CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the study1 1.2 Need for the study 2 1.3 Aim of the study 4 1.4 Objectives of the study 4 1.5 Scope of the study 4 1.6 Conceptual Research Design 5 1.7 Expected Outcomes from the study 6 1.8 Limitations of the study 6 2. Perceived Accessibility 7 2.1 Understanding Perceived accessibility 7 2.2 Difference between perceived and objective accessibility 7 2.3 Perceived Accessibility Scale (PAC) developed by SAMOT 10 2.3.1 Study area and methodology adopted 11 2.3.2 Components of Perceived Accessibility Scale (PAC) 12 2.3.3 Results and conclusions of the Perceived Accessibility Scale (PAC) 14 3. Literature Review 17 3.1 Understanding quality aspects in public transit 17 3.1.1 “Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review” 17 3.1.2 “Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public Transportation: The quality paradox” 21 3.2 Component of first mile and last mile connectivity in public transit 25 3.2.1 “The Effects of Access and Accessibility on Public Transport Users’ Attitudes” 25 3.3 Understanding safety aspects in public transit 30 3.3.1 “How to Ease Women’s Fear of Transportation Environments: Case Studies and Best Practices” 30 4. Relation between perceived accessibility and subjective parameters for public transport 33 4.1 Method, Survey and Instruments 33 4.2 PAC dimensions considered 34 4.3 Quality dimensions considered 34 4.4 Safety dimensions considered 35 4.5 Results and conclusion of the study 36 5. Study area and data collection for the study 39 5.1 Introduction of the study area 39 5.2 Introduction to Ahmedabad BRT – Janmarg 40 5.3 Selected routes of Ahmedabad BRT for survey process 42 6. Survey for the study 43 6.1 Type of sampling 43 6.2 Survey methodology 44 6.3 Sample size 45 6.4 Scale used for survey 46 6.5 Survey parameters considered for the study 47 6.5.1 Perceived Accessibility Scale dimensions 47 6.5.2 Quality dimensions 49 6.5.3 Safety dimensions 50 6.5.4 Background data 51 6.6 Survey Form 53 7. Analysis of the responses in survey 55 7.1 Analysis of Route Number 4 (DCIS |Commerce Six Roads) 55 7.2 Analysis of Route Number 8 (Iskon – Naroda Gam) 57 7.3 Analysis of Route Number 2 (Sola Bhagwat | S P Ring Road) 59 7.4 Analysis of Route Number 7 (IIT Gandhinagar | Narol) 61 7.5 Analysis of Route Number 1 (Maninagar | Ghuma) 63 7.6 Analysis of Route Number 5 (Vasna | Naroda Gam) 65 7.7 Cumulative results of all the routes 67 7.8 Comparison of results on all the routes 68 7.9 Correlation of PAC parameters 71 7.9.1 Correlation amongst PAC statements 71 7.9.2 Correlation of mean perceived accessibility level with age 72 7.9.3 Correlation of mean perceived accessibility level with quality parameters 73 7.9.4 Correlation of mean perceived accessibility level with safety parameters 74 7.9.5 Correlation of mean perceived accessibility level with gender 75 7.9.6 Correlation of mean perceived accessibility level with income levels 76 8. Conclusion of the study 77 9. Way Forward 79 Annexure 80 Bibliography 87