Impact of brt implementation on commuter behavior in montorcycle dependent city case study ha noi city

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY (All cap, bold, font size 14, Times New Roman) FULL NAME OF THESIS LUU DUY AUTHOR (All cap, bold, font size 14, Times New Roman) THESIS TITLE (All cap,BRT bold, font IMPLEMENTATION size 22, Times New Roman) IMPACT OF ON COMMUTER BEHAVIOR IN MOTORCYCLE DEPENDENT CITY MAJOR: ……………… CODE: ………………… (All cap, bold, font size 14, Times NOI New Roman) CASE STUDY: HA CITY RESEARCH SUPERVISOR: Associate Prof Dr NGUYEN VAN A (All cap, bold, font size 14, Times New Roman) Hanoi, 20 (Regular, bold, font size 14, Times New Roman) MASTER’S THESIS Hanoi, 2018 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY LUU DUY IMPACT OF BRT IMPLEMENTATION ON COMMUTER BEHAVIOR IN MOTORCYCLE DEPENDENT CITY CASE STUDY: HA NOI CITY MAJOR: INFRACTRUCTER ENGINEER CODE: ………………… RESEARCH SUPERVISOR: Ph.D NGUYEN HOANG TUNG DR NGUYEN TIEN DUNG Hanoi, 2018 Acknowledgment In order to complete my master thesis with topic “Impact of BRT implementation to commuter behavior in Motorcycle dependence city”, I have received the support and assistance of my supervisors, VJU teachers, classmates and friends With deep affection, sincerity, allow me to express my profound gratitude to all my teachers and friends who have helped in the process of learning and completing my master thesis which would not be able to complete well without their help First of all, I would like to send to my supervisors Ph.D Nguyen Hoang Tung and Dr Nguyen Tien Dung, my respectful, deep thankfulness for their care and guidance that helped me during my hard time after internship I would like to send my sincere thanks to all the teachers of the Viet Nam Japan University who taught and imparted precious knowledge to me during the study period in university Especially, I deeply appreciate my deep gratitude to Professor Kato, University of Tokyo, and Prof Nguyen Dinh Duc, Hanoi National University and Dr Phan Le Binh, Lecturer, JICA Long-term experts at VJU for their attention and kindly support unconditionally Therefore, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and special thanks to my teachers One can not fail to mention the support of my classmates in MIE – VJU, assistant of my class Bui Hoang Tan and friends has also help me to finish the survey and thesis if there was no help of them, I would not finish thesis well Hence, I would like to express my gratitude to them for their help Later, I would like to give my special thanks to my family, my lover who have given all support for me during my thesis Given the limited time and experience of the thesis itself, these shortcomings can not be avoided I hope to receive the advice and comments of the teachers to have improvement for my studying and working in my life Thank you sincerely Luu Duy INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1I: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 What is Motorcycle dependence cities (MDCs) 1.2 Public transprot and people behavior in MDCs CHAPTER III: PROBLEM STATEMENT 3.1 Problem statement 3.2 Study question CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 4.1 Research Ojective 4.2 Research Specific Objectives CHAPTER V: HYPOTHESIS CHAPTER VI: APPOARCHES AND METHODOLOGY 6.1 Methodology 6.2 Sampling design 10 6.3 Questionair design 10 CHAPTER VII: CASE STUDY 11 7.1 Context background 11 7.2 Data collection 13 7.3 Analysis 15 7.3 Discucssion 35 CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUTSION 36 References 37 Appendix: The survey questionnaire 38 INTRODUCTION Research background: In developing countries especially in Asian countries, in the context of strong socioeconomic development, rapid urbanization, improved livelihoods, increase population the demand for travel, the use of motorbikes soared and become the key mode of urban transportation due to its advantages such as : cheap, convenient, mobility etc…However the growing number of motorcycles with poor and low quality infrastructure has led to severe traffic congestion and accidents in developing cities (Phan and Shimazu, 2011; Uy and Regidor, 2011) and pollution Especially in some motorcycle dependence cities where dominated by motorcycle in daily life and the infrastructure system is underdeveloped, the situation is worsen and the people not have the intend and habit to use public transport In order to improve living standard and aim to build sustainable city, the government in that cities has planned the mass transit transport system (metro, Light Rail Transit) to solve the problem but it require high capital cost and long term construction while the cities still poor and limited resources In that situation, after success of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) in Bogota and Curitiba and some China city, BRT which has high quality and outstandingly it has cost effective than other mass transit system (proved by Bangkok BRT system investment cost estimation in 2004 that show the cost is approximately 17 and 75 times cheaper than those of Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Subway respectively (Thaned Satienam, 2006)), the city manager is recommended to be use BRT to solve the transport problems, improve the public transport system and especially change people awareness and behavior on using their commuting mode which will be the key factor for reducing the private vehicle in general and motorcycle in particular However, it still seems difficult to introduce BRT to these cities because its characteristic (planning, infrastructure ) and people behavior that likely stick on private vehicles due its advantages to fit their daily demand Purpose of study The main purpose of this study is the impact evaluation of BRT introduction to the people especially commuter who is the main group that contribute to daily traffic in motorcycle dependence cities It is expected the results will be helpful for the city managers to evaluate the effectiveness of BRT introduction to their city for enhancing the transport system and improve the traffic conditions Structure of the thesis The thesis includes chapters: Chapter 1: Literature review Chapter 2: Problems statement Chapter 3: Research Objectives Chapter 4: Hypothesis Chapter 5: Approaches and Methodology Chapter 6: Case study Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendation I: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 What is the Motorcycle dependence city (MDC): Motorcycle dependence cities (MDCs) are the cities such as Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh, Taipei that have special characteristic on land use and infrastructure that causing the domination of motorcycle in daily life The “motorcycle city” was firstly called by Barter (1999) to describe the situation of cities in Indonesia and Vietnam Futher, Khuat Viet Hung (2006) defined the MDCs by three indicators: (1) high motorcycle ownership (more than 350 motorcycles per 1000 inhabitants), (2) lack of public transport alternatives (less than one bus per 1000 inhabitants) and inadequate non-motorized trips compared with motorcycle, (3) high share of motorcycles in the traffic (more than 50%) and low modal split to public transport (lower than 20%) The people in MDCs use motorcycle for almost every activity in their daily life, meanwhile the public transport is facing a declining trend of mode share in traffic due to lack of awareness for perceived quality and missing quality management (Vu Anh Tuan 2016) 1.2 Public transport and people behavior in MDCs: Public transport is facing declining trend due to a lack of awareness for perceived quality and the missing quality management (Vu Anh Tuan 2016) Beside the decreasing of public transport, because the characteristic of MDCs that influence land-use pattern by allowing for the development of many areas which are only accessible by motorcycle, the people in MDCs use motorcycle to fit their demands, saving time and convenient and fullfill their trip which has high number in trip chaining than developed countries (average trips/ day compare with average 2.5 trips/day due to poor land use control) (Vu Anh Tuan, 2015) The consequence of motorcycle domination is congestion and pollution but people in this MDCs not keen to use public buses, low intention to switch from their „motor biking‟ lifestyle even they are living in polluted environment (Poh Ng yen and Phung Thanh Phuong, 2015) Apart from the reason to less motivate on using bus is the private vehicle user usually has the negative look about public transport (Fujii and partner 2001) and in fact, the quality of bus system in these cities are low and underdeveloped, major group of people using bus are pupil, student and unemployment/ retirement (low income group) due to cost saving, working group from 25 to 60 years old (middle and high income group), motorcycles take a dominant role for saving time and convenient (Cam Van, Vu Anh Tuan 2013; Vu Anh Tuan, 2012) Meanwhile, statistical data show an decease in walking rates throughout the world and in Asian countries (Ebru Cubukcu, 2013) and with the dependence of motorcycle and polluted environment, the people in MDCs not have the positive awareness toward walking and the acceptable walking distance to use bus is within 400m from the station CHAPTER II: PROBLEM STATEMENT: 2.1 Problem statement Some researches stated that it is difficult to change the behavior of people in MDCs with BRT implementation then the city should focus on railway system development (Vu Anh Tuan, 2012) however the above conclusions may be uncertain because: - The researchers evaluated the impact of BRT with Stated Preference method when BRT is not implemented (Vu Anh Tuan, 2012,2013,2015; Thanned Satiennam 2013, 2015; Nguyen Thi Cam Van, 2013) - These studies not focus on specific group, the main commuter group which impact to daily traffic is not well research - Most of all, the behavior change on is not careful investigate in case of before and after implementation, for example the walking behavior which is associated with public transit and moving toward increased physical activities (Amy L Freeland, PhD, Shailendra N Banerjee, PhD, Andrew L Dannenberg, MD, MPH, and Arthur M Wendel, 2013) and the basis of sustainable city to reduce pollution and healthy life(Rustam Khairi Zaharib, 2013) Therefore, maybe the research will have different results with the data is collected in case of after BRT implementation and there are more aspects like walking behavior, perception that effect by the introduction 2.2 Research question: With the advantages of BRT in high quality, level of service compare with the convenient bus, how is the impact of BRT to commuter behavior in motorcycle dependence cities when BRT was implemented CHAPTER III: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: 3.1 Research objective: This study aims to understand the impact of BRT on behavior of commuter who almost every day use their vehicle to go to work in motorcycle cities after BRT was implemented With the data and results in this case, the city manager will have better view on the effectiveness of BRT implementation on motorcycle dependence city for the sustainable development 3.2 Research specific objectives: The change on commuter behavior will be researched in specific objectives: characteristics of BRT commuter, modal shift, perception, walking behavior, and trip chaining: - Characteristic of BRT commuter: The change on characteristic of BRT commuter compare with Bus commuter - Modal shift: The change on weight of attributes on travel time and travel cost between BRT commuter and bus commuter - Commuter Perception: The change on perceived quality of commuter: the perceived travel time, safety, security, punctuality and comfort are factors influence to mode choice and reason to choose bus of commuter are chosen for studying - Walking behavior: Change in walking distance, walking attitude and body gesture - Trip chaining: Change in trip chaining arrangement and multi-purpose trips because one of reason that the commuter use private vehicle is full fill their daily high trips CHAPTER IV: HYPOTHESES: According to the TRAMOC BRT 3-month operation report, the average operating) On average, BRT riders save 14 percent (or 3.1 minutes in the 9th month BRT survey) of their travel time (including walking time to the station and waiting time at the station) per trip For those who shifted from regular buses to BRT, their travel time savings is much higher: 37–87 percent as the higher frequency and reliability of BRT buses further saves waiting time for riders So that with the advantages of BRT in LOS and operation, the commuter will have the positive change on behavior compare when using BRT than using local bus Hypothesis 1: When explore people‟s travel behavior, Vu Anh Tuan (2015) claimed that BRT not effective enough to attract large of number motorcycle and car user until MRT will be introduced and majority bus user is low income commuter Beside that, the motorcycle take a dominant role in group user that has age from 25 to 60 (Vu Anh Tuan, 2013) According to another evidence, in “Developing the public transport – Lessons learnt from bus system operation practice in Ha Noi” (Vu Hong Truong,2016) found the same opinions that the bus users are mostly student/pupil (37%), the office only take a small part (12%) and the low income group (below mil VND) account for high proportion (81%), the group has income larger than 10mil VND only take 5% Bus user occupation 2016 26% Bus user income 2016 5% 23% 14% 37% 12% 11%14% 23% 35% Pupil/Student Worker Other Retirment/housewife Officer 10mil 4-6 mil VND However, Jain et al (2014) found that commuters are willing to shift to public transport if major criteria of services are fulfilled Thanned Satisenam (2016) also claimed that people had positive opinions about BRT as new, better alternative mode of travel Then with BRT implementation, with the advantages of BRT compare with normal bus will attract more people in other groups bus and change on characteristic of commuter: higher income, the office commuter, group of people have age above 25 and attract more motorcycle commuter than bus (the number of motorcycle shift to BRT larger than bus Hypothesis 2: Thanned Satisenam (2014) found that travel time and travel cost significantly affected mode shift to BRT and the reason to use bus (public transport) are cheap and safety although its time is longer than using private vehicle Vu Anh Tuan (2015) also stated that low income commuter, they chose bus for cost saving and the higher (middle and high income) chose motorcycle and car for time saving and comfort respectively So the travel With the advantages on travel time of BRT, the weight of travel time is higher than travel cost for mode choice of commuter cost is affected to mode choice of commuter when using bus Hypothesis 3: Many research proved the relationship with level of service (LOS) with the commuter‟ satisfaction (Eboli and Mazzulla, 2007) Satoshi Fuji and Hong Tan (2009) also found that the effect of bus service on the intention of using the bus of motorbike users, thus enhancing the "feel" of the quality, can make the intention of using the bus become better However, Fuji (2001) stated that the private vehicle user has the negative opinions about public transport and Vu Hong Truong (2016) found that the perceived quality for bus of commuter is decreasing from 2010 because bus quality is not satisfying when the income and passenger variability and desire for better quality With higher LOS, The perceived service quality of BRT (travel time, safety, punctuality…) commuter will become better than perceived service of bus commuter in order to using public transport 10 BRT impact : DD= (B-A) –(D-C) (B-A): different of BRT commuter between 2016 and 2018 (D-C): different of Bus commuter between 2016 and 2018 For the variables of perception and walking attitude that not have the different between 2016 and 2018 D-C = 0, for the variables that have the different in pair 1,3,5,6,8,11,15,16,17 the different is determined by mean of bus 2016 and 2018 when compare perception of BRT commuter between 2016 and 2018 2018 2016 ∆ (D-C) 2018 Differents in Different BRT Different between data of commuter when using BRT with data when using bus Travel time perception 4.23 3.52 0.167 3.687 0.543 Punctuality perception 4.16 3.17 3.17 0.99 Security perception 4.23 3.39 0.1 3.49 0.74 Safety perception 4.21 3.45 3.45 0.76 Comfort perception 4.24 3.34 0.178 3.518 0.722 Child 3.4 except chose_time variable and walking rush 2.78 The perception of commuter without BRT after DD method is not much different with 2016 and 2018, the mean value chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -233.5165 Pseudo R2 = 0.0557 -Treat | Coef Std Err z P>|z| [95% Conf Interval] -+ -Age | -.0086863 0096672 -0.90 0.369 -.0276337 0102611 Occupation | -.2440879 1353198 -1.80 0.071 -.5093098 0211339 Montlyinco~p | 3902271 1479199 2.64 0.008 1003094 6801449 vehicle_2016 | 1939618 2100841 0.92 0.356 -.2177955 6057191 Walking_di~6 | -.0007014 0005618 -1.25 0.212 -.0018025 0003996 _cons | -1.305292 6271992 -2.08 0.037 -2.53458 -.0760042 Description of the estimated propensity score in region of common support The region of common support is [.07087973, 62557458] Percentiles Smallest 1% 0770957 0708797 5% 0887893 0741063 10% 1023986 0741063 25% 120629 0747946 Obs 502 Sum of Wgt 502 41 50% 75% 90% 95% 99% 1447699 Mean 1899136 Largest Std Dev .0925049 2518521 5269692 3212947 5311355 Variance 0085572 3576429 5832277 Skewness 1.263239 5002792 6255746 Kurtosis 4.739746 Step 2: Check the common support area, block, check balance condition in each block This table shows the inferior bound, the number of treated and the number of controls for each block Inferior | of block | Treat of pscore | Bus BRT | Total -+ + -.0708797 | 268 41 | 309 | 135 49 | 184 | | | | -+ + -Total | 406 96 | 502 Step 3: Calculate the average ATT of blocks (chose estimating ATT of walking_distance variable for example) Bootstrap statistics Number of obs = 749 Replications = 200 -Variable | Reps Observed Bias Std Err [95% Conf Interval] -+ -attnd | 200 64.62572 30.50952 32.99853 -.4459475 129.6974 (N) | 30.27321 157.6356 (P) | 17.87932 94.83686 (BC) -Note: N = normal P = percentile BC = bias-corrected ATT estimation with Nearest Neighbor Matching method (random draw version) Bootstrapped standard errors n treat n contr ATT Std Err t 96 173 64.626 32.999 1.958 The result ATT of walking_distance meaning is the different between BRT commuter and bus commuter in acceptable walking distance is 64.6m then this is the impact of BRT The different on remaining variables will be determined according the above steps Different between BRT commuter and Bus commuter3 Travel time perception BRT Bus 2018 2018 4.23 3.88 42 Different Without After PSM,DID PSM 0.35 0.36 After DID 0.543 Punctuality perception 4.16 3.75 0.41 0.29 0.99 Security perception 4.23 3.80 0.43 0.45 0.74 Safety perception 4.21 4.00 0.21 0.17 0.76 Comfort perception 4.24 3.75 0.49 0.39 0.722 Child 0.5 In this study also has a investigate about the another factors that affect to mode choice of commuter is perception about Brt/bus compare with motorcycle and allow kid to use public transport The results show that the commuter think speed of BRT equal or higher than motorcycle and BRT suitable for bring kids along and allow them to use bus than bus CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION This study has the purpose to understand the impact of BRT implementation on commuter behavior in motorcycle dependence city Overall, With the advantages of BRT in operation and level of services, the impact achieved its target to change on commuter behavior in mode share, the modal shift, perception and walking distance and attitude 44 toward walking BRT is more popular with commuter than bus for suitable with high income, officer commuter In walking behavior, BRT encourage commuter to walk further and more positive to walking than bus commuter Specially, when using BRT, by the good frequency, commuter not have to rush or hurry to catch BRT then it make them to walk easier and more comfort The walking behavior enhancement is one important factor to encourage people to improve the habit of using motorcycle decrease the motorcycle dependent In trip chaining, BRT commuter has fewer trips than bus commuter and tend to combine trips when using BRT Finally, the BRT implementation has positive effectiveness to change on commuter behavior in MDCs that is necessary for aiming to decrease the motorcycle dependent and encourage the public transport which are very important for building sustainable city in the future REFERENCE: [1] Ha Noi Urban Transport development project World bank (2007) [2] Ha Noi Urban Transport development project World bank report (2015,2016,2017,2018) 45 [3] James Leather, Herbert Fabian, Sudhir Gota and Alvin Mejia (2011) Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities ADB report [4].Walter Molt Ha Noi Public Transport Transformation by Management [5].Trinh Thuy Anh, Trinh Tu Anh (2007) Bus accident – a problem in public transport in Ha Noi today [6] Khuat Viet Hung (2012) Transport planning in motorcycle dependent cities : cureen issues and future perpectives [7.] Khuat Viet Hung (2006) Traffic Management in Motorcycle Dependent Cities [8.] Nguyen Thi Cam Van, Vu Anh Tuan (2013) Urban Accesiblility in Motorcycle Dependent Cities- Case Study in Ho Chi Minh City [9] Vu Anh Tuan (2015).Mode Choice Behavior and Modal Shift to Public Transport in Developing Cities - the Case of Hanoi City [10] Ngoc, Khuat Viet Hung, Vu Anh Tuan (2017) Towards the Development of Quality Standards for Public Transport Service in Developing Countries: Analysis of Public Transport user's behavior [11] Thaned Satienam (2016) Influence of psychological factors on mode choice behavior: Case Study of BRT in Khon Kaen City, Thai land [12].Hsin-Li Chang, Shun-Cheng Wu (2007) Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: Evidence of motorcycle dependence in Taipei [13].Le Quan Hoang, Toshiyuki Okamura Influences of Motorcycle Use on Travel Intentions in Developing Countries: A case of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam [14] Thaned Satiennam, Sittha Jaensirisak, Wichuda Satiennam, Sumet Detdamrong (2016) Potential for modal shift by passenger car and motocycle users toward BRT in Asian developing city [15] Poh Yen Ng, Phung Thanh Phuong (2015) From motor biking to Public Transportation, What matter in Ha Noi? [16] Clement Musil, Christine Molt (2010) Building a Public Transportation System in Ha Noi: Between emergency and constraints [17.] Thanh Tu Nguyen, Jean Loup Madre (2017) Using a demographic - based model in fore casting travel demand in Ha Noi [18] Amy L.Freeland, Shailendra N Banerjee, Andrew L.Dannenberg, Arthur M,Wender (2013) Walking Associated With Public Transist: Moving toward increased Physical Activity in United Stated Appendix: The survey questionnaire PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA HÀNH VI GIAO THÔNG THÀNH PHỐ HÀ NỘI Mã phiếu 01 BRT/02 BRT Điều tra viên SĐT: 46 g Th i gian g i c ph ng v n Địa iểm ph ng v n Giới tính: Tuổi: PHẦN KHẢO SÁT SƠ BỘ S1) ăm 2016 bạn sử dụng ph ơng tiện ể i lại h ng ng ? Xe bus   Xe máy S2) Công việc bạn l gì? Cán bộ, cơng Kinh doanh cá  nhân viên thể  Oto Học sinh/ Sinh viên   Khác Nội trợ / Nghỉ hưu / Thất nghiệp   S3) Thu nhập anh (chị) khoảng bao nhiêu/tháng ….….( ơn vị tính : triệu ồng) *Thu nhập bao gồm tiền cung cấp hàng tháng từ gia đình cho học sinh, sinh viên S4) ăm 2016 v na (năm 2018) mức ộ th ng xu ên sử dụng xe BUS/BRT bạn nh n o? ( bạn hã ghi số lần bạn sử dụng v o cột t ơng ứng với th i gian) BUS thường năm 2016 BRT (năm 2018)   Số lần sử dụng ngày Số ngày sử dụng tuần Không sử dụng S5) ăm 2016 v na (năm 2018) bạn nghĩ sử dụng xe bus/ BRT v o mục n o Đến nơi Đến cửa Thăm bạn Đi chơi/ Sự Đưa đón làm việc/ hàng/ bè/ kiện Trường học Siêu thị Người thân ích nh Mục đích khác Năm 2016 (Bus)       Năm 2018 (BRT)       S6) ăm 2016 v na (năm 2018) khoảng cách v th i gian i lại h ng ng ph ơng tiện bạn xa nh t l bao nhiêu? Năm 2016 Khoảng cách lại (km) Từ ……… Đến …… Khoảng cách ………… Thời gian lại (phút) 47 cho chuyến i Hiện (năm 2018) Từ nhà chờ……… Đến nhà chờ…… Khoảng cách ………… PHẦN CÂU HỎI CHÍNH PHẦN - NHỮNG LỰA CHỌN CỦA CÁ NHÂN CÓ LIÊN QUAN ĐẾN GIAO NHẬN THỨC VỀ SỬ DỤNG XE BUS/BRT A: CẢM NHẬN VÀ ĐÁNH GIÁ VỀ XE BUS NĂM 2016 VÀ BRT NĂM 2018 Q1) Xin vui lòng cho biết, mức ộ n o quý vị cảm nhận v Xe bus th ánh giá xe bus năm 2016 v BRT na (năm 2018) l : ng 2016 BRT na (năm 2018) Rất đồng ý Đồng ý Không đồng ý không phản đối Không đồng ý Rất không đồng ý Rất đồng ý Đồng ý Không đồng ý không phản đối Không đồng ý Rất khơng đồng ý a) Phương tiện có thời gian lại chấp nhận           b) Phương tiện có chấp nhận           c) Phương tiện có mức độ an ninh tốt           d) Phương tiện có mức độ an tồn giao thơng tốt           e) Phương tiện mang đến thoải mái di chuyển           f) Phương tiện phù hợp với việc mang trẻ nhỏ theo (trẻ em 11 tuổi)           48 g) Bạn có xu hướng chọn thời gian xuất phát để tránh cao điểm           h) Bạn hài lòng với việc sử dụng phương tiện           Q2) Theo ý kiến cá nhân quý vị, mức ộ n o quý vị ồng ý với nhận ịnh sau â so sánh xe má với xe buýt năm 2016 v xe BRT nay? Bus th ng 2016 BRT na (năm 2018) Rất đồng ý Đồng ý Không đồng ý không phản đối Không đồng ý Rất không đồng ý Rất đồng ý Đồng ý Không đồng ý không phản đối Không đồng ý Rất không đồng ý a) Xe bus/BRT thường nhanh xe máy           b) Xe bus/BRT có mức độ đảm bảo an ninh cao xe máy           c) Đi xe bus/BRT thoải mái xe máy           Q3) Giả thiết bạn lựa chọn phương tiện theo hai tiêu chí th i gian v chi phí quãng đường hàng ngày (đi học, làm…) bạn lựa chọn phương tiện sử dụng trường hợp sau 49 Lựa chọn theo cảm nhận bạn dựa theo chất lượng dịch vụ loại phương tiện STT XE BUS HOẶC BRT XE MÁY (XM) Th i gian i chiều : 15 phút lâu XM A Tổng chi phí i lại: 100.000 VND /tháng Tổng chi phí i lại: 200.000 VND /tháng Th i gian i lại : sử dụng Th i gian i lại : sử dụng Tổng chi phí i lại: 300.000 VND /tháng BRT  XM  XM  BUS  BRT  XM  XM  BUS  BRT  XM  XM  Tổng chi phí i lại: 200.000 VND Th i gian i lại chiều: 10 phút nhanh XM D BUS  Tổng chi phí i lại: 200.000 VND Th i gian i lại chiều: XM C Đối với BRT na (năm 2018) Tổng chi phí i lại: 200.000 VND Th i gian i lại chiều: phút lâu XM B Th i gian i lại : sử dụng Đối với xe bus th ng năm 2016 Tổng chi phí i lại: 350.000 VND /tháng Th i gian i lại : sử dụng Tổng chi phí i lại: 200.000 VND B: THÓI QUEN ĐI LẠI 50 BRT BUS  XM   XM  Q4) Đối với ch t l ng dịch vụ xe BRT (sự úng gi , tiện nghi…) mang lại cho bạn, bạn ch p nhận i xa quãng sử dụng BUS th ng v o năm 2016 khơng? Có Khơng ng Q5) ăm 2016 v na (năm 2018) sử dụng xe BUS/BRT bạn ch p nhận khoảng cách i tối a bạn tới iểm ch nằm khoảng n o d ới â (trong ó 400m i t ơng ơng với 5’ i bộ):