## 4 Results  
The main characteristics of the conducted survey based on the hierarchical model were the following:  
* 100 evaluators have contributed to the survey from different ages and social layers. The number of participants evidently is not statically representative, however, the MCDM provides a deeper insight based on pairwise comparisons than a simple statistical survey [33]. * A random selection of the travelers was done near by the bus stations in Amman, Jordan. Despite the random selection, the proportion of age and genders reflected the characteristics of the total of the city and the potential user's public transportation in Amman, Jordan. * The survey was done and collected between February and April 2018 and analyzed in May 2018. The consistent ratio (CR) for all matrices in the group was less than 0.1, accordingly it was acceptable to complete the AHP analysis procedure proposed by [PERSON] [33]. Tables 4-6 demonstrate the priority order for the public bus transportation system elements. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Criteria** & **Final Weight Score** & **Level Wise Ranking** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Level 1} & Service quality (C1) & 0.2629 & 2 \\  & Transport Quality (C2) & 0.3353 & 1 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Tractability (C3) & 0.1897 & 4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Fare (C4) & 0.2122 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Priority ranking for level 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Criteria Definition** \\
**Code** & \\ \hline C1 & “Service Quality”, everything excluding transport itself \\ C2 & “Transport Quality”, for real time in vehicle \\ C3 & “Tractability”, getting information from every aspect \\ C4 & “Fare”, price of the ticket for a journey on public transport \\ C11 & “Approachability”, of the service before beginning of travel \\ C12 & “Directness” reaching the destination without shifting vehicles \\ C13 & “Time availability” the time frame when using a certain vehicle \\ C14 & “Speed”, speed for the time of the whole travel process \\ C15 & “Reliability”, the quality of being trustworthy \\ C21 & “Physical comfort”, comfort of seat, crowd, conditioned air \\ C22 & “Mental comfort”, passenger sense of non-physical comfortability while using public transportation including environmental consciousness \\ C23 & “Safety of travel”, feeling safe, accidents by the bus, security \\ C31 & “Perspuctivity”, clear understanding for schedule and information \\ C32 & “Information before travel”, amount and quality of information \\ C33 & “Information during travel”, availability, quantity and quality of information \\ C41 & “One-way tickets”, the price of a single journey ticket \\ C42 & “Weekly/monthly tickets”, the price of the weekly or monthly public transportation ticket \\ C43 & “Discounted tickets”, the subsidized price for students and elderly people \\ C111 & “Distances to stops”, reaching the stops for travel \\ C113 & “Safety of stops”, subjective feeling \\ C112 & “Comfort in stops”, heating and cooling systems, seats \\ C121 & “Need of transfer”, does the passenger have to change or not \\ C122 & “Fit connection”, between bus lines or between buses and other types of public vehicles \\ C131 & “Frequency of lines”, the number of times that public transportation is deployed over a route \\ C132 & “Limited time of use”, the time of the first line in the morning and the last line in the evening \\ C141 & “Journey time”, the time spent by the passenger in the vehicle \\ C142 & “Awaiting time”, the time spent by the passenger to wait for the service \\ C143 & “Time to reach stops”, the time spent by the passenger to reach the stop station \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The definition of the applied decision elements. In the survey, transport quality referred to the time spent in the vehicle by passengers and consisted of elements such as mental and physical comfort in the vehicle during the journey or the safety on board.