Transactions on Transport Sciences 2022, 13(1):74-83 | DOI: 10.5507/tots.2021.019

How Attractive are Public Transport Interchanges? A Cross Comparison of Two European Terminals

Giannis Adamos, Eftihia Nathanail
Traffic, Transportation and Logistics Laboratory, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, Volos GR-38334, Greece

As the world becomes more urbanized, there is a strong need for urban public transport to provide sustainable alternative solutions against private-vehicle usage. However, the opportunities for seamless journeys through public transport are still limited and the need for properly designed and operated transport interchanges is vital. The present paper investigates the perceptions and the users' level of satisfaction when using the New Railway Station of Thessaloniki in Greece and the Riga International Coach Terminal in Latvia, in terms of services provision and station's operation. In total, 36 indicators were tested, grouped in eight quality factors, namely travel information, wayfinding information, time and movement, access, comfort and convenience, station attractiveness, safety and security and emergency situation handling. Attitudinal surveys were implemented to determine key performance factors that affect travelers' satisfaction when using the two terminals. Data were collected through on-line questionnaires and were elaborated through descriptive and inferential statistics, including Mann-Whitney two-sample U-testing to assess differences between the samples in variables measured on a 5-point Likert scale, Spearman bivariate correlations to measure the strength of association between the quality indicators and multiple regression analyses to examine the effect of selected attributes on the general satisfaction level of travelers. Results showed that both interchanges perform better in physical quality attributes, like access, travel and wayfinding information provision, but they do not satisfy users' aesthetics expectations in the internal and external area of the interchanges and the surrounding area and they do not cover adequately their feeling of security and safety in the transfer or waiting areas. These results highlighted the users' preferences and concerns which contribute into a satisfactory overall design of the interchanges. In a nutshell, transport interchange design should satisfy both providing a hub for seamless mobility, but also integrating the station as a part of the public realm.

Keywords: Public transport systems; hubs; travelers' perceptions; sustainability; level of satisfaction.

Received: May 6, 2021; Revised: September 23, 2021; Accepted: November 4, 2021; Prepublished online: November 4, 2021; Published: May 12, 2022  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Adamos, G., & Nathanail, E. (2022). How Attractive are Public Transport Interchanges? A Cross Comparison of Two European Terminals. Transactions on Transport Sciences13(1), 74-83. doi: 10.5507/tots.2021.019
Download citation

References

  1. Adamos, G., Nathanail, E., Yatskiv (Jackiva), I., Budilovich (Budilovica), E. & Tsami, M. (2019). Measuring travellers' and stakeholders' satisfaction on perceived sustainability of a transport interchange. Transport and Telecommunication, 20 (4), 379-388. Go to original source...
  2. Allard, R. & Moura, F. (2018). Effect of transport transfer quality on intercity passenger mode choice. Transportation Research Part A, 109, 89-107. Go to original source...
  3. ALLIANCE Project (2016-2018). Retrieved from https://alliance-project.eu/.
  4. Aretun, Å. & Nordbakke, S. (2014). Developments in driver's license holding among young people: potential explanations, implications and trends. Rapport 824A. Statens vägoch transportforskningsinstitut, Linköping.
  5. Atmodiwirjo, P. (2008). The use of urban public places in Jakarta for adolescents' hanging out. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7, 339-346. Go to original source...
  6. Bak, M., Borkowski, P. & Pawlowska, B. (2012). Types of solutions improving passenger transport interconnectivity. Transport Problems, 7 (1), 27-36.
  7. Bhattacharyay, B. N. (2012). Seamless sustainable transport connectivity in Asia and the Pacific: Prospects and challenges. International Economics and Economic Policy, 9 (2), 147-189. Go to original source...
  8. Bryniarska, Z. & Zakowska, L. (2017). Multi-criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges. Transport Research Procedia, 24, 25-32. Go to original source...
  9. Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15 (5), 354-367. Go to original source...
  10. Chowdhury, S., Ceder, A. & Schwalger, B. (2015). The effects of travel time and cost savings on commuters' decision to travel on public transport routes involving transfers. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 151-159. Go to original source...
  11. Chowdhury, S., Hadas, Y., Gondalez, V. & Schot, B. (2018). Public transport users' and policy makers' perceptions of integrated public transport systems. Transport Policy, 61, 75-83. Go to original source...
  12. Chowdhury, S. & Ceder, A. (2013). The effects of interchange attributes on public transport users' intention to use routes involving transfers. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 27 (1), 5-14. Go to original source...
  13. City-HUB (2013). Deliverable D3.2. Guide for Smart and Efficient Design.
  14. COM (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. White Paper. COM (2011) 144 final. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
  15. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrical, 16 (3), 297-334. Go to original source...
  16. CSB (2017). Central Statistical Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/dati/statistics-database-30501.html.
  17. Dacko, S. G., & Spalteholz, C. (2014). Upgrading the city: Enabling intermodal travel behaviour. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 222-235. Go to original source...
  18. Dell' Olio, L., Ibeas, A., Cecin, P. & Dell' Olio, F. (2011). Willingness to pay for improving service quality in a multimodal area. Transportation Research Part C, 19, 1060-1070. Go to original source...
  19. Draper, N. & Smith, H. (1997). Applied regression analysis (2nd edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Go to original source...
  20. European Commission (2020). Guidelines on the progressive restoration of transport services and connectivity - COVID-19. Communication from the Commission (2020/C 169/02).
  21. Friman, M., Fujii, S., Ettema, D., Garling, T. & Olsson, L.E. (2013). Psychometric analysis of the satisfaction with travel scale. Transportation Research Part A, 48, 132-145. Go to original source...
  22. Friman, M., Garling, T. & Ettena, D. (2019). Improvement of public transport services for non-cycling travelers. Travel Behaviour and Society, 16, 235-240. Go to original source...
  23. Garling, T., Bamberg, S. & Friman, M. (2018). The role of attitude in choice of travel, satisfaction with travel, and change to sustainable travel. In: Albarracin, D. & Johnson, B.T. (Eds.), Handbook of Attitudes: Applications. Routledge, London.
  24. Geurs, K.T. & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12, 127-140. Go to original source...
  25. Hernandez, S. & Monzon, A. (2016). Key factors for defining an efficient urban transport interchange: users' perceptions. Cities, 50, 158-167. Go to original source...
  26. Hernandez, S., Monzon, A. & Ona, R. (2016). Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality. Transportation Research Part A, 84, 31-43. Go to original source...
  27. Hickman, R., Chen, Ch-L., Chow, A. & Saxena, Sh. (2015). Improving interchanges in China: the experiental phenomenon. Journal of Transport Geography, 42, 175-186. Go to original source...
  28. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J. & Peace, S. (2017). Social interactions in urban public spaces. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  29. Ibrahim, M. F. (2003). Improvements and integration of a public transport system: The case of Singapore. Cities, 20 (3), 205-216. Go to original source...
  30. International Association of Public Transport (2015). Public Transport Trends. Executive Summary.
  31. Lamiquiz Dauden, F., Caprio-Pinedo, J. & Garcia-Pastor, A. (2014). Transport interchange and local urban environment integration. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 160, 215-223. Go to original source...
  32. Li, L. & Loo, B. (2016). Towards people-centered integrated transport: A case study of Shanghai Hongqiao Comprehensive Transport Hub. Cities, 58, 50-58. Go to original source...
  33. Lopez-Lambas, M.E. 7& Monzon, A. (2010). Private funding and management for public interchanges in Madrid. Research in Transportation Economics, 29, 323-328. Go to original source...
  34. Lucietti, L., Hoogendoorn, C. & Cre, I. (2016). New tools and strategies for design and operation of urban transport interchanges. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1240-1249. Go to original source...
  35. Monzon, A., Alonso, A. & Lopez-Lambas, M. (2017). Joint analysis of intermodal long distance-last mile trips using urban interchanges in EU cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 27, 1074-1079. Go to original source...
  36. Monzon, A. & Di Ciommo, F. (Eds.) (2015). CITY-HUBs: Sustainable and Efficient Interchange Stations. Taylor and Francis, Oxford. Go to original source...
  37. Nathanail, E., Tsami, M. & Adamos, G. (2018). Exploring and evaluating users' satisfaction and perceptions at an urban transport hub. Proceedings of the 7th Transport Research Arena TRA2018, April 16-19, Vienna, Austria. Go to original source...
  38. Oliver, L.R. (2010). Satisfaction. A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
  39. Oostendorp, R., & Gebhardt, L. (2018). Combining means of transport as a users' strategy to optimize traveling in an urban context: empirical results on intermodal travel behavior from a survey in Berlin. Journal of Transport Geography, 71, 72-83. Go to original source...
  40. RD PAD (2017). The economic profile of Riga 2017. Riga: Riga city council Development department.
  41. Redman, L., Friman, M., Garling, T., Hartig, T. (2013). Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25, 119-127. Go to original source...
  42. Soltanpour, A., Mesbah, M. & Habibian, M. (2020). Customer satisfaction in urban rail: a study on transferability of structural equation models. Public Transport, 12, 123-146. Go to original source...
  43. Stanton, N.A., Mcilroy, R.C., Harvey, C., Blainey, S., Hickford, A., Preston, J.M. & Ryan, B. (2013). Following the cognitive work analysis train of thought: exploring the constraints of modal shift to rail transport. Ergonomics, 56 (3), 522-540. Go to original source...
  44. Uherek, E., Halenka, T., Dorken-Kleefel, J., Ballanski, Y., Berntsen, T., Borrego, C., Gauss, M., … Schmid, S. (2010). Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: land transport. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 4772-4816. Go to original source...
  45. Van Wee, B. & Handy, S. (2014). Do future land-use policies increase sustainable travel? In: Garling, T., Ettema, D. & Friman, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Travel. Springer Science, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 231-242. Go to original source...
  46. Van Wee, B. (Ed.) (2012). Keep Moving, Towards Sustainable Mobility. Eleven International Publishing, Hague, The Netherlands.
  47. Veeneman, W. & Mulley, C. (2018). Multi-level governance in public transport: Governmental layering and its influence on public transport service solutions. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 430-437. Go to original source...
  48. Yatskiv (Jackiva), I., Budilovich (Budilovica), E. & Gromule, V. (2017). Accessibility to Riga Public Transport Services for transit passengers. 10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017: Transportation Science and Technology. Vilnius: Procedia Engineering, 187, 82-88. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.