1 Introduction
2 Definitions
2.1 Service quality attributes
-
Availability. Extent of the service offered in terms of geography, transport modes, operating hours, and frequency.
-
Accessibility. Access to the public transport system including interface with other transport systems.
-
Information. To assist the planning and execution of journeys, under normal conditions as well as under abnormal conditions such as delays.
-
Time. Length of trip time. This area also includes adherence to schedules in the form of punctuality or regularity.
-
Customer care. Customer interface, staff behaviour and attitudes, and ticketing options.
-
Comfort. Service elements that make journeys relaxing, enjoyable, or productive, e.g. through station facilities, seating and personal space, ride comfort, vehicle condition, atmosphere, and complementary services such as on-board Wi-Fi.
-
Safety. Sense of personal protection from crime and accidents.
-
Environmental impact. Environmental impact resulting from the provision of the public transport service.
2.2 Local, regional and interregional public transport
-
Local public transport carries passengers within an urban area. The definition is based on urban areas instead of density or urban centres, implying that travel between different parts of a conurbation (belonging to the same urban area) is local rather than regional.
-
Regional public transport targets passengers travelling between separate urban areas or to rural areas, and a majority of the trips are made on a regular basis (daily to weekly, in general). This means that regional travel is not defined as being within a certain geographic area, but is instead based on travel patterns in each case.
-
Interregional public transport targets passengers travelling between regions as defined above. Thus, the majority of the trips are made less frequently than weekly.
3 Method
Ridership | Regional | Public transport | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
ridership OR patronage OR demand OR quality OR attitude OR perception OR satisfaction OR improvement OR upgrade | AND ( | regional OR rural OR semirural OR “semi-rural” OR exurban OR “ex-urban” OR periurban OR “peri-urban” OR suburban OR interurban OR “inter-urban” | PRE/0 | “public transport*” OR transit OR bus OR coach OR rail* OR passenger |
4 Results
4.1 The relative importance of quality attributes
Reference | PT modes | Measure | Study area, case | Travel distance | Data | Cost | Availability | Accessibility | Information | Time | Customer care | Comfort | Safety | Environmental impact |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bouscasse, Joly, & Peyhardi [42] | Bus and rail | Modal choice | Rhône-Alpes Région, France | Long | Stated preference survey among citizens | X | X | X | ||||||
Majumdar & Lentz [40] | Bus | Modal choice | Huntsville, Texas, USA | Medium | Stated preference survey among citizens | X | X | i | X | X | X | i | i | |
Rashedi, Mahmoud, Hasnine, & Habib [43] | Bus and rail | Modal choice | The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Canada | Long | Revealed preference and stated preference survey among citizens | X | i | i | i | i | X | |||
Zhou, Du, Liu, Huang, & Ran [39] | Bus | Modal choice | Cixi, China | Short | Satisfaction and stated preference survey among citizens | i | X | i | X | X | i | X | i | |
Asensio [45] | Rail | Demand | 11 suburban rail networks in Spain | N/A | Panel data covering ridership and independent variables at network level | i | X | X | ||||||
Berežný & Konečný [46] | Bus | Demand | Žilina, Slovakia | Short | Stated preference survey among passengers, panel data covering satisfaction levels and ridership | X | X | i | i | i | ||||
Román, Martín, & Espino [20] | Bus | Demand | Gran Canaria, Spain | Medium | Stated preference survey among passengers | i | i | i | i | i | X | |||
Eboli & Mazzulla [24] | Bus | Satisfaction | Cosenza, Italy | Short | Service performance indicators and customer satisfaction survey | i | X | X | X | i | X | i | i | |
Garrido, de Oña, & de Oña [47] | Bus | Satisfaction | Granada, Spain | Short | Customer satisfaction survey | i | X | i | X | X | i | i | i | |
Grisé & El-Geneidy, [41] | Rail | Satisfaction | The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Canada | Medium | Customer satisfaction survey | X | X | X | i | X | i | X | i | |
Guirao, García-Pastor, & López-Lambas [48] | Bus | Satisfaction | Madrid–Tres Cantos, Spain | Short | Stated preference and customer satisfaction survey | X | i | i | X | i | i | X | ||
Ramesh, Rao, & Sarkar [49] | Bus | Satisfaction | Visakhapatnam, India | Medium | Stated preference and customer satisfaction survey | i | X | X | X | X | X | |||
Rojo, Gonzalo-Orden, dell’Olio, & Ibeas [50] | Bus | Satisfaction | Castilla y León, Spain | Long | Customer satisfaction survey | X | X | i | i | X | i | |||
Stern [51] | Bus | Satisfaction | Northern Negev, Israel | Short | Stated preference survey among citizens | i | X | X |
-
Availability, whereof frequency of service appears to be of particular importance. Frequency is the most common individual attribute in the discussions about important attributes. Another availability attribute commonly discussed is network coverage (and walking distance).
-
Time, whereof reliability and punctuality are the most common attributes mentioned in the discussions. Travel time also appears in the discussion about important attributes in more than half of the studies in which it has been included.
-
Comfort, which is typically represented by different attributes related to on-board comfort, such as crowding, cleanliness, ventilation, vehicle condition, etc. A number of studies also find station facilities to be of importance.
4.2 Cost
4.3 Availability and accessibility
4.3.1 Planning and organising regional public transport networks
4.3.2 Regional public transport modes: bus versus rail
4.3.3 Access and egress
4.4 Time
4.4.1 Reliability
4.5 Comfort
4.6 Research gaps
Category | Number of studies in which a quality attribute in the category is included | ||
---|---|---|---|
“Overviews” (N = 14) | “Specialisations” (N = 23) | Total (N = 37) | |
Cost | 12 | 7 | 19 |
Availability | 12 | 17 | 29 |
Accessibility | 7 | 8 | 15 |
Information | 9 | 4 | 13 |
Time | 13 | 8 | 21 |
Customer care | 8 | 2 | 10 |
Comfort | 13 | 6 | 19 |
Security | 9 | 2 | 11 |
Environmental impact | 2 | 1 | 3 |
5 Discussion
5.1 Comparison of regional and local public transport
5.2 The influence of trip length
5.3 Bus versus rail
5.4 Modal choice, demand, and customer satisfaction
5.5 Directions for future research
-
On-board comfort is a top priority for many regional travellers, but this is a multifaceted attribute and more research is needed into the impact of different aspects of on-board comfort, e.g. seating, ride comfort, and complementary facilities.
-
Frequency is also acknowledged to be an attribute of great importance, but the reviewed studies have not revealed many details of operational aspects such as peak and off-peak frequencies or operating hours.
-
Surprisingly little attention has been paid to travel time improvements, regarding in-vehicle travel time in particular, given that in-vehicle travel time generally constitutes a relatively large proportion of the total travel time in regional public transport.
-
Little is known about how the environmental impact of public transport services affects modal choice for regional travel, as this attribute is rarely included in such studies.
-
Our review suggests that trip lengths or travel times affect passenger preferences, but the mechanisms are still largely unclear. Further studies that include the crossed effects between trip length or travel time and other service attributes are desirable.