1.1.

Demographic profile of respondents

Question 1

Table 1: Parkstation metrorail passengers by gender and employment status (n =

45).
Table 1

Studen Self Full time Part time Unemploye

Gender Frequency t employed employed employed d Retired
Female 22 8 0 6 4 3 1
Male 23 7 1 10 1 4 0
Total 45 15 1 16 5 7 1

Figure 1: Parkstation metrorail passengers by gender and employment status (n =

45).

Interpretation of the results:

Discussion of results:

Objective 1: To evaluate the impact of Prasa irregular expenditure on Metrorail

commuters.
Question 6

Table 6: Impact of metrorail on different aspects of commuters’ life.

 Which of the following does Metrorail train services affect the most (Ranking from 1 to 5. The one
that affects you most is first positon, followed by the second most in as number 2, and so on.
Aspect of life Mostly
affected by Metrorail affected Affected Neither Slightly Less Total n &
services (1) (2) (3) (4) affected % Mean
Affect my work or 20 10 7 2 6 45
school 44% 22% 16% 4% 13% 100% 2.2
2 7 7 13 16 45
Affect my health 4% 16% 16% 29% 36% 100% 3.76
7 8 16 8 6 45
Affect my safety 16% 18% 36% 18% 13% 100% 2.96
3 9 10 12 11 45
Affect my wellbeing 7% 20% 22% 27% 24% 100% 3.42
13 11 5 10 6 45
Affect my time 29% 24% 11% 22% 13% 100% 2.67
BNOQre 6: Impact of metrorail on different aspects of commuters’ life.
*

Interpretation of the results :

Discussion of results:

Objective 2: To define irregular expenditure.

Question 2

Table 2: Extent of respondents’ agreement with various definitions of irregular

expenditure.

A)    To what extent did respondents (45) agree with the following definitions of irregular
expenditure.
Definitions Strongly Disagre Neutral Agree Strongl Total n & % Mean
agree e (2) (3) (4) y agree
 (1) (5)
Figure 3: Extent of respondents’ agreement with various definitions of irregular
18% 11% 22% 33% 16% 100%
expenditure.
8 5 10 15 7 45
16% 11% 27% 36% 20% 100%
3 5 12 16 9 45
4% 7% 33% 33% 22% 100%
2 3 15 15 10 45
7% 20% 20% 22% 31% 100%
3 9 9 10 14  45
7% 9% 29% 24% 31% 100%
3 4 13 11 14 45

Interpretation of the results:

Discussion of results:

Objective 3: To evaluate if Metrorail commuters think irregular expenditure at

Prasa is the reason for poor service at Metrorail.
Question 3

Table 3: Respondent knowledge about Prasa.

A)    Indicate the suitable option either yes or no with an ‘’ TOTAL

Yes
No
Knowledge about Prasa respondent
respondents
s
Do you know that Prasa is the agency organisation
37 8 45
that runs Metrorail?

Do you think Prasa’s irregular expenditure is the

31 14 45
reason Metrorail have poor service?
Do you follow news of irregular expenditure in the
30 15 45
public transport sector?
Do you think Prasa’s irregular expenditure is the
33 12 45
reason for overcrowding in trains?
Do you think Prasa is wasting money that should
36 9 45
be used in improving Metrorail?

Figure 3: Commuters’ (45) knowledge about Prasa.

Interpretation of the results:

Discussion of results:

Objective 4: To establish why public transport commuters choose Metrorail.

Question 4

Table 4: Commuters (45) experience and perceptive on metrorail.

A)    Indicate the suitable option either yes or no TOTAL

Prasa perceptive Yes respondent No respondents

Do you use Metrorail trains because 45
33 12
you don’t have a choice?
Do you like using Metrorail trains? 22 23 45

Do you use Metrorail trains because 45

42 3
the ticket price is cheap?

Would you change to other transport 45

37 8
like taxi or bus if they were cheaper?
Do you think Metrorail trains will be 45
10 35
improve their service next year?
Does late trains and inconsistent time 45
40 5
affect your life negatively 

Figure/graph 4: Commuters (45) experience and perceptive on metrorail.

Interpretation of the results:

Discussion of results:
Objective 5: To determine the irregular expenditure impact on the status of
trains and stations in the last 5 years.
Question 5

Table 5: Quality of service experienced by Parkstation commuters.

A)    For the last 5 years, what has been your experience of the quality of the Metrorail train services?
No Slightly
Very bad Worse Improved
Services change better Total n and % Mean
(1) (2) (5)
(3) (4)
56% 24% 16% 2& 2% 100%
Trains arrive on time
25 11 7 1 1 45 1.71
27% 38% 16% 13% 7% 100%
Cleanliness in trains
12 17 7 6 3 45 2.36
44% 31% 16% 7% 2% 100%
Security in trains
20 14 7 3 1 45 1.8
Trains breaking 36% 24% 20% 13% 7% 100%
down 16 11 9 6 3 45 2.31
Maintenance of 16% 22% 40% 16% 7% 100
trains 7 10 18 7 3 45 2.76
 33% 22% 20% 13% 11% 100%
Number of trains
15 10 9 6 5 45 2.47
Communication of 9% 16% 29% 24% 22% 100%
train times 4 7 13 11 10 45 3.24
51% 31% 11% 0% 7% 100%
Fair fee for trains
23 14 5 0 3 45 1.8
42% 42% 2% 7% 7% 100%
Safety in trains
19 19 1 3 3 45 1.93
Overload of 44% 22% 16% 2% 7% 100%
passenger in trains 20 10 7 2 6 45 2.2

Figure 5: Quality of service experienced by Parkstation commuters.

Interpretation of the results:

Discussion of results: