Expectations and Perceptions

of Passengers on Service Quality

with Reference to Public Transport
Undertakings
Kanagaluru Sai Kumar*

The purpose of this qualitative study is to ascertain the expectations and

perceptions of passengers using public transport undertakings. A sample of
200 respondents was selected for the study. The various dimensions that are
considered include assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, tangibles
and comfort. The study reveals that there is highest gap in comfort dimension
and lowest gap in responsiveness and empathy dimensions. Chi-square test
has been used to compare the satisfaction of the respondents on the basis of
gender and occupation. The test results reveal that the satisfaction is different
for male and female passengers as well as across occupations of the
passengers.

Introduction
Transport facility is one of the important inputs for the economic development of any
country. The socioeconomic activity of a country largely depends on the transportation
systems and is recognized as an engine of growth for the long-term development of
the country. For the movement of human beings, materials and various other resources
from one place to another, it is necessary to have a speedy transportation system.
Hence, transportation acts as a catalyst and forms the backbone of the economic growth.
In India, the transport sector has received scant attention over the past few decades of
the planning era. Though various transport modes are available, the road-based
transport is the most popular mode of transport because of its peculiar advantages,
such as flexibility, capital requirements, capacity, infrastructure, accessibility and
adaptability, in addition to route, direction, time and speed. At the time of independence,
the road transport activity was entirely in the hands of private operators, and the
transport sector was completely fragmented and totally unorganized. There were several
private operators competing among themselves and the quality of services rendered
to the traveling public was also substandard. They tried to snatch each other’s traffic

* Professor, Department of Management, Narayana Engineering College, Nellore 524001, Andhra

Pradesh, India. E-mail: dr.k.saikumar@gmail.com

Expectations
© 2012 IUP. and Perceptions
All Rights of Passengers on Service Quality
Reserved. 67
with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
share. The main objective of the private operators was to make profits without any
social concern. As a result, people at large were deprived of adequate transport services
and there was large-scale exploitation of labor in this sector. Realizing the evils of
uncoordinated and uncontrolled passenger road transport, the Government of India
nationalized the bus transportation system in the country; accordingly a well-organized
bus transport system was developed to serve the traveling public. In spite of various
measures taken for the development of public transport, it has been incurring losses
mainly due to dissatisfaction of travelling public regarding insufficient service quantity
and terrible service quality. Hence, the present study is an attempt to know the quality
of services offered to the traveling public in terms of their expectations and perceptions.
The analysis used in the present study will help the authorities of transport undertakings
to concentrate and develop more appropriate strategies in the areas where quality of
service is poor, and on the basis of which a well-designed set of action can be taken for
better performance of the transport undertakings.

Review of Literature
The term ‘satisfaction of customer’ is accepted as an important factor that determines
the demand for goods/services as well as affects the competitive advantages of firms.
The meaning of customer satisfaction in the service sector is different from its meaning
in the goods market. Hence, the measurement of customer satisfaction in service sector
is more difficult than its measurement in goods sector. Therefore, these measurements
are usually made by using consumer ’s perception about the quality of services
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). The satisfaction of a passenger in transport undertakings
is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches the expectations of the
traveling public. Most of the service sectors consider that satisfaction of consumers is
explained by expectations and perceptions. The expectations are based on one’s own
and others’ experiences. Most of these studies based on the static model are suggested
by Parasuraman et al. (1985 and 1988). The measurement of expectations and
perceptions has been a controversial issue in the literature. While it seems to be logical
to identify the gap between the expectations and perceptions for the estimation of the
satisfaction, the other researchers (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; and Teas, 1993) questioned
the validity of the gap model.
The study by Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggests that measuring perceptions alone
might be a better indicator of satisfaction related to service sector, than measuring the
difference between expectations and perceptions. Aldlaigan and Buttle (2002) are of
the view that it is not always easy to adopt the gap approach, since in real-life setting,
it requires to collect the data twice from the same customers and compare their answers.
However, from the management perspective, it is always necessary to identify the gap
between the expectations and perceptions of the students, so that effective and suitable
strategies can be designed to close the gaps or at least to minimize them. In the
present study, gap approach has been used with the objective of identifying the gaps
and to use these gaps for the prediction of the satisfaction of the students.

68 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

 Passenger satisfaction in the field of public transport is related to the discrepancy
between actual and ideal levels of service. According to Rus and Oliver (1997),
understanding of passenger satisfaction related to transport undertakings is important
to find out the various levels of quality of services offered. The study conducted by
Bitner and Zeithaml (2003) defines the satisfaction of the customer as a global judgment
or an attitude relating to the supremacy of a service received or enjoyed. The importance
of measuring the satisfaction of the customers has been well justified in the literature.
Studies have shown that customer satisfaction is closely related to positive behavioral
intentions and customer loyalty (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Bloemer et al., 1998; and Baker
and Crompton, 2000).
Liberalization and privatization polices of the government created stiff competitive
pressure on the public transport undertakings and the private bus operators are
slowly directing their strategies towards providing more services to the passengers
with a view to providing them satisfaction. Private bus operators pursuing these
strategies, differentiate the services that they offer. Hence, it is time for public transport
undertakings to modify their strategies on passenger satisfaction. Many studies show
that the key strategy for the success of any business organization depends on how
effectively the services are delivered to the customers (Parasuraman
et al., 1985). Another study conducted by Zeithaml et al. (1990) is also of the opinion
that customer satisfaction is an important factor for the success of any business
institution. The globalization and privatization of Indian economy caused drastic
improvement in the income levels as well as buying power of both low level and
medium level people. As a result, the demand for luxury and comfort-based services
has expanded; hence, passengers require a service feature that provides a pleasurable
level of consumption-related fulfillment.
There are very few studies on satisfaction of passengers in public bus transport
undertakings. These studies showed the relation between satisfaction and the factors
causing satisfaction, without giving much consideration to the gap between the
expectations and perceptions. However from the management point of view, identifying
the intensity of these factors causing satisfaction is always a useful task, since strategies
can be designed in order to improve the satisfaction of passengers. Therefore, a set of
service-based variables have been taken from the passengers’ perception about
satisfaction of services as well as transport undertakings literature, to carry out the
present study.

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of the present study is to enhance the satisfaction of passengers using
the public transport undertakings by identifying the gap between their expectations
and perceptions on various service-related factors. The following are the research
objectives formulated to guide the study.
• To measure the gap between expectations and perceptions of the passengers
using the public transport undertakings.

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 69

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
 • To suggest suitable measures to minimize the gap between expectations and
perceptions of the passengers.

Hypothesis
This study infers that the satisfaction will vary between the male and female passengers
as well as across different occupations of the passengers. As against this background,
the following hypothesis has been formulated:
Null Hypothesis 1: The satisfaction will not be the same between the male and
female passengers.
Null Hypothesis 2: The satisfaction will not be the same among the passengers
of different occupations.

Methodology
Instrument Development
The instrument used in this study is composed of two parts. Satisfaction of the
passengers was measured by a questionnaire consisting of six dimensions, namely,
1. Assurance
2. Empathy
3. Reliability
4. Responsiveness
5. Tangibles, and
6. Comfort
The various attributes generated for all the six dimensions included in the
questionnaire were adopted from the earlier studies conducted by Devi and Raja (2010)
on the service quality of Indian Railways, and Sai (2011) on public transport
undertakings. Part 1 of the questionnaire included demographic characteristics of
respondents such as gender, age, occupation and area of residence, while Part 2 had
an expectations and perceptions section with 29 statements. Each of these statements
was measured on a 4-point Likert scale, in which 1 indicated ‘strongly disagree’,
2 ‘disagree’, 3 ‘agree’, and 4 ‘strongly agree’ (see Appendix).

Data Collection
A survey instrument in the form of close-ended questionnaire was developed for the
purpose of collecting the main data for the study. This study was conducted at various
places in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Various factors such as precession, accuracy,
time and cost constraints were taken into consideration in selecting the respondents.
Using convenient sampling technique, different places in both the states were selected.
Using non-probability sampling technique, a total of 200 passengers were selected as

70 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

sample for the study. The respondents were selected from different backgrounds and
age groups in order to maintain uniformity, and also proper care was taken to select
the respondents with different income levels to improve the generalization of the result.
The actual field survey was conducted over a period of one month between June 2011
and August 2011, whereby personal interviews were conducted to obtain the required
information from the selected respondents.

Data Analysis
The primary data collected have been sorted, classified and tabulated in a format and
analyzed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0). Appropriate
statistical procedures like averages and chi-square test have been used for drawing
inference. The chi-square test has been used to determine whether there are any
significant associations between the variables under study.

Results and Analysis

Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 reveals that 68.5% of respondents were male and the rest (31.5%) were female
passengers. An analysis of the age of the respondents indicates that 27.5% were less
than 25 years, 17.5% were in the age group of 25-35 years, 28% in the age group of
35-45 years, 14.5% in the age group of 45-55 years, and the remaining 12.5% were

Table 1: Profile of the Respondents

No. of Respondents Percentage

1. Gender Male 137 68.5
Female 63 31.5
Total 200 100.0
2. Age Less than 25 Years 55 27.5
25-35 Years 35 17.5
35-45 Years 56 28.0
45-55 Years 29 14.5
Above 55 Years 25 12.5
Total 200 100.0
3. Occupation Student 35 17.5
Employee 65 32.5
Business 72 36.0
Farmer 22 11.0
Others 6 3.0
Total 200 100.0

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 71

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
above 55 years. Similarly an analysis of the occupation of the respondents reveals
that 17.5% belonged to student category, 32.5% were employees, 36% were related to
business, 11% were farmers, and the remaining 3% belonged to others category. It is
concluded that with respect to gender, the passengers are predominantly male, and
with respect to age, most of them belong to 35-45 years of age, and with respect to
occupation, the majority of passengers belongs to business category.
From Tables 2 to 8, it is clear that the highest expectation statement E4 is in the
assurance dimension, followed by E11 in reliability dimension, E28 in comfort
dimension, E8 in empathy dimension, and E16 in responsiveness dimension. Similarly,
the lowest expectation statements E21 and E25 are in tangible dimension, E14 in
reliability dimension, E3 in assurance dimension, and E9 in empathy dimension.

Table 2: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Assurance Dimension

Average Value for

S. Assurance Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 1-5)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
1. Courtesy of staff 3.252 3.312 –0.060
2. Being informed, if
there are delays 2.798 2.979 –0.181
3. Personal safety at bus
stations 2.592 2.494 0.098
3.091 3.105
4. Personal safety in
buses 3.596 3.629 –0.033
5. Staff having
knowledge to answer
your questions 3.215 3.112 0.103
Total Gap –0.073

Table 3: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Empathy Dimension

Average Value for

S. Empathy Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 6-10)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
6. Dealing with you in
caring fashion when
you make inquiries 2.806 2.924 –0.008
7. Understanding your
needs when you make
inquiries 2.895 2.959 –0.064
8. Having your best
interest in heart 3.285 3.129 0.156

72 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

 Table 3 (Cont.)

Average Value for

S. Empathy Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 6-10)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
9. Availability of coolie
and other carriers 2.596 2.125 0.471
10. Availability of help 2.942 2.873
from the staff 3.125 3.225 –0.100
Total Gap 0.455

Table 4: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Reliability Dimension

Average Value for

S. Reliability Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 11-15)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
11. Maintaining the
frequency of buses as
scheduled 3.548 3.615 –0.067
12. Punctuality of bus
services 3.255 3.124 0.131
13. Dependability in
handling your service- 3.0366 3.1562
related problems 3.165 3.179 –0.014
14. Updated information
on bus schedules 2.459 2.968 –0.509
15. Complaint handling
system 2.786 2.895 –0.109
Total Gap –0.568

Table 5: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Responsiveness Dimension

Average Value for

S. Responsiveness Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 16-18)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
16. Willingness to help
you 2.786 2.845 –0.059
17. Prompt service 3.254 3.172 0.082
3.008 2.871
18. Availability of staff in
handling requests 2.986 2.597 0.389
Total Gap 0.412

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 73

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
 Table 6: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Tangibles Dimension
Average Value for
S. Tangibles Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 19-25)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
19. Clarity of information
given at the depots 3.045 3.452 –0.407
20. Cleanliness of the bus
depots 2.956 2.527 0.429
21. Modern appearance
of the station 2.125 2.569 –0.444
22. Cleanliness of the bus 2.956 3.012 –0.056 2.853 2.922
23. Overall appearance of
the bus 3.126 3.214 –0.088
24. Neat professional
staff at the depots 3.248 3.245 0.003
25. Medical facilities
available in the bus 2.521 2.429 0.092
Total Gap –0.471

Table 7: Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Comfort Dimension

Average Value for
S. Comfort Mean Score
Gap Dimension
No. (Statements 26-29)
Expectation Perception Expectation Perception
26. Availability of seating
in the bus 2.968 2.895 0.073
27. Comfortable seating
in the bus 3.254 3.589 –0.335
28. Smoothness of the 3.139 3.325
ride of the bus 3.478 3.587 –0.109
29. Traveling time of
the bus 2.856 3.214 –0.358
Total Gap –0.729

Table 8: Highest and Lowest Expectation Statements

Statement No. Highest Expectation Statements Mean Score
E4 Personal safety in buses 3.596
E11 Maintaining the frequency of buses as scheduled 3.548
E28 Smoothness of the ride of the bus 3.478

74 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

 Table 8 (Cont.)
Statement No. Highest Expectation Statements Mean Score
E8 Having your best interest in heart 3.285
E16 Prompt service 3.254
Lowest Expectation Statements
E21 Modern appearance of the station 2.125
E14 Updated information on bus schedules 2.459
E25 Medical facilities available in the bus 2.521
E3 Personal safety at bus stations 2.592
E9 Availability of coolie and other carriers 2.596

From Table 9, it is evident that the highest perception statements E4 and E1 are
in assurance dimension, with E11 in reliability dimension, and E19 and E24 in tangible
dimension. Similarly, the lowest perception statement E9 belongs to empathy
dimension, followed by E3 in assurance dimension, and E25, E20, and E21 in tangible
dimension.
From Table 10, it is clear that the passengers give first priority to comfort, followed
by reliability and tangibles. Assurance, responsiveness and empathy were given
priorities in the fourth, fifth and sixth place.

Table 9: Highest and Lowest Perception Statements

Statement No. Highest Perception Statements Mean Score
E4 Personal safety in buses 3.629
E11 Maintaining the frequency of buses as scheduled 3.615
E19 Clarity of information given at the depots 3.452
E1 Courtesy of staff 3.312
E24 Neat professional staff at the depots 3.245
Lowest Perception Statements
E9 Availability of coolie and other carriers 2.125
E25 Medical facilities available in the bus 2.429
E3 Personal safety at bus stations 2.494
E20 Cleanliness of the bus depots 2.527
E21 Modern appearance of the station 2.569

Measuring the Level of Satisfaction

To ascertain the level of satisfaction, Likert’s summated scale was selected with
4 options as follows: 4 – Strongly agree; 3 – Agree; 2 – Disagree; and 1 – Strongly
disagree. The level of satisfaction of the passengers may be low, normal or high.

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 75

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
 Table 10: Priority for Each Dimension

Average Value for Dimension

Dimension Gap Priority
Expectation Perception
Assurance 3.091 3.105 –0.073 4
Empathy 2.942 2.873 0.455 6
Reliability 3.037 3.157 –0.568 2
Responsiveness 3.008 2.871 0.412 5
Tangibles 2.853 2.922 –0.471 3
Comfort 3.139 3.325 –0.729 1

With a view to finding out the level of satisfaction of sample passengers, the views
related to the perception statements of passengers have been added, i.e., the scale
consists of 29 statements with 4 points (1-4). The highest possible score by an individual
is 116. On the basis of satisfaction score the sample respondents were divided into three
groups, i.e., low, normal and high (Table 11). Those who scored between 0 and 39 were
identified as having low satisfaction, between 40 and 78 were identified as having normal
satisfaction, and between 79 and 116 were identified as having satisfaction at high level.

Table 11: Level of Satisfaction of Passengers

Level of Satisfaction Number of Respondents Percentage

Low (0-39) 69 34.5
Normal (40-78) 85 42.5
High (79-116) 46 23.0
Total 200 100.0

Testing of Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis: The satisfaction will not be the same between the male and
female passengers.
Alternative Hypothesis: The satisfaction will be the same between the male
and female passengers.

Interpretation 1
For 2 degrees of freedom, the chi-square value at 5% level of significance is 5.9915.
The calculated value of chi-square is 1.6105, which is less than the tabulated value of
chi-square at 5% level of significance (Table 12). Thus the null hypothesis is accepted.

Testing of Hypothesis 2
Null Hypothesis: The satisfaction will not be the same among the passengers
of different occupations.

76 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

 Table 12: Level of Satisfaction Between Male and Female Passengers

Gender
Level of Satisfaction Total
Male Female
Low 49 20 69
Normal 60 25 85
High 28 18 46
Total Respondents 137 63 200
df = (r – 1) (c – 1) = 2; Chi-square value = 1.6105.

Alternative Hypothesis: The satisfaction will be the same among the passengers
of different occupations.

Interpretation 2
For 8 degrees of freedom, the chi-square value at 5% level of significance is 15.5073.
The calculated value of chi-square is 9.6549, which is less than the tabulated value
of chi-square at 5% level of significance (Table 13). Thus, the null hypothesis is
accepted.

Table 13: Level of Satisfaction Based on the Occupation of Passengers

Level of Occupation
Total
Satisfaction
Student Employee Business Farmer Others
Low 10 24 26 8 1 69
Normal 16 29 32 7 1 85
High 9 12 14 7 4 46
Total 35 65 72 22 6 200
df = (r – 1) (c – 1) = 8; Chi-square value = 9.6549.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The public transport undertakings in recent years have been facing heavy competition
from private transport undertakings due to various reasons. It is the responsibility of
transport undertakings to understand the reasons and to take remedial measures for
survival as well as to improve the satisfaction of the traveling public. Otherwise, if
they are dissatisfied, they will not feel happy to travel in public transport undertakings.
Hence, the authorities of the transport undertakings must find out the factors that
make passengers feel unhappy, and also investigate and understand what makes
them happy.
The highest gap between expectations and perceptions of the passengers was
found in the comfort dimension. The result of the study reveals that passengers are

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 77

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
not happy about the comfort that they experience while traveling. This indicates that
passengers are expecting more comfort than what they are receiving at present. This
gap can be bridged by providing comfortable seats, smooth riding of the bus and by
minimizing the traveling time. The lowest gap between expectations and perceptions
of the passengers was found in responsiveness and empathy dimensions, which
implies that the passengers are satisfied with the present working of the public transport
undertakings. If the authorities of the transport undertakings fail to provide congenial
environment and care to the passengers, they easily get dissatisfied. But the present
study shows that a majority of respondents are satisfied with the working of the
public transport undertakings. The study also reveals that passengers are more
satisfied with punctuality and reliability of transport operations and activities, followed
by cleanliness and other facilities provided in the buses as well as depots. 

References
1. Aldlaigan A and Buttle A (2002), “SYSTRA-SQ: A New Measure of Bank Service
Quality”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13, No. 4,
pp. 362-381.

2. Baker D and Crompton J (2000), “Quality Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions”,

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 7, No. 27, pp. 785-804.

3. Bitner M J and Zeithaml V A (2003), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer

Focus Across the Firm, McGraw Hill, New York.

4. Bloemer J, Ruyter K and Peeters P (1998), “Investigating Drivers of Bank Loyalty:

The Complex Relationship Between Image, Service Quality and Satisfaction”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 276-286.
5. Cronin J J Jr. and Taylor S A (1992), “Measuring the Service Quality:
A Reexamination and Extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
6. Devi Prasad M and Raja Sekhar B (2010), “Importance and the Zone of Tolerance
of Passenger’s: Expectation of Indian Railway Passengers Services by Applying
RAILQUAL”, Asian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 387-401.
7. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V A and Berry L L (1985), “A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 41-50.
8. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V A and Berry L L (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple
Item Scale for Measuring Customers Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 12-37.
9. Rus R T and Oliver R L (1997), “Service Quality: Insights and Managerial
Implications from the Frontier ”, in R T Rus and R L Oliver (Eds.), Service
Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, pp. 1-19, Sage, London.

78 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

10. Sai Kumar K (2011), “A Study on the Satisfaction of Passengers with Respect to
Public Transport Undertakings”, Sankhya International Journal of Management
and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 12-20.
11. Teas R (1993), ”Expectations, Performance Evaluation and Consumer Perceptions
of Quality and Satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 201-214.

12. Zeithaml V A, Parasuraman A and Berry L (1990), Delivering Quality Service,

Free Press, New York.
13. Zeithaml V A, Berry L and Parasuraman A (1996), ”The Behavioral Consequences
of Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.

Appendix

Questionnaire

Dear Respondent,
The questionnaire is related to a study titled ‘Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers
on Service Quality with reference to Public Transport Undertakings’. You are requested
to go through the questionnaire and give your views. The information provided by you
will be kept confidential and will be used for research purpose only.
Part 1
1. Name:
2. Gender: [ ]
(a) Male (b) Female
3. Age [ ]
(a) Less than 25 Years (b) 25-35 Years (c) 35-45 Years
(d) 45-55 Years (e) Above 55 Years
4. Occupation [ ]
(a) Student (b) Employee (c) Business
(d) Farmer (e) Others
5. Income Level [ ]
(a) 0-15,000 (b) 15,000-25,000 (c) 25,000-35,000
(d) 35,000-45,000 (e) Above 45,000
6. Area of Residence [ ]
(a) Urban (b) Suburban (c) Rural

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 79

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
 Appendix (Cont.)
Part 2
Rank the following statements from 1 to 4, according to your expectations and perceptions.
Please mark [] in the relevant box to indicate your opinion regarding each of the
statement.
[1 indicates Strongly Disagree, 2 indicates Disagree, 3 indicates Agree, and 4 indicates
Strongly Agree].

Assurance (Statements 1-5)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

1. Courtesy of staff        
2. Being informed, if there are delays        
3. Personal safety at bus stations        
4. Personal safety on buses        
5. Staff having knowledge to answer
your questions        

Empathy (Statements 6-10)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

6. Dealing with you in caring fashion
when you make inquiries        
7. Understanding your needs when you
make inquiries        
8. Having your best interest at heart        
9. Availability of coolie and other
carriers        
10. Availability of help from the staff        

Reliability (Statements 11-15)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

11. Maintaining the frequency of buses
as scheduled        
12. Punctuality of bus services        
13. Dependability in handling your
service related problems        
14. Updated information on bus
schedules        
15. Complaint handling system        

80 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. XI, No. 3, 2012

 Appendix (Cont.)

Responsiveness (Statements 16-18)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

16. Willingness to help you        
17. Prompt service        
18. Availability of staff in handling
requests        

Tangibles (Statements 19-25)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

19. Clarity of information given at the
depots        
20. Cleanliness of the bus depots        
21. Modern appearance of the station        
22. Cleanliness of the bus        
23. Overall appearance of the bus        
24. A neat professional staff at the depots        
25. Medical facilities available in the bus        

Comfort (Statements 26-29)

S. No. Statements Expectation Perception

26. Availability of seating in the bus        
27. Comfortable seating in the bus        
28. Smoothness of the ride of the bus        
29. Traveling time of the bus        

Reference # 07J-2012-08-03-01

Expectations and Perceptions of Passengers on Service Quality 81

with Reference to Public Transport Undertakings
Copyright of IUP Journal of Operations Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.