OPTIMALISASI ANGKUTAN BUS KOTA SURABAYA BERDASARKAN KESESUAIAN STANDAR PELAYANAN MINIMAL MENGGUNAKAN METODE IMPORTANT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS (Studi kasus: Bus Koridor F, Trayek Terminal Purabaya – Jalan Rajawali Via Jalan Diponegoro)

OPTIMIZATION OF SURABAYA CITY BUS TRANSPORT BASED ON THE SUITABILITY OF MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS USING THE IMPORTANT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS (IPA) METHOD (Case study: Corridor F Bus, Purabaya Terminal Route – Rajawali Street via Diponegoro Street)

Transportasi merupakan suatu kebutuhan yang sangat penting bagi masyarakat perkotaan, salah satunya angkutan umum bus. Transportasi dapat dikategorikan baik, apabila (1) waktu perjalanan cukup cepat, tidak mengalami kemacetan, (2) frekuensi pelayanan cukup, (3) aman (bebas dari kemungkinan kecelakaan). Tujuan Penelitian yaitu mengetahui tingkat pelayanan Angkutan Bus Koridor Trayek F Kota Surabaya sesuai dengan analisis kesesuaian Standart Pelayanan Minimum (SPM)  serta upaya pengelolaan serta alternatif dan penanganannya. Metode penelitian, berupa data kesesuaian pelayanan angkutan sesuai Standar Pelayanan Minimal. Data primer diperoleh dengan melakukan survei, Data primer berupa survey statis dan dinamis. Data yang ada berupa data inventarisasi angkutan, data naik turun penumpang, survei kinerja angkutan umum berdasarkan SPM. Cara pengambilan data dengan menyebar kuisioner dan analisis menggunakan metode IPA. Pengguna angkutan bus cukup merata untuk semua kelompok masyarakat, dari kelompok usia, jenis kelamin, pekerjaan, intensitas penggunaan angkutan, tujuan menggunakan angkutan, dan waktu tunggu bus. Pelayanan angkutan bus mencakup keamanan keselamatan, keterjangkauan, kesetaraan, keteraturan, sarana, dan kenyamanan pengguna. variabel standar pelayanan yang ada meliputi keamanan, keselamatan, keterjangkauan, kesetaraan, dan keteraturan dalam kategori “cukup baik”. Penyelenggaraan angkutan bus kota Trayek F ditinjau dari segi sarana dan kenyamanan pengguna menunjukkan aspek kesesuaian standar pelayanan minimal yang rendah, Kriteria aspek 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19 dijadikan prioritas utama dalam meningkatkan pelayanan, kriteria aspek 5, 12, 13, 18 telah berhasil dilaksanakan dan dianggap penting dan memuaskan, kriteria aspek 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 menjadi prioritas rendah untuk diperbaiki, dan kriteria aspek layanan 6, 8, 16 tidak berpengaruh namun dikerjakan dengan sangat baik.

Transportation is one of the most important needs for urban communities, one of which is bus public transportation. Transportation can be categorized as good, if (1) the travel time is fast enough, there are no traffic jams, (2) the service frequency is sufficient, (3) it is safe (free from the possibility of accidents). The aim of the study is to determine the level of service for Corridor Bus Transportation Route F in the City of Surabaya in accordance with the suitability analysis of the Minimum Service Standards (SPM) as well as management efforts and alternatives and handling. The research method, in the form of suitability of transportation service data according to Minimum Service Standards. Primary data obtained by conducting surveys, primary data in the form of static and dynamic surveys. The existing data is in the form of transport inventory data, passenger boarding data, public transport performance surveys based on SPM. How to collect data by distributing questionnaires and analysis using the IPA method. Bus users are fairly evenly distributed for all groups of people, from age group, gender, occupation, intensity of use of transportation, purpose of using transportation, and bus waiting time. Bus transportation services include safety, affordability, fairness, regularity, facilities, and user convenience. The existing service standard variables include security, safety, affordability, benefits, and regularity in the "good enough" category. The implementation of city bus transportation for Route F in terms of facilities and user convenience shows aspects of conformity to low minimum service standards, aspect criteria 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19 are made a top priority in improving service, criteria criteria 5, 12, 13, 18 have been successfully implemented and considered important and satisfactory, aspect criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 are low priority for improvement, and service aspect criteria 6, 8, 16 have no effect but are done very well.