co-worker or a friend (i.e., Would you recommend the bus service to a family member, co-worker or a friend?). Two options (checkboxes) were given: (a) yes and (c) No. Additionally, the survey required users to indicate for how many months or years they intended to use the bus service in the future (i.e., How many months or years do you intend to use this bus service?). Expected answers for this question included adding the amount of time or a comment that described their intentions. Finally, the surveys requested the participants to report their age, gender, and home postal code and to add optional comments. A total of 440 surveys were conducted. Nevertheless, similarly to other studies found in the literature where surveys were conducted at bus stops (Diab and El-Geneidy, 2014; Hess et al., 2004; Mishalani et al., 2006; Psarros et al., 2011), some respondents could not answer all the questions because the bus arrived before they finished completing the survey. As a result, several of the surveys were not completed, decreasing the response rate for some of the last questions, including home postal code. Each surveying team included three members, two individuals
to survey passengers, and one to record the arrival times of the passengers and the buses in comparison to bus schedules. This technique was used in order to understand the amount of time that people budget before the bus arrivals and to get a snapshot of their actual waiting time. The observation sheet contained the passenger time stamp, which is the time at which each passenger arrived at the stop, based on the last bus departure. Other information collected on this sheet included the arrival and departure times of each bus, as well as the number of people at a bus stop. Passengers’ waiting time was based on the difference between their arrival time at the stop and the time the bus arrived; passengers’ waiting time was compared to the bus schedules to determine every passenger’s actual budgeted waiting time.