.675		25.53	Exciting	*	100		29.18	Performance
Comfort while alighting and boarding (SQ14)		13.63		23.99	Exciting	*	71.90	*	87.45	Performance
Cleanliness (SQ15)		11.35		25.33	Exciting		8.9		17.00	Unimportant
Seat availability/maintenance at bus stop (S16)		7.09		16.76	Unimportant		18.20		100	Exciting
ConditionsSQ17)		14.38		15.66	Unimportant		18.36		7.72	Unimportant
Shelter availability at bus stop (SQ18)		11.72		11.64	Unimportant		12.18		5.27	Unimportant
Security against crimes/ thefts (SQ19)		13.44		10.42	Unimportant		23.76		15.50	Basic
Lighting inside bus (SQ20)		2.72		20.63	Unimportant		4.50		14.48	Unimportant
Lighting at bus stop (SQ21)		15.11		10.68	Basic		13.17		15.66	Unimportant
Security to women against harassment (SQ22)		21.20	*	26.78	Performance		4.61	*	33.89	Exciting
Average RF importance score (reference)		14.65		23.94			22.58		25.92

Notes: The columns labelled “OLR” provide information on the statistical significance of the coefficients of the indicators in the OLR model. The statistical significance levels are *p < .05. The “RF” columns display the RF importance scores. The usage of bold type denotes significance in the RF prediction, indicating that the RF score for a particular attribute is higher than the average RF importance score.

Table 7. Improvement priority of different service quality attributes.

	Conventional buses			Electric buses
Variables name	Performance level	Comprehensive importance type	Improvement priority	Performance level	Comprehensive importance type	Improvement priority
Frequency (SQ1)	Strong	Unimportant	5	Weak	Performance	1
Network coverage (SQ2)	Strong	Exciting	2	Weak	Exciting	3
Convenient bus stop accessibility (SQ3)	Weak	Unimportant	5	Weak	Important	5
Availability of walking infrastructure (SQ4)	Strong	Performance	2	Weak	Performance	1
Availability of travel-related information at bus stop (SQ5)	Weak	Basic	1	Weak	Exciting	3
Real time information inside bus (SQ6)	Weak	Basic	1	Strong	Basic	4
Information available at other communication technologies (SQ7)	Weak	Performance	1	Weak	Basic	1
Punctuality (SQ8)	Weak	Performance	1	Weak	Basic	1
Regularity (SQ9)	Strong	Unimportant	5	Strong	Unimportant	5
Passenger waiting time (SQ10)	Strong	Unimportant	5	Weak	Unimportant	5
Journey time (SQ11)	Weak	Exciting	3	Weak	Basic	1
Driver/conductor attitude (SQ12)	Strong	Basic	4	Strong	Performance	2
Level of comfort (SQ13)	Strong	Exciting	2	Strong	Performance	2
Comfort while alighting and boarding (SQ14)	Strong	Exciting	2	Strong	Performance	2
Cleanliness (15)	Weak	Exciting	3	Strong	Unimportant	5
Seat availability/maintenance at bus stop (SQ16)	Strong	Unimportant	5	Strong	Exciting	2
Conditions (SQ17)	Weak	Unimportant	5	Strong	Unimportant	5
Shelter availability at bus stop (SQ18)	Weak	Unimportant	5	Weak	Unimportant	5
Security against crimes/ thefts (SQ19)	Weak	Unimportant	1	Strong	Basic	4
Lighting inside bus (SQ20)	Strong	Unimportant	5	Strong	Unimportant	5
Lighting at bus stop (SQ21)	Weak	Basic	1	Weak	Unimportant	5
Security to women against harassment (SQ22)	Weak	Performance	1	Strong	Exciting	2

Table A1. ANOVA test for conventional buses.

Category	Sub-category	Dependent variable	Mean	St. dev.	F-value	Sig. (p value)
Gender	Male	SQ5	2.17	0.82	0.54	.46
	Female		2.12	0.73
	Male	SQ6	2.12	0.94	14.10	<.00
	Female		1.82	0.86
	Male	SQ7	2.53	1.15	11.60	<.00
	Female		2.20	1.01
	Male	SQ8	3.03	0.99	3.35	.07
	Female		2.89	0.92
	Male	SQ19	2.82	0.94	0.69	.41
	Female		2.75	0.85
	Male	SQ21	2.64	0.73	3.11	.08
	Female		2.53	0.68
	Male	SQ22	2.77	1.04	3.44	.06
	Female		2.60	0.97
Age (in years)	15–19	SQ5	2.04	0.88	0.94	0.46
	20–29		2.24	0.89
	30–39		2.14	0.75
	40–49		2.18	0.67
	50–59		2.00	0.73
	60–60		2.00	0.77
	70 and above		2	0.00
	15–19	SQ6	1.94	1.03	0.66	.67
	20–29		2.10	1.01
	30–39		1.97	0.78
	40–49		2.0	0.92
	50–59		1.88	0.88
	60–60		1.73	0.78
	70 and above		2.00	0.00
	15–19	SQ7	2.17	1.14	0.71	.63
	20–29		2.32	1.04
	30–39		2.44	1.11
	40–49		2.46	1.14
	50–59		2.33	1.07
	60–60		2.64	1.12
	70 and above		3.00	–
	15–19	SQ8	3.00	1.04	2.52	.02
	20–29		2.77	0.95
	30–39		2.72	0.95
	40–49		2.98	0.94
	50–59		2.82	0.91
	60–60		2.73	0.80
	70 and above		4.00	0.00
	15–19	SQ19	2.77	0.84	2.03	.06
	20–29		2.66	1.00
	30–39		2.72	0.91
	40–49		2.98	0.82
	50–59		2.82	0.78
	60–60		2.73	0.78
	70 and above		4.00	0.00
	15–19	SQ21	2.49	0.65	1.12	0.34
	20–29		2.67	0.80
	30–39		2.54	0.73
	40–49		2.60	0.63
	50–59		2.51	0.63
	60–60		2.91	0.70
	70 and above		3.00	0.00
	15–19	SQ22	2.34	1.02	2.24	.38
	20–29		2.67	1.12
	30–39		2.73	0.99
	40–49		2.85	0.87
	50–59		2.53	1.05
	60–60		3.00	0.89
	70 and above		4.00	0.00

Table A2. ANOVA test for electric buses.

Category	Sub-category	Dependent variable	Mean	St. dev.	F-value	Sig. (p value)
Gender	Male	SQ1	2.77	1.15	0.15	.69
	Female		2.72	1.12
	Male	SQ4	3.09	0.97	3.13	.07
	Female		2.91	0.96
	Male	SQ7	3.08	1.35	0.56	.45
	Female		2.97	1.43
	Male	SQ8	3.15	0.80	1.12	.29
	Female		3.24	0.85
	Male	SQ11	2.87	0.82	0.31	.57
	Female		2.83	0.86
Age (in years)	15–19	SQ1	2.87	1.10	0.63	.64
	20–29		2.81	1.13
	30–39		2.67	1.12
	40–49		2.58	1.23
	50–59		2.50	1.37
	15–19	SQ4	3.27	1.01	3.12	.01
	20–29		2.88	0.93
	30–39		3.10	1.01
	40–49		3.33	0.94
	50–59		3.50	0.83
	15–19	SQ7	2.77	1.45	0.95	.43
	20–29		3.14	1.35
	30–39		2.88	1.32
	40–49		3.03	1.59
	50–59		3.33	1.63
	15–19	SQ8	3.13	0.86	1.57	.18
	20–29		3.24	0.81
	30–39		3.21	0.83
	40–49		2.90	0.81
	50–59		3.00	0.89
	15–19	SQ11	3.10	0.96	1.44	.22
	20–29		2.78	0.82
	30–39		2.90	0.79
	40–49		2.93	0.85
	50–59		3.17	0.98

Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2007). Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 10(3), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.10.3.2

 Google Scholar

De Oña, J., De Oña, R., & Calvo, F. J. (2012). A classification tree approach to identify key factors of transit service quality. Expert Systems with Applications. 39(12), 11164–11171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deb, S., & Ali Ahmed, M. (2018). Determining the service quality of the city bus service based on users’ perceptions and expectations. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.02.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Das, S., & Pandit, D. (2013). Importance of user perception in evaluating level of service for bus transit for a developing country like India: A review. Transport Reviews, 33(4), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.789571

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wong, R. C. P., Szeto, W. Y., Yang, L., Li, Y. C., & Wong, S. C. (2017). Elderly users’ level of satisfaction with public transport services in a high-density and transit-oriented city. Journal of Transport & Health, 7, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.10.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sam, E. F., Hamidu, O., & Daniels, S. (2018). SERVQUAL analysis of public bus transport services in Kumasi metropolis, Ghana: Core user perspectives. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.12.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morton, C., Caulfield, B., & Anable, J. (2016). Customer perceptions of quality of service in public transport: Evidence for bus transit in Scotland. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(3), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.03.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar