Multi-criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges

A User-Centred Approach to Design Transport Interchange Hubs (TIH): A Discussion Illustrated by a Case Study in the Russian Arctic

“…Hickman et al [13] compare and contrast customer's surveys from three different Chinese terminals with actually what they deliver in order to calculate a 'disgruntlement level' for these terminals based on a hierarchy of customers' dissatisfaction indicators. Bryniarska et al [17] propose a set of generic criteria to assess the quality of TIH buildings and surveyed travellers' in relation to the importance of distance, quality of infra-structure and information also aiming to rank customers' needs to derive a weighting system to enable assessing the quality of interchanges using multi-criteria evaluation. Liu et al [5] and Li et al [4] use surveys with customers to set up models to investigate different accessibility scenarios to TIH generated through multi-criteria evaluation, focusing on reducing travelling time or gauging easiness of travelling, respectively.…”

“…The authors connect these DPs to travellers' needs by proposing the set of FRs listed in Fig 2. 'Speed' is a need directly related to travellers' routes; how fast to move as well as how far to move from any pair of origindestination. As noted in [5,[13][14][15][16][17][18]26] speed is related to total traveling time which includes not only transportation time, waiting time and time required to walk from a specific point of the city to the terminal but also walking time inside the terminal building itself. Since there is no prescribed quantity associated to this portion of the total traveling time, the provision of short unobstructed traveller routes inside the building becomes an essential functional requirement (FR3).…”

“…'Easiness' is a need related to way-finding [13][14][15][16][17][18][26][27][28], first in terms of efficiently assisting travellers in deciding where to go inside the terminal building (FR2). Second, it involves not only the provision of appropriate information but mainly how easy it is to make decisions related to travelling in general, such as buying ticket, passing control points, gathering information, etc.…”

“…These can be translated into, for instance, offering convenience shopping, food and refreshments, 'workstations', etc. [13][14][15][16][17][18]26] Opportunities can also be exploited by non-travellers and business managers if terminals are configured as city hubs, neighbourhood 'hot spots', social and leisure places, etc. [26][27][28].…”

“…Besides the aforementioned constraints, the work addresses and discusses: (i) Travellers' Needs and Aspirations (TNAs), mainly using the Customers' Pyramid proposed by [18] together with further relevant information from the literature [13][14][15][16][17]; (ii) Functional Requirements (FRs), by translating Travellers' Needs and Aspirations into a set of functional specifications considering a 'solution neutral' environment and; (iii) Design Parameters (DPs) discussing and defining the physical variables to satisfy each FR individually listed. The work does not go beyond two levels of specification in terms of most of the FRs as it is the intention it remains solution neutral (unbiased) and can be used as a starting point to rethink the design of terminal buildings adopting a customer/ traveller perspective (Fig 1).…”