1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Nowadays, public bus operation become important role for providing transport for
commuting people. The bus has become a key player especially in highly populated
urban areas. By providing good public bus systems, cities can reduce congestion
problem that are common in larger cities. For instance, in Malaysia, the Bus Network
Revamp (BNR) was carried out by Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) on 1
December 2015 to improve urban public transport in Greater Kuala Lumpur or Klang
Valley (Land, Transport, Projects, High, & Rail, 2017). Not to mention, Kuala Lumpur
bus service is rather poor compared to other cities around the world before the bus
network revamp and resulting only 16% of the total population in Klang Valley use
public transport (Omnibus et al., 2018). All the existing bus corridors were
reorganised into smaller corridors based on the main trunk roads connecting Kuala
Lumpur’s City Centre. There are 8 stage bus corridors, namely the Ampang Corridor,
Cheras Corridor, Sungai Besi Corridor, Klang Lama Corridor, Lebuhraya Persekutuan
Corridor, Damansara Corridor, Jalan Ipoh Corridor, and Jalan Pahang Corridor.

Moreover, majority of the bus service are operated by private company. Rapid
Bus is the largest operator bus network in Malaysia. The major bus company that
operates in Klang Valley, Puchong, Subang Jaya, Petaling Jaya and Serdang is the
RapidKL. Other operators that serves in that area are Omnibus, Cityliners, Len Seng,
Nadi Putra and Sri Indah. In Shah Alam, Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) provided
free bus service for the locals, which was launch in March 2014 (Ismail, 2018).
 2

In some parts of the world, public transportation, such as buses in urban areas,
is an optional mode to overcome many traffic issues including to reduce congestion, to
increase the coverage of distances and to improve the mobility levels (Abdullah, 2006;
Ismail, Hafezi, Nor, & Ambak, 2012; Jayaraman, Choong, Suan, & Lin, 2011;
Ponnaluri, 2011; Suwardo, Napiah, & Kamaruddin, 2009; Yaakub & Napiah, 2011a,
2011b). However, for some rural populations who are captive to buses, these are the
only access modes to destinations near and far. Whilst many services are provided to
varying degrees in Malaysia, less have been prioritised on ensuring the buses’
integration, coordination and monitoring to reach an efficient level of sustainability
(Hayashi, Doi, Yagishita, & Kuwata, 2004).

From time to time, people demand for fast transportation and high mobility. A
good operational planning is crucial because inner-city public buses networks are
becoming larger. However, many vehicles are still failing to meet their schedules even
when defines the plan is suitable (João, Luís, João Gama, & Jorge, 2015). A reliable
transit system results in less waiting time for passengers, more satisfied customers,
better utilization of vehicles, and thus less operational costs for the operators
(Olafsdottir, 2012). To be successful transit system, transit reliability is the most
important factors for both passengers and operators perspective. With this will affect
the service rating or quality.

So far in West of Selangor, which is no comprehensive study or paper

published on the public bus service. In this thesis, several attributes relating to the
service rating of public buses was identified and an evaluation of the performance and
service quality of the bus service was determined.

1.2 Problem Statement

Census 2010 revealed that the total population of Malaysia was 28.3 million,
compared with 23.3 million in 2000. This gives an average annual population growth
rate of 2.0 per cent for the period 2000-2010. The state with highest growth rate was
W.P Putrajaya and Selangor was second highest. Based on the population distribution,
 3

Selangor was most popular state which 5.46 million (Population Distribution and
Basic Demographic Characteristics, 2010). Meanwhile in term of vehicle registration,
the total number of registered vehicles on Malaysian roads has passed 21.25 million
units. The Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory has the highest number of registrations
with 4,914,992 and Selangor with 2,359,126 vehicles in total (Protoadmin, 2011). The
factor of increasing of vehicle ownership is population growth. Hence, will cause road
congestion, which is one of major problem that locals have to face. Therefore, all the
public transportation facilities need to be fully utilise.

In the West Klang Valley, bus service is the main public transportation systems.
However, a lot of news reports had been published due to poor bus service. The
reason were lacking of resources, which driver and investors due to the routes being
unprofitable. Operator has failed to beef up a crucial aspects of the rail system and
inefficiency of the feeder bus services has turned residents away (Syed Jaymal Zahid,
2016). Therefore, there is a need to study the current public busses in order to provide
a thorough glimpse of its service ratings and performance.

1.3 Objective

The followings are the objectives needed to be achieved to determine the bus service
rating of public buses in West of Klang Valley:

a) To identify the service coverage of the public buses service performance in

West of Klang Valley.
b) To evaluate the on-time performance for public buses service in West of Klang
Valley.
c) To identify the transit auto travel time of the public buses service performance
in West of Klang Valley.

1.4 Scope of Work

The area that was used for this study was located at the West of Klang Valley, which
were included Klang, Shah Alam, Puchong, Subang Jaya, and Petaling Jaya. Shah
Alam is the capital state, Klang was the first city in Selangor, and another major urban
 4

centre is Petaling Jaya. Due to the modernisation, rapid growing happen in the Klang
Valley. The state of Selangor has the largest in economy, population and also the most
developed with good infrastructure for example highways and transport. With
increasing in development, bus operation service is popular mode of transportation
due to its cheaper cost and better coverage of areas compared to other types of public
transportation (Munzillah, Wijeyeseker, & Tarmizi, 2012).

FIGURE 1.1 The study area in West Klang Valley

Bus operator which service covered the West of Klang Valley most commonly
is Rapid Bus. Rapid Bus Sdn Bhd is one of the largest bus operator in Malaysia and
mainly operating in urban areas of Klang Valley, Penang and Kuantan. Rapid Bus also
known Rapid KL, however not the only bus operator in Kuala Lumpur and Klang
Valley. Example Metrobus, Len Seng, Omnibus, and Nadi Putra also serve in Klang
Valley. However, in Shah Alam the public buses was operated by Shah Alam City
Council (MBSA).
 5

Services that provided at West of Klang Valley is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Rapid Bus operates three type of service such as City Shuttles, Trunk Buses, and
Local Shuttles also the Express buses. Rapid Bus has divided up the Klang Valley into
six areas:

TABLE 1.1: Service area of the Bus Rapid Transit

No. Area Service Area

1. Area one Kuala Lumpur City Centre
2. Area Two Kepong, Segambut, Selayang, Batu
Caves, Gombak, Jalan Ipoh and Sentul
3. Area Three Setapak, Wangsa Maju, Ulu Klang,
Setiawangsa, Keramat, Ampang and
Pandan
4. Area Four Cheras, Kajang, Ulu Langat, Putrajaya,
Cyberjaya, Semenyih, Sungai Besi, Seri
Kembangan, Serdang and Balakong
5. Area Five Klang, Shah Alam Selatan, Bandar
Sunway, Subang Jaya, Jalan Klang
Lama and Puchong
6. Area Six Shah Alam Utara, Subang, Damansara,
Petaling Jaya Utara, Bangsar and Kota
Damansara

Other than BRT services, the bus network revamp (BNR) was been introduced
by SPAD. BNR was specifically aims to improve the stage bus service in Kuala
Lumpur and Klang Valley with providing higher bus service frequency that covers a
wider area. Each of the 8 corridors have corresponding operators that run the routes
for that particular sector. The following is a list of operators per Corridor for the
public’s reference when taking the stage bus services in Greater Kuala Lumpur or
Klang Valley:
 6

TABLE 1.2: List of the operators per Corridor and service area.

Corridor Operator Service Area

Jalan Ipoh RapidKL, Selangor Kepong, Segambut, Sentul, Rawang,
Corridor Omnibus, Setara Jaya, Selayang, Sungai Buloh and Gombak
Wawasan Sutera and
Causeway Link
Jalan Pahang RapidKL and Len Seng Jalan Genting Klang, Hulu Klang,
Corridor Gombak, Taman Melawati, Wangsa
Maju, Setapak, Keramat and Semarak
Ampang RapidKL Pandan Mewah, LRT Ampang,
Corridor Ampang Point, Jalan Ampang and
KLCC
Cheras RapidKL, Sri Indah and Kajang, Cheras, Taman Dagang,
Corridor Nadi Putra Taman Maluri, Pandan, Pudu and
Bangi
Sungai Besi RapidKL, Sri Indah and Putrajaya, Serdang, Seri Kembangan,
Corridor Nadi Putra Desa Petaling and Bandar Sungai Long
Jalan Klang RapidKL, Metrobus and Puchong, Klang Lama, Taman Desa,
Lama Corridor Nadi Putra Petaling Jaya Selatan (PJS) and
Subang Jaya
Lebuhraya RapidKL, Cityliner, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Subang
Persekutuan Seranas, Causeway Link Suria, Shah Alam, Alam Megah, Sri
Corridor and Wawasan Sutera Muda, Bandar Klang, Banting, Kuala
Selangor, Meru, Port Klang and
around Klang
Damanasara RapidKL Damansara, Bandar Utama, Tmn Tun
Corridor Dr Ismail, Damansara Utama, Pusat
Bandar Damansara, Kompleks
Kerajaan Jalan Duta, Bangsar, Pantai
Dalam.
 7

FIGURE 1.2: Route map for the Rapid KL.

TABLE 1.3 List of route chosen in West Klang Valley

Operator Location & Route Journey

Route

Rapid KL PUCHONG

• T600 LRT IOI Puchong – Tmn Wawasan

• T604 LRT Perindustrian Puchong – LRT Pusat

Bandar Puchong

• T605 LRT Bandar Puteri – Puchong Hartamas

SUBANG JAYA

• T776 LRT USJ 7 – Subang Mewah

 8

• T777 LRT Taipan – Taipan US 10

• T778 LRT USJ 21 – One City USJ 23

SHAH ALAM

• T757 LRT Alam Megah – Seksyen 2

• T758 LRT Subang Alam – Alam Megah

SMART SHAH ALAM

Selangor
• SA01 KTM Seksyen 19 – Seksyen 7

KLANG

• KLG01 Bandar Klang – Hospital TAR

• KLG02 SRJKC Kong Hoe – Tmn Sri Pekan

PJ City Bus PETALING JAYA

• PJ02 LRT Taman Jaya – SS2

• PJ03 LRT Taman Bahagia – SS6 Kelana

• PJ04 LRT Taman Bahagia – Kg. Tunku – SS2

Seranas KLANG

• 704 Klang Seranas Bus Terminal – Meru Town

Table 1.3 is shown the route and bus operator that has be chosen for this study.
Each of the location, three routes were chosen. For example in Puchong, the route
were T600, T604 and T605 chosen. As for Subang Jaya, route T776, T777 and T778
 9

were chosen. In Petaling Jaya routes PJ02, PJ03 and PJ04. Next in Shah Alam, routes
T757, T758 and SA01. Lastly in Klang, routes KLG01, KLG02 and 704 were chosen.

Rapid Bus Sdn Bhd is the largest bus operator in Malaysia operating mainly in
urban areas of Klang Valley, Penang and Kuantan. As of 2011, Rapid KL service
brands unit of Rapid Bus, has operates 167 routes with 1,400 buses covering 980
residential areas with a ridership of about 400,000 per day. For this study, routes
T600, T604, T605, T776, T777, T778, T757 and T758 were chosen.

FIGURE 1.3 Rapid KL bus

Bas Selangorku is a free bus service implemented by the Selangor government.

In order to improve the transport system in the state of Selangor, the Selangor State
Government has been providing free bus service to the 3 local authorities Selangor
State Shah Alam City Council (MBSA), Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) and
the Klang Municipal Council (MPK). As for Petaling Jaya, the bus named PJ City Bus
but still it under the same operator. The chosen route were SA01 which is under Shah
Alam while in Petaling Jaya, PJ02, PJ03 and PJ04 were chosen for this study. For
Klang, route KLG01 and KLG02 were chosen.
 10

FIGURE 1.4 Bus Smart Selangorku

FIGURE 1.5 PJ City Bus

Seranas is one of the oldest bus operator in Malaysia. It has Stop Station Bus
are fully air-conditioned with 40 seaters. The bus terminal Seranas were located in
Klang. The route that chosen for this study is 704.
 11

FIGURE 1.6 Seranas bus

1.5 Thesis Outline

In this thesis, a total of five (5) chapters was outlined and discussed thoroughly. The
followings are the explanation of each chapters.

Chapter 1 – Introduction: In this chapter, a background introduction on the

problems or current issues regarding buses were discussed. A problem statement was
then determined which was the main issue that needs to be addressed. Therefore, an
objective of the study was finalized. Lastly, a brief discussion on the scope of work
was explained.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review: A summary, description and evaluation of past

research that were related to the scope of study was included in this chapter. All of
these research papers were used as reference in regards to the methodology of this
thesis.

Chapter 3 – Methodology: In this chapter, a detailed explanation of the method,

procedure and instrumentation used to conduct this study presented.
 12

Chapter 4 – Results and Analysis: In this chapter, the results obtained from the field
was tabulated, calculated and analysed. Hence, all the findings were discussed
thoroughly.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendation: A final judgement was concluded

alongside with recommendations for the study.
 13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

One of important key as development country were having good quality of transit
services. Transit service or bus service such as rapid bus is one of the main public
transport services in Malaysia especially in West Klang Valley. The definition of bus
service according to Transport Safety Victoria, the legal meaning of bus service is the
operation of one or more buses that ferries passengers (Transport Safety Victoria,
2016). In Malaysia, public bus services are mainly chosen by the public because of its
low fare and wider coverage as compared to rail or air travel modes. Most public bus
services in Malaysia are fully operated by private bus companies. On the other hand,
the government also assist these companies by providing bus terminals and also
subsiding the fuel (Md.Rohani, Devapriya Chitral Wijeyesekera, & Ahmad Tarmizi
Abd. Karim, 2013).

Buses represent the most broadly utilized transit technology. Essentially each
city in the world that has transit service, operates buses. Huge cities with rail transit
too work broad transport systems, as a rule on lines with lower traveler volumes or as
feeders to rail lines. Bus service is simple to present or adjust: essential benefit
requires only purchase of vehicles, carport and maintenance facilities, and
organization of service. Stops along the lines can be basic. Subsequently, buses
represent the most economical transit mode for lightly traveled lines. This adaptability
of bus routes is an advantage for any necessary changes, but it is a disadvantage for
major bus lines: they need permanence, effectiveness in carrying heavy passenger
volumes, and image of permanent, physically fixed routes wanted by passengers
(Vuchic, 1981).
 14

Public bus services are popular, reasonable and widely operated public
transportation mode in many cities and rural areas around the world especially
Malaysia. A profitable and efficient bus service is vital to reinforce the economic
productivity, increment of population and the expansion of the urban and rural
activities (Bachok, Osman, & Ponrahono, 2014). Besides that, a public bus service
have to go thorough accessibility that gives a reliable, safe, intelligent, convenient and
effective transportation system (Amiril, Nawawi, Takim, & Latif, 2014).

Majority of the riders in Kuala Lumpur were rely on public transport to travel
from destination to another destination in the city due to heavy traffic and congested
road in Kuala Lumpur. However, there are some tourist attraction places such as
Titiwangsa Lake has no availability pf public transport (Mokhtar, Saritha, Nazirah, &
Abd Manan, 2015). Therefore, transit agencies need to monitored and improve the
public transit to fulfil the rider’s requirement.

Public bus is a considerable alternative because it affordable and comfortable

“people – mover” to facilitate travels within towns and districts. The public bus
service has wide destination area of coverage and the all the routes were well –
planned and organized. The example of good public bus service are Rapid KL and
Rapid Penang (Yaakub & Napiah, 2011).

Public bus operation also play vital role to provide transport to commuting
passenger. Bus services are provided by different bus operator with their specific
aims. The commercial bus companies need to make a profit from the bus service.
Different from the funded bus service, which fulfil a social need of the community. In
some cases, the buses were operated under management with multiple of agencies. For
example, bus service for student and staff, which also known as University Bus Link
that offered by the University of Southampton with Blues Star partnership services.
The bus route connects the airport, campus, hospital, railway station and the city
centre of Southampton. University Bus Link or Uni – Link provide services to the
public (Rohani, Wijeyesekera, & Karim, 2013).
 15

Bus service quality is an important concern for allocating resources among

competing operators. Performance measurement play big role for assessing
management performance of the transit service in relation to community expectations,
which is assessing management problems regarding costs of service, and as
monitoring tool for improving the service. Moreover, measure performance allows the
behaviour of organizations to be compared over time and across space. A transit were
measured as quantitative or qualitative factor used to evaluate a particular aspect of
transit service (Noor, Nasrudin, & Foo, 2014).

Bus quality service also can be defined using various attributes that covers
such as service coverage, frequency of the service, hours of services, and service
reliability. Each operators will conduct customer satisfaction survey and expectation
surveys to measure the quality service. From the survey, after evaluate all the survey,
any lack in the bus service or the bus performance can be determined and improved
(Rohani et al., 2013).

Service quality is a subject that has aroused considerable interest both in

academic investigate and in public and private service sectors, where managers are
slanted towards customer-focused service and persistent performance enhancement.
Particularly in public transport, service quality is a matter of the greatest importance
since an enhancement of quality levels can draw in encourage users. An increment in
public transport utilize, with a concurrent diminishment in the utilize of the private
car, could help to diminish numerous issues like traffic congestion, air and noise
pollution, and energy consumption (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2008).

Quality of service based on the Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual
(TCQSM) is the generally measured or perceived performance of transit service from
the passenger’s point of view (Capacity, 2003). Table 2.1 displayed the quality of
service framework for fixed-route transit as the measures of characterizing the travel
performance.
 16

TABLE 2.1 Quality of Service Framework

Service Measures
Transit Stop Route Segment System
Availability Frequency Hours of service Service Coverage
Comfort and Passenger Load Reliability Transit – Auto
Convenience Travel Time

Under the level of service (LOS) concept, performance measure is separated

into six ranges from A (highest quality) to F (least quality). Level of service of bus
service ordinarily reflects passenger’s point of view, not from operator’s point of
view. The quality of service measure reflects the choice a potential passenger make
whether to use the transit service or not. It is fundamental to evaluate the passenger’s
perception on the public transport service in order to uncover the attractiveness and of
the service in terms of availability and comfort and convenience (passenger’s
satisfaction). Low quality of service comes about in bother for users, hence decrease
the benefit competitiveness against private vehicle utilize (Yaakub & Napiah, 2011).

This chapter present the theory and methodology that are related to determine
the service rating public buses, which is focussing on service coverage, on – time
performance and auto transit travel time. The chapter was divided into categories
starting review in Malaysia, and from a few countries worldwide.

2.2 Service Coverage

Measuring ease of access to transit services is crucial in evaluating existing services,

predicting travel demands, allocating transport investments, and making decisions on
land development. In literature, transit access is thought to have three main
components which is travel coverage, spatial coverage, and temporary coverage (Al
Mamun & Lownes, 2011).

Travel coverage means is that travellers would considering public transit as accessible
when it is available to and from their trip origins or destinations. Spatial coverage
 17

refers as transit accessibility if the service is available within the reasonable physical
proximity to traveller home or destination. As for temporal coverage, a service is
accessible when it is available at the times that one wants to travel. Accordingly there
is a need to assess and quantify public transit access considering the three aspects of
public transit accessibility along with comfort (Eboli, Forciniti, & Mazzulla, 2014).

2.2.1 Studies Conducted in Malaysia

Service coverage depends on choice of public transport as a preferred mode of

travel in the city is mainly influenced by quality of bus operation services. Previously,
users were satisfied with basic services and the availability of the routes and the
location of service. However, transit users today more demanding from the bus
providers including fast and reliable service, shorter walking distance to stops, low
floor buses, cheaper services and friendly safe driver (Rohani et al., 2013).

Acceptable walking distance for a potential passenger from a bus stop is 400
meters as defined by the TCQSM, and 800 meter from the bus station. Any area inside
400 meters of the course length is also considered service area of the bus. In this
manner, an area of 400 meters radius from a bus stop is considered satisfactory for a
passenger to access the bus course, or also called service coverage area. In Kota
Bharu, the normal distance of a bus stop (assigned and undesignated) is 200 meters.
This implies that the length along the course can be considered the point of radius for
service coverage area (Yaakub & Napiah, 2011).

Other than that, geographical factor also affecting the service coverage.
Geographical factors such as population, environmental, economics and culture are
among the factors that influence the bus operation service provided. The types and
features of bus service depend on the location which is different in coverage routes,
fare system and fleet depend on the local needs (Ponrahono, Bachok, Ibrahim, &
Mohamed, 2015).
 18

2.2.2 Studies Conducted Around the Globe

2.2.2.1 South Korea

Determining bus service coverage area more practically, passenger attributes should
be considered. Instead of using a set of service coverage radius for every stop, each
stop’s service area is reduced in proportion to additional time required to climb hills,
cross busy streets, wind one’s way out of subdivision, elderly pedestrians and so on.
The attributes to affect service coverage radius are residential area, sex, age, employed
status, income per month, car ownership, frequency of week, and trip purpose.
Previous researches that contributes to Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual
(TCQSM) have mainly been interested in just topographical factors without
considering user personal attributes (J. Kim, Kim, Jun, & Kho, 2005)

For example, Jumsan et al. (2005) is focused on determination of transit

service coverage which is one of the basic studies on fixed-route transit service
availability in system. The presence or absence of transit services near the origin and
destination is a major factor in the choice of a person to use transit. When the service
is unavailable, other aspects of service quality are not important for a given trip.
Transit services will be provided within a reasonable walking distance from one's
origin and destination. However, TCQSM the methodology only includes topographic
factors without considering the user's personal attributes. The authors suggest that
more broadly to determine the coverage area of the bus service which is the passenger
characteristics should be considered. The paper not only shows the difference of
marginal walking time by passengers attribute but also the derivation of the bus
service determination model by passengers attribute. This model can be used to
estimate the number of passengers within a certain distance of the bus stop despite the
different demographic conditions in the area.

2.2.2.2 Italy

Service coverage area which is the area within walking distance of a transit stop. Four
factors were used which were street connectivity factor, grade factor, population factor
and pedestrian crossing factor. The results shows that the pedestrian crossing factor
 19

does not impact service coverage area. To determine service coverage in Italy, they
used Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Eboli et al., 2014). Compare others
research, were taking into consideration weather conditions and the maximum
convenient walking distance of a bus user (Antonio, Brebbia, 2011).

Transit services are characterized by a whole range of aspects which can be

distinguished into quantitative and qualitative characteristics example service
frequency and comfort, respectively. The aspects mainly characterizing transit
services is service coverage which is in terms of route characteristics, number of
stops, distance between stops and accessibility of stops (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2010).

2.2.2.3 European

In the literature, urban processes and intrinsic transport issues rely on intrinsically
spatial and space dependent. To find the processes of spatial distributions, it necessary
to manipulate a large amount of spatial data about urban areas using spatial analysis
techniques. Few years back, the uses of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has
supported urban analysis. A GIS allows the spatial relationships among the variables
to be studied, because it integrates common tasks performed on the database, such as
statistical analysis, with the advantages of graphical representation of data and
geographic analysis offered by maps. Using GIS it is possible to take advantages of
representation of data by maps and spatial analysis of data from different sources
(Mazzulla & Forciniti, 2012).

2.3 On – time Performance

Definition on – time performance is the percentage of the passing schedule trips was
divided by the total number of schedule trips available for analysis. On – time
performance were important for the passenger riding on the bus and the passenger
waiting at a stop during a time period with large bead-ways. Each schedule will be
grade either passes or fails. Also, on – time performance tracks the schedule
 20

adherence of specific buses, which is buses count against on – time performance

(Suwardo, Napiah, & Ibrahim B. Kamaruddin, 2009).

Based on United State Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM, 2000), there
are some measure of reliability used by the transit system. The most frequent are on-
time performance, headway adherence, missed trips and distance travel between the
mechanical breakdowns. On-time performance is the most popular method to used
measure in the transit industry. It measures the percentage of travel that departs from
all timetable points (Haron, Noor, Sadullah, & Vien, 2010).

On-time execution is the rate of passing planned trips separated by the adding
up to number of planned trips accessible for examination. On-time execution is vital
for the passengers riding on the bus and for the passengers holding up at a halt amid a
time period with huge bead-ways. Run numbers of buses are related with particular
transport operators. Each trip or schedule leave time is dissecting as it were once and
either passes or falls flat. On-time performance tracks the plan adherence of particular
buses, buses in this category tally against on-time performance (Suwardo et al., 2009).

2.3.1 Studies Conduct in Malaysia

At the time of measuring the performance of the bus arrived at the time of the
schedule. Measurements will be made at selected locations for time sensitive travel
such as offices, schools, shopping areas and other important areas. On-time
performance usually is to measure the bus did not arrive late. Other than that, being
early also can create a problem since the facilities do not follow the schedule and the
users may feel uncomfortable because to hurry outside to meet the early arrival time.
In certain cases early arrive may also results of no passengers (Academies, 2003).

On-time performance was calculated by dividing the number of trips leaving

between 0 and 5 minute after their planned departure the time by total number of trips
from all scheduled time points. It was distinguished between the main bus stations and
 21

the bus stops. For example, in case the headways are 60 minutes and an 11:00 bus
leaves at 11:02, it was categorized into on-time performance (Suwardo et al., 2009).

Based on research, on – time performance was obtained by dividing number of

trips departing between 0 to 5 minutes after the scheduled departure time by total
number of trips from all scheduled time points. However, many problem were
occurred such as regulator, operator and also users in using the bus service provided in
rural area, such as bus system in Ipoh – Lumut Corridors. Other problem need to faced
were limitation of facilities, low quality buses, inconvenient of fleets, low passenger
trips, long waiting time and bad view of bus services. A very common problem to the
passengers were long waiting time. Moreover, mixed traffic is another factor need to
be observed. Mixed traffic characterized as no specific separation control between
motorized vehicles and non – motorized, which is light and heavy vehicles were
mixed. The results show clearly that stage bus operated in mixed traffic can be
categorized as low on – time performance (Suwardo et al., 2009).

The longer route length, have more stops, and have more numbers of
passengers are among factors of punctuality to be worse. Another study in Perak,
Malaysia has revealed that the punctuality index of the public bus are varies
throughout the day at peak hour and off-peak hour because of traffic congestion,
which is increase in travel time. However, punctuality index during weekdays and
weekends are not significantly different (Napiah, Kamaruddin, & Suwardo, 2011).

2.3.2 Studies Conducted Around the Globe

2.3.2.1 Portland

The model has been developed to study the affecting on – time performance on
Oregon’s fixed route bus system. Also, the multinomial logit model relating early, late
and on time bus arrivals to route, schedule, driver and operating characteristics is
developed and estimated. The result show that the probability of on – time
performance failure were higher during the PM peak hour, which is with longer
headways and higher levels of passenger activity. Contributors to poor on – time
 22

performance were based on the internal and external to the bus system. Internal causes
would be such as driver experience, sensitivity of the schedule to route conditions and
complexity of the route. Also, external more to the transit system which include traffic
congestion and traffic incidents, signal timing, weather, and disruptions from on –
street parking (James & Janet, 1992).

2.3.2.2 Canada

The paper has discussed the development and application of a Monte Carlo simulation
program (Bus – Monitor) to evaluate quality service, which is it assessed in relation to
on – time performance and operating schedule. When using on - time performance
criterion, the model is used to stimulate bus travel times between two given points,
and to compute the probability distributions and the parameters of the deviations of
actual arrival time from scheduled arrival times. Depending on the critical range of on
– time performance used, the probability of the service performing on time is
determined. The factor that influencing the on – time performance is depend on the
schedule travel time. If the schedule time is too short, it places the strain on the
operators to maintain the schedule by speeding, which possibly rushing through
intermediate stops. It shown that the Bus – Monitor can utilized to perform several
functions. The system capability to perform statistical analyses. Moreover, ability to
consider route and the passengers demand characteristic at the individual stop or inter
stop improves the predicting accuracy of the system and overcome the problems of
transferability and validity over time. Finally, the model also been used to examine the
effects of changes to several other factors such as stop location, number of stop,
vehicle characteristics, and passenger boarding and alighting rates. The weakness of
the model were inability to handle routes with variable headways, which where
headways are changed during rush hour to accommodate the peak demand (Prianka,
1990).

2.3.2.3 South Korea

Several studies have been conducted on punctuality index and on-time performance
analysis of public bus service. A case study in Seoul, concludes that the punctuality
 23

index during weekends when there was no traffic congestion is higher than those of
the weekdays (Y. Kim, Park, & Kim, 2005).

TCQSM (Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual) suggesting that the
timing of bus operation, as a measurable for measure of reliability, consists of on -
time performance and regularity of roads between consecutive bus vehicles. In the
manual has mentioned that the on-time performance is the most commonly used
reliability measure that users can relate to. In addition, buses in Seoul Metropolitan
City run on headway base without using exact time schedules of the bus arrivals to
bus stops. In this case, punctuality of bus service can be defined as “evenness of
headways between successive bus vehicles.” Therefore, bus arrival time can be
defined in various ways according to operating situation (Y. Kim et al., 2005).

2.3.2.4 Washington

Transit providers usually decide on – time bus arrival time to classify reliable or
unreliable services. These ranges are generally based on the level of service of the
transit operator and it can cost-effectively deliver, while satisfying the customer
expectations. Patrons on low-frequency service routes are often use posted schedules
and personal experience at the stops to plan their arrival time at the stops and
determine their expected wait time. Passengers on high frequency routes generally
assumed on bus arrival, as they usually have some confidence in the posted schedule,
and already know that their waiting time will be low (Arhin, Noel, & Dairo, 2014).

The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) providing bus

transit services to the Columbia District and surrounding areas of Virginia and
Maryland. Most of the bus routes are on the arterial roadways in DC metropolitan
area. This research investigates compliance and diversity schedules for regional bus
transit services in the District of Columbia. The bus arrival time on arterial bus route
selection is observed in the field and is used to evaluate WMATA's achievement in
fulfilling its performance towards the goal of 78% for the arrival of time. WMATA
 24

range for on - time arrival at the bus stop is within 2 minutes in advance and 7 minutes
later from the published schedule (Arhin et al., 2014).

A survey of service delivery measures collected by transit agencies by the US

Transportation Research Board (TRB) appeared zero minutes to be the most common
earliness edge and five minutes to be the most common delay limit. Commenting on
the zero early threshold, this report expressed “vehicles withdrawing some time
recently their scheduled departure time are nearly never considered on-time”. An prior
but bigger study of 83 agencies in the USA found that most agencies adopted a
threshold of 1 minute early and 5 minutes late as ‘on-time’ (Currie, 2012).

2.3.2.5 Australia

The percentage of buses departing on time is a time indicator that is widely used. It is
an easy indicator for management and the public to understand (Strathman et al.,
2000). According to State Transit Service Performance (2006), Sydney Buses treat
buses which is running early as ‘on-time’ since the on-time is measured at the
terminus when early arrivals should benefit or, at least not disadvantage, passengers.

Bus stop location is likely to affect running time. ‘Start’ bus stops are more
likely to run into time than the central bus stop. The NSWTI pilot survey shown that
the time buses departed major interchanges, which is “can be misleading, as it is not
taken when buses are en-route” (Audit & South, 2010).

Terms as in calculation, the percentage of the buses departing on-time can be

expressed in terms of either the percentage of the buses scheduled or the number of
services actually operated; the difference being the number of cancelled services
which is allowing for any duplicated services. However, given that the number of
cancelled services is usually relatively very small which is typically 1% of scheduled
services, the difference in the two measures should rarely be of consequence. In the
 25

ITSRR survey, it shown that the percentage was calculated in terms of the number of
buses operated (Currie, 2012).

2.4 Transit Auto Travel Time

Based on the Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual (TCQSM), travel time is a
estimation door to door different between transit facilities and automobile travel.
Travel time for transit facilities is incorporate the in-vehicles time for trip and its does
not include the waiting time for vehicles to reach. Travel time for automobiles
incorporates the travel time in the vehicles, time to park the vehicles and time to walks
to destination. Reliability of a bus service is characterized the capacity of the bus
system to follow to a scheduled arrival or flight time, or keep up standard headways,
and a steady travel time.

Automobile travel comfort and convenience is persistently progressing with

amenities such as way better seats, sound systems and route systems. Improving the
quality of alternative modes is vital for pulling in optional traveller and hence
decreasing traffic issues such as congestion, accidents and pollution emissions
(Litman T, 2008). Different approaches to measuring travel time such as many
countries maintain digital road databases with road centreline geometries and
extensive attribute information which is speed limits, and one-way streets. Network
analysis tools in standard GIS software give an simple way to conduct car drive-time
analysis based on such information which is road segment length divided by the
respective speed limit gives an estimate of ‘‘free-flow’’ drive- through time for the
segment, and the ideal route between given origins and destinations is calculated using
a shortest path algorithm. The issue with such an approach is that it overlooks
congestion, time went through to find a parking space and necessary walking times to
and from the parking space – all of which may considerably alter travel times in urban
settings (Christie & Fone, 2003).

Unlike car and other personal modes of transport, public transport is bound to
predefined routes and schedules that depend on the time of day and the day of the
week and are subject to frequent modification. Normal deficiencies in public transport
 26

travel time calculations are simplifying assumptions related to travel speeds along the
course and exchange times between distinctive lines (Salonen & Toivonen, 2013).

2.4.1 Studies Conducted in Malaysia

Transit auto travel time is when the public transportation is an optional, a passenger’s
decision to use transit rather than competing mode, which when transit is an optional
it will depends how well the service quality compares with that of competing modes.
The most important factor that influenced transit auto travel time were passenger load
aboard transit vehicles, the kinds of passenger amenities provided at transit stops, the
reliability of transit service, door – to – door travel time, the out – of – pocket cost
using the transit, passengers perception of safety and security at the transit stop,
whether transfers are required to complete a trip and the appearance and comfort of
transit facilities (Mokhtar, Saritha, Nazirah, & Abd Manan, 2016).

2.4.2 Studies Conducted Around the World

2.4.2.1 Washington

The research were conducted at City of Bellevue, Washington. This report investigate
the difference to provide a competitiveness of transit as compared to the automobile at
one moment in time. Moreover, to see the competitiveness of the transit service and
automobile, the travel time of both taken at Centers, Neighbourhoods, and Regional
Centers. The comparison of the travel time by auto was calculated in the form of a
ratio by dividing transit time by auto travel time, which is referenced as “Transit/Auto
Ratio”. If the ratios was bigger than 1.0, it reflect transit travel time that exceed auto
travel times. For trips by transit, travel time includes walking and waiting time from
the time the transit rider begin the trip to the time the destination is reached. Transit/
Auto Ratios times above 2.0 are considered not competitive to trips the by auto
(Bellevue Transit Master Plan, 2013).
 27

2.4.2.2 Finland

Traditionally the travel time has been calculated using the privately owned car as the
subject but it concern over the environmental and social sustainability of land use and
transportation solutions has in recent years highlighted the need to incorporate
different modes of transport in accessibility analyses. In some cases, were provided by
authorities, which still unclear how it produce. Whereas, other cases travel time
calculations form from an integral part of the analysis. There compared travel times
and distance between the different models by calculating their own mutual ratios and
correlations. For example, travel time produced by the simple and intermediate car
models were compared for each origin – destination pair by calculating the ratio
between the two. The ratios were than averaged and the Pearson correlation
coefficient was calculated to reveal how well the values produced by the different
models correlated with each other. Similar step were done to all models, both for
travel time and trip distances (Maria & Tuuli, 2013).

2.4.2.3 Florida

The Public Transit Office now requires MPOs to calculate certain transit level-of-
service (LOS) measures, based on procedures given in the Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM), each time they upgrade their long-range
transportation plan. One of these measures is transit-auto travel time, which compares
the time required to make a trip by transit to the time required to make the same trip
by vehicle.

An evaluation of the first-year MPO transit LOS, found a concern among

MPOs that the transit-auto travel time measure was not an apples-to-apples
comparison: theoretical model- based auto travel times were being compared to
scheduled transit travel times which is themselves may or may not reflect actual
transit travel times. One recommended improvement was to conduct auto travel time
runs for the same trips, which would allow an apples-to-apples comparison to be made
with travel travel times. In spite of the fact that this proposed method would permit a
 28

better calculation of transit-auto travel time LOS for existing conditions, the issue
remains when calculating LOS for future conditions, as no transit timetables are
available for comparison, and clearly no travel time runs can be conducted. The
relationship between bus and auto travel times does not alter during peak periods or in
the peak direction. In other words, although bus travel times may be different in peak
periods, compared to off-peak periods, bus travel times are a reliable proportion of
auto travel times amid the two periods (Kittelson & Associates, Inc., URS, Inc., &
Quality Counts, 2006).

2.5 Summary

Research papers from Malaysia, South Korea, Italy, Portland, Canada, Washington
and Finland were reviewed and it can be that most of the papers showed declining
state of the service quality as the main reason why thorough investigation needs to be
conducted.
 29

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the methodologies that were used in this thesis. The first
objectives which is to identify the service coverage of the public buses service
performance in West of Klang Valley and the second objective is to evaluate the on-
time performance for public buses service in West of Klang Valley. The attributes for
bus performance ratings were reviewed in Chapter 2 and was analysed in this chapter.
For the third methodology, which was to identify the transit auto travel time of the
public buses service performance in West of Klang Valley. The methodologies for
each of the three objectives of this thesis were discussed in three parts namely the
introduction of the objective, the method used to achieve the objective and the
expected results of the objective.

3.2 Service Coverage

Service coverage analysis indicates how well the existing route network covers the
population within the transit area. Typically, areas within one – fourth to three –
eighths of a mile of a bus route are delineated, and the population within these areas is
estimated. The service area population within the specified walking distance is termed
the population coverage. This concept can be extended to include coverage of
employment. The proportion of the service area population within a given distance of
a transit stop and also within a specified distance of a workplace represents a total
coverage value.
 30

3.2.1 Introduction

In order to achieve the first objective of identify the service coverage of the service
performance, the appropriate method as shown below.

3.2.2 Method

Service coverage for all routes in West of Klang Valley were marked in the map that
obtained from Google Maps. The routes for each operators were marked with marker.
A 400m buffer radius from the centre line of the road was highlighted. This buffer
radius indicates the service coverage boundary of the particular route. Any area are
out of boundary of the area or there no residential area at that vicinity will be marked
X.

FIGURE 3.1 Example of the service coverage

 31

3.2.3 Analysis

Grid boxes was drawn at the map and the percentage of the area that lied inside each
of the boxes was estimated. The total coverage area was obtained and compared with
Table 3.1 below:

TABLE 3.1 Service coverage level of service

Service coverage level of Percentage service Comments

service coverage area
A 90.0 – 100.0 % Virtually all major origins
and destinations served
B 80.0 – 89.0% Most major origins and
destinations served
C 70.0 – 79.0 % About ¾ of the higher –
density area served
D 60.0 – 69.0 % About two – thirds of
higher density area served
E 50.0 – 59.0 % At least ½ of the higher –
density area served
F < 50.0 % Less than ½ of the higher
– density areas served

3.2.4 Expected Results

The results obtained shows the service coverage quality of service for the buses in
West of Klang Valley. This analysis will give a QOS whole service area of West
klang Valley. The results is represent the whole routes that been chosen.

3.3 On – time Performance

On - time performance refers to the level of success of the service remaining on the

published schedule. On time performance, sometimes referred to as on time running,
 32

is normally expressed as a percentage, with a higher percentage meaning more

vehicles are on time. The level of on time performance for many transport systems is a
very important measure of the effectiveness of the system. On time performance is a
measure of the ability of transport services to be on time. Almost all transportation
systems have timetables, which describe when vehicles are to arrive at scheduled
stops. Transport services have a higher utility where services run on time, as anyone
planning on making use of the service can align their activities with that of the
transport system. On time performance is particularly important where services are
infrequent, and people need to plan to meet services.

3.3.1 Introduction

In order to achieve the second objective to evaluate the on – time performance for the
quality of the service performance, the appropriate method as shown below.

3.3.2 Method

A bus stop was chosen for each locations and routes. The arrival time of the buses was
recorded and need to compare with the actual schedule arrival time.

3.3.3 Analysis

The actual arrival time at the particular bus stop was compared to the schedule arrival
time. Based on the Chapter 5 – Quality of Service Method of the Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual 3rd Edition, ‘on – time’ was defined as arrival of 1 minutes
early to 5 minutes late. To determine the quality of service, need to obtain the on –
time performance percentage by using the formula below:

Total on−time arrivals

The on−time performance percentage = × 100 %
Total actual arrivals

After obtained on – time performance percentage, the value was compared to Table
3.2 below to determine the quality of service:
 33

TABLE 3.2 Quality of service for on time - performance

Quality of On – time Passenger Operator

Service performance perspective perspective
percentage
A 95 - 100 %  Passenger  Achievable by
making one transit services
round trip per operating
weekday with below
no transfer capacity on a
experiences grade –
one not – on – separated
time vehicle guideway not
every 2 weeks. shared with
non – transit
vehicles, with
few
infrastructure
of vehicle
problems.
B 90 – 94 %  Passenger  Not -
making one Achievable by
round trip per transit services
weekday with operating on a
no transfers grade –
experiences separated
one not – on – guideway not
time vehicle shared with
every week. non – transit
vehicles.
C 80 – 89 %  Passenger  Typical range
making one for commuter
round trip per rail that shares
 34

weekday with track with

no transfers freight rail.
experiences  Typical range
one – on – for light rail
time vehicle with some
every week. street running.
 Achievable by
bus services in
small to mid –
sized cities.
D 70-79%
 Passenger
 Typical range
making one
for light rail
round trip per
with a
weekday with
majority of
no transfers
street running
experiences up
 Achievable by
to three not-
bus services in
on-time
large cities
vehicles every
week
 Passenger
making one
round trip per
weekday with
a transfer
experiences a
not-on-time
vehicle every
day

E <70 %  Service likely  May be best

to be perceived possible result
 35

as highly for mixed

unreliable. traffic
operations in
congested
CBD’s.

3.3.4 Expected Results

The analysis will produce the quality of service for each routes. The results will be
present in a graph to compare all QOS in every routes.

3.4 Transit Auto Time Travel

Transit auto time travel is method to see the competitiveness of two type of
transportation which is bus and car reach to the destination. Studies shows that
people’s perception of the difficulty of taking transit inhibits them from switching
modes.

3.4.1 Introduction

Transit auto time travel was conducted to compare travel time of the bus with car. In
order to achieve the third objective to identify the transit auto time travel for the
quality of the service performance, the appropriate method as shown below.

3.4.2 Method

Transit auto travel time is the ratio between transit time and auto vehicle time. Transit
time is time that used by the bus to travel from starting point until stopping point.
While, auto travel time is the time that used by the car to travel same path by the bus
from starting point until stopping point. The transit auto time travel need to be
conducted at the peak hour of the day. The following are the peak hour time of the day
in which the studies were conducted:
 36

Peak hour morning: 7.00 am – 9.00 am

Non peak hour day: 11.00 pm – 2.00 pm

Peak hour evening: 4.00 pm – 7.00 pm

Non peak hour night; 8.00 pm – 10.00pm

3.4.3 Analysis

The time used by the car and the bus was recorded from the starting point until
stopping point. The comparison of the travel time by transit to travel time by auto was
calculated in the form of ratio by dividing transit travel time by auto travel time. The
ratio value was compared with Table 3.3 below to obtain the quality of service:

TABLE 3.3 Quality of service for transit auto travel time

Quality of Transit auto Passenger Operator perspective

service travel time perspective
ratio
A <1  Faster trip  Feasible when
transit than transit operates
by auto. in a separate
right – of – way
and the
roadway
network is
congested.
B >1 – 1.25  Comparable  Feasible with
in-vehicle express service.
travel times  Feasible with
by transit limited-stop
and auto. service in an
 For a 40- exclusive lane
 37

min or right-of-way.
commute,
transit takes
up to 10
min longer.
C >1.25 – 1.5  Tolerable
for choice
riders
 For a 40-
min
commute,
transit takes
up to 20
min longer.
D >1.5 – 1.75  Round trip
up to 1 h
longer by
transit for a
40-min one-
way trip

E >1.75 – 2  A trip takes  May be best

up to twice possible result
as long by for mixed
transit than traffic
by auto. operations in
congested
downtown
areas.

F >2  Tedious for  May be best

all riders possible result
for small city
 38

service that
emphasizes
coverage over
direct
connections

3.4.4 Expected Results

The quality of service of the bus was determined. This analysis will give a QOS each
chosen routes for auto – transit travel time. The result will be present in graph to
compare all the QOS in every routes.
 39

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Service Coverage

Service coverage method was used to identify the percentage of coverage area of the
bus service. A radius of 400m service coverage area from the road was plotted on the
map and equally divided boxes was drawn to determine the percentage of the
coverage area within each boxes. In Figure 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 the route of the
bus service was drawn, while the 400m radius coverage was highlighted in yellow
with black border. The percentage of the service coverage was estimated from each of
the boxes and the summation of the percentage was then calculated. The percentage of
the service coverage only takes into consideration for residential areas only. The
service coverage for the buses operating in Puchong, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Shah
Alam and Klang was determined and summarized in the tables below.
 40

4.1.1 The Service Coverage in Puchong

FIGURE 4.1 Service coverage for buses operating within Puchong

TABLE 4.1 Number of percentage of coverage area in Puchong

Percentag 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
e % % % % % % % % % % %
Coverage
Nos. 12 18 18 13 8 11 18 12 18 7 0
0

Table 4.1 shows the number of percentage coverage area from figure 4.1. Total
coverage area was calculated as below. The total coverage area was 22.97%. The LOS
is LOS F.
 41

Service Coverage Area = [(0% x 120) + (10% x 18) + (20% x 18) + (30% x 3) +
(40% x 8) + (50% x 11) + (60% x 18) + (70% x 12) +
(80% x 18) + (90% x 7) + (100% x 0)] / 239
= 22.97 %

4.1.2 The Service Coverage in Petaling Jaya

FIGURE 4.2 Service coverage for buses operating within Petaling Jaya

TABLE 4.2 Number of percentage of coverage area in Petaling Jaya

Percenta 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ge % % % % % % % % % % %
Coverag
e
Nos. 98 10 12 15 10 4 8 4 3 5 2

Table 4.2 shows the number of percentage coverage area from figure 4.2. Total
coverage area was calculated as below. The total coverage area was 20.27%. The LOS
is LOS F.
 42

Service Coverage Area = [(0% x 98) + (10% x 10) + (20% x 12) + (30% x 15) +
(40% x 10) + (50% x 4) + (60%x 8) + (70% x 4) + (80%
x 3) + (90% x 5) + (100% x 2)] / 150
= 20.27 %

4.1.3 The Service Coverage in Subang Jaya

FIGURE 4.3 Service coverage for buses operating within Subang Jaya

TABLE 4.3 Number of percentage of coverage area in Subang Jaya

Table 4.3 shows the number of percentage coverage area from figure 4.3. Total
coverage area was calculated as below. The total coverage area was 37.42%. The LOS
is LOS F.
Service Coverage Area = [(0% x 30) + (10% x 13) + (20% x 16) + (30% x 20) +
(40% x 22) + (50% x 12) + (60% x 4) + (70%x 7)
+(80% x 5) + (90% x 7) + (100% x 2)] / 120
 43

= 37.42%

4.1.4 The Service Coverage in Shah Alam

FIGURE 4.4 Service coverage for buses operating within Shah Alam

TABLE 4.4 Number of percentage of coverage area in Shah Alam

Table 4.4 shows the number of percentage coverage area from figure 4.4. Total
coverage area was calculated as below. The total coverage area was 22.2%. The LOS
is LOS F.

Service Coverage Area = [(0% x 21) + (10% x 6) + (20% x 8) + (30% x 20) +

(40% x 2) + (50% x 2) + (60%x 12) + (70% x 10) +
(80% x 3) + (90% x 6) + (100% x 2)] / 153
= 22.2%
 44

4.1.5 The Service Coverage in Klang

FIGURE 4.5 Service coverage for buses operating within Klang

TABLE 4.5 Number of percentage of coverage area in Klang

Table 4.5 shows the number of percentage coverage area from figure 4.5. Total
coverage area was calculated as below. The total coverage area was 35%. The LOS is
LOS F.
Service Coverage Area = [(0% x 30) + (10% x 3) + (20% x 5) + (30% x 6) +
(40% x 8) + (50% x 9) + (60% x 6) + (70% x 7) + (80%
x 8) + (90% x 7) + (100% x 3)] / 100
= 35%

4.1.6 Analysis of Service Coverage

TABLE 4.6 Summarise QOS of service coverage in West Klang Valley

 45

LOCATION QOS
Puchong F
Petaling Jaya F
Subang Jaya F
Shah Alam F
Klang F

As shown in the sketch of the service coverage of all the five (5) location in West
Klang Valley, a service coverage for Puchong, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Shah Alam
and Klang are 22.97%, 20.27%, 37.42%, 22.20% and 35% respectively was obtained,
which translate the Quality of Service (QOS) of all the location are F. Based on the
manual, any service coverage percentage lesser than 50% denotes less than ½ of
higher density areas served. As can be observed in the sketch, any area which are
marked X indicates it is out of the boundary of the area or there are no residential
areas at that vicinity. Hence, from the 400m radius obtained, there are quite a number
of residential areas which are out of the service coverage.

4.2 On – time Performance

The on - time performance for T600, T604 and T605 in Puchong, PJ02, PJ03 and PJ04
in Petaling Jaya, T776, T777 and T778 in Subang Jaya, T757, T758 and SA01 in Shah
Alam, KLG01, KLG02 and 704 in Klang was recorded and tabulated in APPENDIX
A. The on time performance for Puchong, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Shah Alam and
Klang was conducted on weekday and weekend each for a period from 6.00am to
10.00pm, as accordance to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.

LRT IOI Puchong bus stop, LRT Perindustrian Puchong bus stop and LRT
Bandar Puteri bus stop has been chosen for route T600, T604 and T605 separately in
Puchong. While LRT Taman Jaya bus stop for route PJ02 and LRT Taman Bahagia
bus stop for route PJ03 and PJ04 has been chosen for Petaling Jaya. Other than that, in
Subang Jaya, LRT USJ 7 bus stop, LRT Taipan bus stop and LRT USJ 21 bus stop
 46

has been choose for route T776, T777 and T778 respectively. As for Shah Alam, LRT
Alam Megah bus stop, LRT Subang Alam and KTM Shah Alam has been choose for
route T757, T758 and SA01 accordingly. Lastly, SRJKC Kong Hee bus stop for route
KLG01 and KLG02 and for route 704 bus stop near to the Seranas Bus Terminal has
been choose for Klang area. The detailed breakdown of the data can be seen in the
Table 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.

As the scheduled arrival timetables are not available, the service frequency
was used as a guide to evaluate the on time performance of the buses. The summary of
the results according to the location are as follows:

4.2.1 The On –Time Performance in Puchong

TABLE 4.7 The On - Time Performance for Puchong

Route No. of No. of on Total Not On-time QOS
late time arrival arrive percentage
arrival arrival
T600 0 20 20 0 100.00 A
(weekdays)

T600 1 19 20 0 95.00 A
(weekend)

T604 3 16 19 0 84.21 C
(weekdays)

T604 2 17 19 0 89.47 C
(weekend)

T605 0 21 21 0 100.00 A
(weekdays)

T605 0 21 21 0 100.00 A
(weekend)

  AVERAGE 94.78
(B)
 47

For Puchong, the total arrival scheduled for route T600, T604 and T605 were 20, 19
and 21 for both weekday and weekend respectively. However there were only 20 and
19 on - time arrivals respectively for route T600, while for route T604 the number of
on – time were 16 in weekday and 17 in weekend, and lastly for route T605, both
weekday and weekend there were 21 on – time arrival. From the data collected in
APPENDIX B, there were few bus running late at route T604 because of traffic
congested and buses skipping trip were observe for route T600 and T605 and it cause
the busses to be early for the next scheduled arrival time range. The on – time
percentage obtained for route T600 on weekday was 100% and 95% on weekend.
While for route T605 both weekday and weekend gained 100%. But for route T604
obtained lower compared to T600 and T605 which were 84.21% for weekday and
89.47% for weekend. These values gives an average for Puchong an on- time
percentage of 94.78%, which is a QOS of B.

A A A
100
A
On - time percentage

95

90
C

85 C

80

75
T600 T600 T604 T604 T605 T605
(weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend)

Route

FIGURE 4.6 Comparison of On - Time Performances QOS for all Routes in Puchong.

Based on the Figure 4.6, it shown the comparison of the on – time performance
between weekday and weekend in Puchong. For route T600, the on – time percentage
obtained on weekdays is 100% while on weekend it obtained 95%. Other than that, for
route T605, both weekday and weekend obtained 100% for on – time performance.
So, the QOS of T600 both weekday and weekend were A. Which mean, passengers
make a return trip every working day without the experience of not – on – time
 48

vehicle every 2 weeks. For perspective operators, accessible by transit services

operating below the capacity of non-transit vehicles, which is not shared with non-
transit vehicles, with a small vehicle infrastructure problem. As for route T604,
weekday the results is 84.21% and on weekend is 89.47% for on – time percentage.
Based on the manual, the QOS for weekday fall under D and on weekend it C. If the
QOS obtained is C, the passenger can make a return trip every working day without
the experience of not – on – time vehicle every week based on the passenger
perspective. For the operator perspective, can be reached by bus services in small to
mid-town. Next, if the QOS is D, for passenger perspective, the passenger can make a
return trip every working day without the experience up to three not – on – time
vehicle every week and for the operator perspective, typical ranges for light rails with
most running roads.

4.2.2 The On – Time Performance in Petaling Jaya

TABLE 4.8 The On - Time Performance for Petaling Jaya

Route No. of No. of on Total Not On-time QOS
late time arrival arrive percentage
arrival arrival
PJ02 11 20 31 0 64.52 E
(weekdays)

PJ02 8 23 31 0 74.19 D
(weekend)

PJ03 7 24 31 0 77.42 D
(weekdays)

PJ03 4 27 31 0 87.09 C
(weekend)

PJ04 6 25 31 0 80.65 C
(weekdays)

PJ04 4 27 31 0 87.09 C
(weekend)

  AVERAGE 78.49
 49

(D)

On the other hand, for Petaling Jaya, a total of 31 arrivals were scheduled for route
PJ02, PJ03 and PJ04 with 20 and 23 number of on - time arrivals recorded for
weekday and weekend respectively for route PJ02. While for route PJ03, the number
of on – time arrival on weekday was 24 and on weekend was 27. Other than that, route
PJ04 obtained 25 and 27 both weekday and weekend respectively. The problem of
buses did arrive late or a trip had been skipped, producing a big headway. The on time
percentage for route PJ02 was 64.52% and 74.19% for weekday and weekend
respectively, 77.42% on weekday and 87.09% on weekend for route PJ03 and lastly
route PJ04 obtained 80.65% and 87.09% for weekday and weekend accordingly.
Resulting in an average of 78.49% on - time performance in Petaling Jaya which is
QOS D.

100
90 C C
D C
80 D
On - time percentage

70 E
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PJ02 PJ02 PJ03 PJ03 PJ04 PJ04
(weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.7 Comparison of On - Time Performances QOS for all Routes in Petaling
Jaya.

Based on the Figure 4.7, the comparison of on – time percentage for all routes in
Petaling Jaya. For routes PJ02, the on – time percentage on weekday is 64.52% and on
weekend is 74.19%. The QOS of weekday is E while for weekend is D. Other than
that, route PJ03, for weekday obtained 77.42% and for weekend is 87.09%. QOS for
this route on weekday and weekend were D and C respectively. Last route for Petaling
Jaya is PJ04. On weekday obtained 80.65% which the QOS is C and for weekend
obtained 87.09. Also the QOS is C. Based on the operator, typical ranges for light rails
 50

with multiple runs. As for QOS D, passengers make a return trip every day working
with transfer to the vehicle not – on – time every day. Perspective of operator, can be
reached by bus service in big cities. Lastly, for QOS E, from passenger perspective,
the service likely to be perceived as highly unreliable and for operator perspective is
that may be the best result for mixed traffic operations in congested CBD’s.

4.2.3 The On - Time Performance for Subang Jaya

TABLE 4.8 The On - Time Performance for Subang Jaya

Route No. of No. of on Total Not On-time QOS
late time arrival arrive percentage
arrival arrival
T776 1 18 19 0 94.74 B
(weekdays)

T776 0 19 19 0 100.00 A
(weekend)

T777 1 17 18 0 94.44 B
(weekdays)

T777 0 18 18 0 100.00 A
(weekend)

T778 0 19 19 0 100.00 A
(weekdays)

T778 1 18 19 0 94.74 B
(weekend)

  AVERAGE 97.32
(A)
 51

As for Subang Jaya, the total number of arrival as schedule for route T776 and T778
were 19, and for route T777 was 18 for weekday and weekend. The on – time arrival
for route T776 was 18 and 19 both weekday and weekend respectively. At the same
time, for route T777 obtained 17 on weekday while 18 on weekend. Route T778 got
19 and 18 for both weekday and weekend accordingly. Based on the observation at the
location, a busses skipping trip and some of the driver drive the busses in high speed
which result the bus arrive early than the actual schedule. The on – time percentage
for route T776 for both weekday and weekend were 94.74% and 100%. Also for route
T777 obtained 94.44% for weekday and 100% for weekend. Lastly, route T778 on
weekday was 100% and 94.74% on weekend. Average of on – time percentage for
Subang Jaya was 97.32%. Based on the QOS it fallen under grade A.

A A A
100
99
On - time percentage

98
97
96
95
B B B
94
93
92
91
T776 T776 T777 T777 T778 T778
(weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.8 Comparison of On - Time Performances QOS for all Routes in Subang
Jaya.

Based on the Figure 4.8, it shown the comparison of the on – time percentage for all
routes in Subang Jaya. The route T776 on weekday, it obtained 94.74% which the
QOS is B while on weekend it obtained 100% which the QOS is A. As for route T777,
on weekday and weekend were obtained 94.44% and 100% respectively. The QOS for
weekday is B and on weekend is A. Lastly, route T778, it obtained 100% for weekday
and for weekend it got 94.74%. Which mean the QOS for weekday is A, and on
weekend is B. Based on the operator if the QOS is A, accessible through transit
services operating below the capacity of non-transit vehicles, which are not shared
with non-transit vehicles, with little vehicle infrastructure problems. If the QOS is B,
 52

cannot be pulled by transit services that operate on a road that is separated grade not
shared with non-transit vehicles.

4.2.4 The On – Time Performance in Shah Alam

TABLE 4.9 The On - Time Performance for Shah Alam

Route No. of No. of on Total Not On-time QOS
late time arrival arrive percentage
arrival arrival
T757 2 21 23 0 91.30 B
(weekdays)
T757 3 21 24 0 87.50 C
(weekend)
T758 2 21 23 0 91.30 B
(weekdays)
T758 1 22 23 0 95.65 A
(weekend)
SA01 11 21 32 0 65.63 E
(weekdays)
SA01 11 19 30 0 63.33 E
(weekend)
  AVERAGE 82.45
(C)

Next, at Shah Alam the total arrival on weekday and weekend were 24, 23 and 32 as
schedule for route T757, T758 and SA01 respectively. For route T757 number of on –
time arrival were 22 and 21 for both weekday and weekend. Also, route T758 on –
time arrival for weekday was 21 and for weekend 22. As for route SA01, 21 and 19
were recorded for on – time arrival both weekday and weekend respectively. There
few busses skip the trip and other was cause of traffic congestion resulting the bus not
 53

on – time arrive. Based on the number of arrival, it shown that route T757 obtained
91.66% on weekday and for weekend is 87.50%. While for route T758, both weekday
and weekend gained 91.30% and 95.65% accordingly. For route SA01, for weekday
obtained 65.63% and weekend 63.33%. Overall average for Shah Alam on – time
percentage is 82.51% which is QOS C.

100 B B A
90 C
80
E
On - time percentage

70 E
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T757 T757 T758 T758 SA01 SA01
(weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend) (weekdays) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.9 Comparison of On - Time Performances QOS for all Routes in Shah
Alam.

Based on the Figure 4.9, it shown the comparison of on – time percentage of all routes
in Shah Alam. For route T757 the on – time percentage obtained is 91.30% and on
weekend is 87.50%. In the manual, the QOS for both weekday and weekend for route
T757 were B and C respectively. As for route T758, the on – time percentage on
weekday and weekend were 91.30% and 95.65% accordingly. Based on the results is
shown that the QOS on weekday is B and on weekend is A. Route SA01 obtained
65.63% for weekday and 63.33% on weekend. Both weekday and weekend obtained
QOS E.
 54

4.2.5 The On – Time Performance in Klang

TABLE 4.10 The on - Time Performance for Klang

Route No. of No. of on Total Not On-time QOS
late time arrival arrive percentage
arrival arrival (%)

KLG1 10 25 35 0 71.43 D
(weekdays)

KLG1 12 20 32 0 62.50 E
(weekend)

KLG2 16 16 32 0 50.00 E
(weekdays)

KLG2 14 21 35 0 60.00 E
(weekend)

704 2 27 29 1 93.10 B
(weekdays)

704 2 27 29 0 93.10 B
(weekend)
  AVERAGE 71.69
(D)

Finally for Klang, total arrival schedule for route KLG01 and KLG02 were 35 and
route 704 is 29. Number of on - time arrival for route KLG01 is 25 on weekday and
23 on weekend. Meanwhile route KLG02 were 16 and 21 both weekday and weekend
respectively. For route 704, the on – time performance for both weekday and weekend
were 27. Resulting the average of on – time performance for Klang is 71.69% which
the QOS is D.
 55

100 B B
80 D
E E
On - time percentage

60 E
40

20
0
.. ) .. ) s) )
kd. end kd. end ay e nd
ee k ee k d k
( w ee ( w ee e ek ee
( w ( w (w ( w
L G1 G1 L G2 G2 4 4
K KL K L
Route
K 70 70

FIGURE 4.10 Comparison of On - Time Performances QOS for all Routes in Klang.

Based on the Figure 4.10, is the comparison of the on – time percentage QOS for all
routes in Klang. It shown that, route KLG01 on weekday obtained 71.43% and on
weekend is 62.50%. The QOS for this route is D and E both for weekday and weekend
respectively. As for route KLG02, both weekday and weekend obtained 50% and 60%
accordingly. Both weekday and weekend the QOS fall under E. Lastly, route 704, the
on – time percentage both weekday and weekend were 93.10 which the QOS is B.
based on the on – time percentage, it shown that route 704 is better compare to
KLG01 and KLG02. This reason behind of the low QOS at routes KLG01 and KLG02
because the traffics volume in Klang city is high and many lanes were closed for
repair. Other than that, route 704 is longer compare to KLG01 and KLG02.
 56

4.2.6 The Summarise Analysis of On – Time Performance

TABLE 4.11 Summarise QOS of on – time performance in West Klang Valley

Area On – time percentage Average on time percentage QOS
(%) (%)
Puchong T600 100.00 94.78 B
95.00
T604 84.21
89.47
T605 100.00
100.00
Petaling PJ02 64.52 78.49 D
Jaya 74.19
PJ03 77.42
87.09
PJ04 80.65
87.09
Subang Jaya T776 94.74 97.32 A
100.00
T777 94.44
100.00
T778 100.00
94.74
Shah Alam T757 91.30 82.45 C
87.50
T758 91.30
95.65
SA01 65.63
63.33
Klang KLG01 71.43 71.69 D
62.50
KLG02 50.00
60.00
704 93,10
93.10
 57

Overall, it can be seen that Subang Jaya has a better on time performance as compared
to Puchong, Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam and Klang. According to the manual, a QOS of
A gives the passenger making one round trip per weekday with no transfer
experiences one not – on – time vehicle every 2 weeks, while for the operator, this
QOS is the best possible result that achievable by transit services operating below
capacity on a grade – separated guideway not shared with non – transit vehicle, with
few infrastructure or vehicle problem. As for QOS B in Puchong, by the passenger
perspective will making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences one
not – on – time vehicle every week and by operator perspective, achievable by transit
services operating on a grade – separated guideway not shared with non – transit
vehicle. Other than that, for QOS C in passenger perspective, making one round trip
per weekday with no transfer experiences up to not – on – time vehicles every week,
for operator perspective is typical range for commuter rail that shares track with
freight rail and typical range for light rail with some street running or achievable by
bus services in small – to mid – sized cities. Lastly, QOS D as passenger perspective,
making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences up to three not – on
–time vehicles every week or every day. Meanwhile, operator perspective is that the
typical range for light rail with a majority of street running and achievable by bus in
large cities.

A problem regarding the fixed timetable for the arrival of the buses was that all
service operators of for five location did not publish it publicly in any form. Hence, an
estimated time of arrival based on the service frequency has been used according to
the arrival of the first bus at that particular stop. The on time performance was based
on the time range and the definition of 1 minute early to 5 minutes late was used to
evaluate the on time arrivals of the buses.

4.3 Auto – Transit Travel Time

The travel time for both routes were recorded in the APPENDIX C. For each of the
routes at each of the location. The time for the bus and car was recorded for each stop
and the ratio of the two were calculated. The results obtained are tabulated as follows:
 58

4.3.1 The Auto – Transit Travel Time in Puchong

TABLE 4.11 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Puchong (Weekday)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning. morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T60 42 30 1.4 33 29 1.14 40 35 1.14 35 26 1.35 1.26
0
T60 43 35 1.23 40 26 1.54 41 38 1.08 40 29 1.38 1.31
4
T60 15 14 1.07 13 12 1.08 12 13 0.92 12 10 1.2 1.07
5
1.21
Average (B)

TABLE 4.12 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Puchong (Weekend)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T60 39 25 1.56 38 21 1.81 35 36 0.97 35 23 1.52 1.47
0
T60 47 36 1.31 39 33 1.18 41 38 1.08 42 33 1.27 1.21
4
T60 17 15 1.13 18 12 1.5 13 11 1.18 16 15 1.07 1.22
5
 59

1.3
Average (C)

For Puchong, the average ratio for weekday is 1.21 while on weekend is 1.3. The
travel time between the bus and the car can be differentiate in which there are not
much time difference between both. On weekday there obtained QOS is B which
mean that by using car it takes up to 40 minutes to reach the destination. While by
using bus, it will take 10 minutes longer than the car. On the other hand, for weekday
the QOS is C. It will take up 40 minutes if by car but if by bus it will take up to 20
minutes longer of travel time.

1.6
C
1.4 C
C B
B
Transit Travel Auto Time

1.2
B
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
T600 T600 T604 T604 T605 T605
(weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.12 Comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in Puchong

Based on the Figure 4.12, it shown the comparison of transit travel auto time of all
routes in Puchong. It shown that the comparison between weekday and weekend of
the routes that have been chosen. For route T600 it shown that the both weekday and
weekend the QOS is C. But in the figure shows that on weekend is a slightly more
than weekday. The reason is that the volume of the traffic is higher on weekend. Other
than that for route T604, on weekday the QOS is C while on weekend B. Based on the
observation, it route is much more busy on weekday because people goes to work and
has more bus stop compare to other routes. Lastly for route T605, both weekday and
 60

weekend obtained QOS B. This is because the route is shorter compare to with other
two routes and it less busy road.

4.3.2 The Auto – Transit Travel Time in Petaling Jaya

TABLE 4.13 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Petaling Jaya (Weekday)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
PJ02 47 38 1.24 44 31 1.42 46 39 1.18 48 36 1.33 1.29
PJ03 26 23 1.13 21 23 0.91 19 24 0.79 22 21 1.05 0.97
PJ04 47 38 1.24 46 36 1.28 45 38 1.18 40 38 1.05 1.19
1.15
Average (B)

TABLE 4.14 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Petaling Jaya (Weekend)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
PJ02 45 36 1.25 44 28 1.57 47 38 1.24 31 27 1.15 1.30
PJ03 19 18 1.06 22 25 0.88 26 27 0.96 22 23 0.96 0.97
PJ04 40 33 1.21 46 39 1.18 49 41 1.20 47 37 1.27 1.23
 61

1.17
Average (B)

As for Petaling Jaya, the average ratio travel time for weekday and weekend were 1.15
and 1.17 respectively. This shown that not much different of travel time between
weekday and weekend and the QOS obtained for both were B. It indicate that the
travel time for bus take up 10 minutes longer than the car based on the manual. This is
because the bus does not have their own lane and need to used lane same as car.
Passenger car has to tailgate whenever the busses stop since it single lane road for
most of the journey.

1.4 C C
B B
1.2
A A
Transit Auto Travel Time

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
PJ02 PJ02 PJ03 PJ03 PJ04 PJ04
(weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.14 Comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in Petaling Jaya

Based on the Figure 4.14 is the comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in
Petaling Jaya. It shown the comparison between weekday and weekend at each of the
routes chosen. It shown that on route PJ02, the QOS both for weekday and weekend
were C. It not much different between weekday and weekend. The traffic based on the
day of observation, the volume of vehicles is high and the route is longer than PJ03
and PJ04. Other than that, for route PJ03, both weekday and weekend obtained A for
QOS. This is because the route is shorter and the traffic is not that heavy on that day
of observation. Lastly, for route PJ04, it shown that the QOS is B for weekday and
weekend. The reason is that the traffic less heavy compare to route PJ02.
 62

4.3.3 The Auto - Transit Travel Time in Subang Jaya

TABLE 4.15 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Subang Jaya (Weekday)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T77 26 25 1.04 25 18 1.39 27 16 1.69 26 18 1.44 1.39
6
T77 19 16 1.19 17 13 1.31 19 14 1.36 17 12 1.42 1.32
7
T77 24 17 1.41 22 20 1.10 22 20 1.10 18 13 1.38 1.25
8
1.32
Average (C)

TABLE 4.16 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Subang Jaya (Weekend)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T77 23 19 1.21 21 19 1.11 22 16 1.38 21 14 1.5 1.3
6
T77 21 16 1.31 16 10 1.6 15 12 1.25 16 15 1.07 1.31
7
T77 29 12 2.42 18 15 1.2 28 17 1.65 16 12 1.33 1.65
8
1.42
 63

Average (C)

The average ratio of travel time for Subang Jaya for both weekday and weekend were
1.32 and 1.42 respectively. The QOS for both weekday and weekend is C based on the
manual. The result obtained indicated that the travel time of the bus take up 20
minutes longer compare the travel time of the car. The passengers have the choice
whether to take bus or riding car.

1.8
D
1.6
C
1.4 C C C
C
Transit Travel Auto Time

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
T776 T776 T777 T777 T778 T778
(weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.16 Comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in Subang Jaya

Based on the Figure 4.16, it shown the comparison of transit auto travel time of all
routes in Subang Jaya. It shown the comparison between weekday and weekday of
each routes in Subang Jaya. For route T776, it shown that the QOS obtained for both
weekday and weekend were C. As for route T777 also both weekday and weekend
obtained C. But for route T778, on weekday it obtained QOS C and on weekend is D.
The reason is that most of the routes obtained QOS C is that, there a lot traffic light
which will affect the travel time both bus and car. As for route T778 on weekend it
obtained D, it is because the bus break down about 16 minutes. This will affect the
travel time for the bus.

4.3.4 The Auto – Transit Travel Time in Shah Alam

TABLE 4.17 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Shah Alam (Weekday)
 64

Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T75 22 17 1.29 18 14 1.29 21 15 1.4 15 11 1.36 1.34
7
T75 21 16 1.31 18 12 1.5 21 18 1.17 16 12 1.33 1.33
8
SA0 52 41 1.27 51 39 1.31 62 45 1.38 58 41 1.41 1.34
1
1.34
Average (C)

TABLE 4.18 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Shah Alam (Weekend)
Rout         Avera
e ge
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour
morning morning evening evening
(11am-2pm)
(7am-9am) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
T75 21 17 1.24 18 12 1.5 22 14 1.57 14 12 1.17 1.37
7
T75 18 16 1.13 16 12 1.33 21 18 1.17 15 12 1.25 1.22
8
SA0 63 43 1.47 46 40 1.15 51 42 1.21 43 39 1.10 1.23
1
Average 1.27
(C)
 65

For Shah Alam, the average ratio for weekday is 1.34 and for weekend is 1.27. Based
on the value obtained from average ratio, it shown that both weekday and weekend
QOS is C. This will make the passenger had a choice to ride the bus or car because the
travel time for bus take up 20 minutes longer than car based on the manual.

1.4
C
1.35 C C
C
Transit Travel Auto Time

1.3

1.25 B
B
1.2

1.15

1.1
T757 T757 T758 T758 SA01 SA01
(weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.18 Comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in Shah Alam

Based on Figure 4.18, it shown the comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes
in Shah Alam that has been choose. It shown that comparison between weekday and
weekend for each routes. For route T757, both weekday and weekend obtained QOS
C. While for routes T758 and SA01, both weekday the QOS obtained C and on
weekend obtained B for QOS. As for the routes T757 and T758, the distance between
the each stop is long although the routes for both is short compare to the SA01.
Weekday for SA01 obtained C this is because the bus has to stop at each bus stop
around 1 or 2 minutes because a lot people using the bus on this route. On the other
hand, weekend for T758 and SA01 obtained B this is because the bus skip few stops
based on the observation on that day.

4.3.5 The Auto – transit Travel Time in Klang

TABLE 4.19 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Klang (Weekday)
Route         Avera
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour ge
morning morning evening evening
 66

(7am-9am) (11am-2pm) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)

 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
KLG 51 32 1.59 35 24 1.46 48 32 1.5 32 23 1.39 1.49
01
KLG 44 27 1.63 34 25 1.36 43 27 1.59 33 22 1.5 1.52
02
704 84 53 1.66 80 48 1.67 84 57 1.47 79 51 1.55 1.59
Average 1.53
(D)

TABLE 4.20 Travel Time Ratio for Bus and Car in Klang (Weekend)
Route         Avera
Peak hour Non peak hour Peak hour Non peak hour ge
morning morning evening evening
(7am-9am) (11am-2pm) (4pm-6pm) (8pm-10pm)
 
Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati Bu Ca Rati
s r o s r o s r o s r o
KLG 49 32 1.53 36 25 1.44 51 31 1.65 33 23 1.43 1.51
01
KLG 44 27 1.63 31 21 1.48 43 28 1.54 33 21 1.57 1.56
02
704 84 57 1.47 77 48 1.6 79 60 1.32 81 56 1.45 1.46
1.51
Average (D)

Lastly for Klang, the average ratio obtained for weekday and weekend were 1.53 and
1.51 respectively. The QOS for both weekday and weekend is D. Based on the
manual, it will take up 40 minutes one way – trip by car and for bus it will take up 1
hour longer to complete the trip.
 67

1.65

1.6 D
D

Transit Travel Auto Time

1.55
D
D
1.5 C
C
1.45

1.4

1.35
KLG01 KLG01 KLG02 KLG02 704 704
(weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend) (weekday) (weekend)
Route

FIGURE 4.20 Comparison of transit auto travel time of all routes in Klang

Based on the Figure 4.20, it shown that the comparison of transit auto travel time of
all routes in Klang. Each of the routes will be compare between weekday and
weekend. For route KLG01, weekday the QOS obtained is C while on weekend is D.
Other than that, for route KLG01, both weekday and weekend obtained QOS D. As
for the route 704, both weekday and weekend obtained D and C respectively. This is
because all the routes is long and has many stops. Also the traffic volume at Klang is
quite heavy and all the vehicle mixed using the same lanes. For KLG01 and 704 on
weekday, obtained QOS C because the driver skip few stops and driving the bus
faster.
 68

4.3.6 The Summarise Analysis of Auto – Transit Travel Time

TABLE 4.21 Summarise QOS of auto – transit travel time in West Klang Valley
Area Weekday average & Weekend average & Average ratio &
QOS QOS QOS
Puchong 1.21 (B) 1.3 (C) 1.26 (C)

Petaling 1.15 (B) 1.17 (B) 1.16 (B)

Jaya
Subang 1.32 (C) 1.42 (C) 1.37 (C)
Jaya
Shah Alam 1.34 (C) 1.27 (C) 1.31 (C)

Klang 1.53 (D) 1.51 (D) 1.52 (D)

Transit auto travel time is a study to determine the time of travel between the bus and
an auto vehicle which in this case was a car. Based on the data, a comparison can be
drawn between the five location on weekday and weekend. A lower ratio between bus
and car dictates a better QOS, in which the travel time of the bus is almost comparable
to the car. Based on the data table above, it can be seen that the QOS for Petaling Jaya
for both weekday and weekend were B, while for Puchong, Subang Jaya and Shah
Alam both were C. Only at Klang the QOS obtained for weekday and weekend is D.
This can be said that Petaling Jaya buses travel time are considerably closer to the
travel time of the car.

On average for both weekday and weekend for Petaling Jaya, a QOS of B was
obtained. According the manual for passenger’s perspective, the travel times between
the bus and car are comparable in which there are not much time difference between
the both. If the commute by car takes up to 40 minutes, the travel time of the bus will
take 10 minutes longer. However for this study, there was no travel time of cars which
were 40 minutes long. On the other hand for the operator’s perspective, this QOS of B
can be feasible if the service is express and has limited stop services in an exclusive
lane. Based on the field observation, the possible reason as to how the service can
 69

sustain a QOS of B even though it has no exclusive lane or express service is because
the buses operate on a single lane road for most of the journey. Passenger cars have to
tailgate whenever the buses stop at a designated stop. Secondly, traffic signals also
play an important factor as on average every 100-200m there will be a traffic light.
This will reduce the headway between the bus and car. Therefore the time differences
between the bus and car can be kept at a desirable difference.

As for Puchong, Subang Jaya and Shah Alam result obtained QOS C, which
mean based on the manual on passenger’s perspective is that the passenger has choice
to choose to take the bus or using personal vehicle. The travel times between the bus
and car are comparable in which there are not much time difference between the both.
If the commute by car takes up to 40 minutes, the travel time of the bus will take 20
minutes longer. Lastly, for Klang the QOS obtained is D. This indicated that the car
has to round trip up to 1 hour longer by transit for a 40 minutes one way trip based on
the passenger perspective.

However, there are limitations and weaknesses to the data obtained. Firstly, the
outcome of the data could be influenced by the traffic condition of that particular day.
As the data for both car and bus were taken on separate days, there could be
differences in traffic volume.
 70

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary of Findings

The major or focal research framework for this thesis was to evaluate the bus service
on- time performance in West Klang Valley. Two other objectives were also reviewed
in order to provide a support framework for this thesis. As outlined in Chapter 1, the
objectives are as follows:

a) To identify the service coverage of the public buses service performance in West
Klang Valley.
b) To evaluate the on – time performance for public buses service in West Klang
Valley.

c) To identify the transit – auto travel time of the public buses service performance in
West Klang Valley.

All the objectives above is the main objective of this thesis was to use
attributes identified previously to conduct the service performance study on West
Klang Valley buses. The overall results were calculated as follows according to the
method used by Ponrahono, Bachok, Osman, Ibrahim, and Abdullah from their study
entitled Assessing the Urban and Rural Stage Bus Service Disparities in Peninsular
Malaysia:
 71

TABLE 5.1 Final average score and QOS categorization in Puchong

Attributes QOS QOS Score Mean QOS Final Overall
QOS
Service F 1 3.3 D
Coverage
On – Time B 5
Performance
Transit Auto C 4
Travel Time
Total Score 10
*Score Range A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3, E=2, F=1

TABLE 5.2 Final average score and QOS categorization in Petaling Jaya
Attributes QOS QOS Score Mean QOS Final Overall
QOS
Service F 1 3 D
Coverage
On – Time D 3
Performance
Transit Auto B 5
Travel Time
Total Score 9
*Score Range A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3, E=2, F=1

TABLE 5.3 Final average score and QOS categorization in Subang Jaya
Attributes QOS QOS Score Mean QOS Final Overall
QOS
Service F 1 3.7 D
Coverage
On – Time A 6
Performance
Transit Auto C 4
 72

Travel Time
Total Score 11
*Score Range A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3, E=2, F=1

TABLE 5.4 Final average score and QOS categorization in Shah Alam
Attributes QOS QOS Score Mean QOS Final Overall
QOS
Service F 1 3 D
Coverage
On – Time C 4
Performance
Transit Auto C 4
Travel Time
Total Score 9
*Score Range A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3, E=2, F=1

As shown in Table 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, a final overall of QOS of D was
obtained for the service on – time performance of Puchong, Petaling Jaya, Subang
Jaya and Shah Alam buses. According to the Department of Transport Florida, a QOS
of D is within the acceptable QOS set by the developed countries such as United
States (Ponrahono, Bachok, Osman, Ibrahim, Abdullah & Abdullah, 2015). Although
the QOS of D is just a satisfactory level obtained. Therefore, there are many room for
improvements if the public’s perception towards the system is to change.

TABLE 5.5 Final average score and QOS categorization in Klang

Attributes QOS QOS Score Mean QOS Final Overall
QOS
Service F 1 2.3 E
Coverage
On – Time D 3
Performance
 73

Transit Auto D 3
Travel Time
Total Score 7
*Score Range A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3, E=2, F=1

As shown in the Table 5.5, a final overall QOS of E was obtained for the
service on – time performance of Klang buses. Compared to other four location,
Klang obtained the lowest QOS and also not within the acceptable QOS for
developing country. This is shown that buses system in Klang need to improve a lot to
change the perception of passengers regarding the bus system.

5.2 Recommendations

To improve the result obtained in the on – time performance, need to gained the actual
timetable of bus from the bus operator since they not publish it publicly in any form.
In this study, an estimated time of arrival based on the service frequency. It has been
used according to the arrival of the bus at the particular bus stop.

As for service coverage, it is recommended that use GIS software to obtain the
accurate results. In this study, using Google Maps to obtain the maps of particular
location and all the routes were marked. Need to highlight 400m radius from the
centre line of the road. The buffer radius is to show the service coverage boundary of
particular routes.

At the same time, to improve the data obtained for auto – transit travel time it
is favourable that obtained the data for both car and bus taken on the same day. If
taken different days, there could be difference in traffic volume on that routes. The
outcomes could influenced by the traffic condition on that particular day.

The above improvement recommendations for future researcher if who

interested to continue this study. All suggestions were based on the results and
analysis of this thesis. With the implementation of these recommendation steps, it is
 74

aimed that the results obtained will be more precise and accurate. Thus, it will
heighten the perception, interest of passengers and improve the quality of service bus
system in West Klang Valley or other part of Malaysia.

5.3 Future Study Suggestions

In future, the studies should be more focus on:

 Identified how the operator produce the timetable of the bus and the reason it
not publish publicly.

 A study on bus system of different operators in West Klang Valley.


 75

REFERENCES

Md.Rohani, M., Devapriya Chitral Wijeyesekera, & Ahmad Tarmizi Abd. Karim. (2013). Bus
Operation, Quality Service and The Role of Bus Provider and Driver.

Transport Safety Victoria, S. G. (13 July, 2016). Bus accreditation and registration. Retrieved
from Bus Safety Victoria: http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/bus-safety/bus-
accreditation-registration-in-victoria

Academies, T. R. B. of the N. (2003). Chapter 5 Quality of Service Methods. In Transit

Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Third Edition) (pp. 1–108).
Al Mamun, M., & Lownes, N. (2011). A Composite Index of Public Transit Accessibility.
Journal of Public Transportation, 14(2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-
0901.14.2.4
Amiril, A., Nawawi, A. H., Takim, R., & Latif, S. N. F. A. (2014). Transportation Infrastructure
Project Sustainability Factors and Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 153, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.044
Arhin, S. A., Noel, E. C., & Dairo, O. (2014). Bus Stop On-Time Arrival Performance and
Criteria in a Dense Urban Area, 3(6), 233–238.
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijtte.20140306.01
Audit, T., & South, N. (2010). AUDITOR-GENERAL ’ S REPORT PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Improving Road Safety : School Zones Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. Public
Finance, (February).
Bachok, S., Osman, M. M., & Ponrahono, Z. (2014). Passenger’s Aspiration Towards
Sustainable Public Transportation System: Kerian District, Perak, Malaysia. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 553–565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.088
Capacity, T. (2003). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Transportation Research,
1–7.
Christie, S., & Fone, D. (2003). Equity of access to tertiary hospitals in Wales: A travel time
analysis. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 25(4), 344–350.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg090
Currie, B. G. (2012). An Assessment of Alternative Bus Reliability Indicators
Acknowledgements: Much of the material derives from a 2006 study that reviewed an.
Australasian Transport Research Forum, (September 2011), 1–20. Retrieved from
http://www.patrec.org/atrf.aspx
Eboli, L., Forciniti, C., & Mazzulla, G. (2014). Service Coverage Factors Affecting Bus Transit
System Availability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 984–993.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.133
 76

Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2008). A Stated Preference Experiment for Measuring Service
Quality in Public Transport. Transportation Planning & Technology, 31(5), 509–523.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802364471
Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2010). How to capture the passengers’ point of view on a transit
service through rating and choice options. Transport Reviews, 30(4), 435–450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903068441
Haron, S., Noor, S. M., Sadullah, A. F. M., & Vien, L. L. (2010). The Headway Patterns and
Potential Parameters of Bus Transportation in Penang. Proceeding of Malaysian
Universities Transportation Research Forum and Conferences, 2010(December), 279–
290.
Ismail, N. F. (2018). Free bus service in Shah Alam. Retrieved from
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2014/03/25/free-bus-service-in-shah-
alam-community-initiative-to-ease-burden-of-lowerincome-group-and-student/
Kim, J., Kim, J., Jun, M., & Kho, S. (2005). Determination of a Bus Service Coverage Area
Reflecting Passenger Attributes. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, 6, 529–543.
Kim, Y., Park, J., & Kim, E. (2005). A development of punctuality index for bus operation.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6(June), 492–504.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., URS, Inc., & Quality Counts, I. (2006). Transit Speed and Delay
Study, (April), 1–34.
Land, H., Transport, P., Projects, U., High, R., & Rail, S. (2017). Land Public Transport.
Retrieved from http://www.spad.gov.my/land-public-transport/buses/bus-network-
revamp-bnr
Litman T. (2008). Valuing transit service quality improvements. J Public Transp, 11(2), 43–64.
Mazzulla, G., & Forciniti, C. (2012). Spatial association techniques for analysing trip
distribution in an urban area. European Transport Research Review, 4(4), 217–233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-012-0082-9
Napiah, M., Kamaruddin, I., & Suwardo. (2011). Punctuality index and expected average
waiting time of stage buses in mixed traffic. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment,
116, 215–226. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT110191
Noor, H. M., Nasrudin, N., & Foo, J. (2014). Determinants of Customer Satisfaction of Service
Quality: City Bus Service in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 153, 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.092
Omnibus, S., Bhd, S., Seng, L., Putra, N., Valley, K., Network, B., … Line, S. P. (2018). Buses in
Klang Valley. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buses_in_Klang_Valley
Ponrahono, Z., Bachok, S., Ibrahim, M., & Mohamed, M. (2015). A Study of Urban- Rural
Public Bus Passengers ’ Demographic and Trip Characteristics in Peninsular Malaysia,
5(1), 57–69.
Rohani, M. M., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Karim, A. T. A. (2013). Bus operation, quality service
and the role of bus provider and driver. Procedia Engineering, 53, 167–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.022
Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2013). Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable
 77

measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 31,
143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.011
Strathman, J. G., Dueker, K. J., Kimpel, T., Gerhart, R. L., Turner, K., Taylor, P., … Griffin, D.
(2000). Service reliability impacts of computer-aided dispatching and automatic vehicle
location technology: A Tri-Met case study. Transportation Quarterly, 54(3), 85–102.
Suwardo, Napiah, M. B., & Ibrahim B. Kamaruddin. (2009). On-Time Performance and Service
Regularity of Stage Buses in Mixed Traffic. World Academy Of Science, Engineering And
Technology, 3(7), 1137–1144.
Vuchic, V. R. (1981). Urban public transportation: systems and technology, 1–20.
Yaakub, N., & Napiah, M. (2011). Quality of Service and Passenger ’ s Perception – A Review
on Bus Service in Kota Bharu. Quality of Service and Passenger ’ S Perception – A Review
on Bus Service in Kota Bharu, 11(October), 1–9.