Factors affecting travelers' satisfaction with rail transit systems

Abstract

Ensuring a high traveller satisfaction level in public transportation systems is a vital goal for managers and decision-makers working for municipalities/city governments. Accordingly, traveling service providers need to recurrently assess the quality of their service to determine its adequacy and effectiveness. Providing public transportation services to millions of people, Istanbul Municipality conducts regular surveys to assess the perception of Istanbulers on the quality of public transportation. In this study, we analysed the data obtained from one of these surveys administered to people who use the rail transit lines. We particularly focused on the set of questions that covers the following five dimensions: comfort, fee, safety, accessibility, and overall travel satisfaction. Using the structural equation model, we explored the effects of comfort, fee, safety, and accessibility on travellers’ overall satisfaction with the rail transit lines. Based on the results, we found that travellers’ perceived level of comfort, accessibility, and fee affordability has a significant effect whereas the perceived level of safety does not have a significant effect on travelers’ general satisfaction with the rail transit lines.

Keywords

• Traveller satisfaction
• structural equation modelling
• comfort
• fee
• safety
• accessibility

Yolcuların raylı ulaşım sistemlerinden memnuniyetini etkileyen faktörler

Abstract

Toplu taşıma sistemlerinde yüksek yolcu memnuniyetinin sağlanması belediyeler/şehir yönetimlerinde çalışan yöneticiler ve karar vericiler için hayati bir hedeftir. Buna göre, seyahat hizmeti sağlayıcılarının, yeterliliğini ve etkinliğini belirlemek için hizmetlerinin kalitesini tekrar tekrar değerlendirmeleri gerekir. Milyonlarca kişiye toplu ulaşım hizmeti sunan İstanbul Belediyesi, İstanbulluların toplu ulaşım kalitesine yönelik algısını ölçmek için düzenli olarak anketler yapmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, raylı ulaşım hatlarını kullanan yolculara uygulanan bu anketlerin birinden elde edilen verileri analiz ettik. Analizleri yaparken, özellikle şu beş boyutu kapsayan sorulara odaklandık: konfor, ücret, güvenlik, erişilebilirlik ve genel seyahat memnuniyeti. Bu doğrultuda, yapısal eşitlik modelini kullanarak konfor, ücret, güvenlik ve erişilebilirliğin yolcuların hafif metro hatlarına ilişkin genel memnuniyeti üzerindeki etkilerini araştırdık. Sonuçları dikkate aldığımızda, algılanan konfor, erişilebilirlik ve ücret düzeyinin yolcuların demiryolu transit hatlarıyla ilgili genel memnuniyeti üzerinde anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu, algılanan güvenlik düzeyinin ise anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığını bulduk.

Keywords

• Yolcu memnuniyeti
• yapısal eşitlik modeli
• konfor
• erişebilirlik
• ücret
• güvenlik

References

1. Abou-Zeid, M., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2012). Travel mode switching: Comparison of findings from two public transportation experiments. Transport Policy, 24, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.07.013
2. Aktepe, A., Ersöz, S., & Toklu, B. (2015). Customer satisfaction and loyalty analysis with classification algorithms and structural equation modeling. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86, 95-106.
3. Angelova, B., & Zekiri, J. (2011). Measuring customer satisfaction with service quality using American Customer Satisfaction Model (ACSI Model). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 232 - 258.
4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation.
5. Atkins, S. T. (1990). Personal security as a transport issue: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Transport Reviews, 10(2), 111-125.
6. Aydin, N. (2017). A fuzzy-based multi-dimensional and multi-period service quality evaluation outline for rail transit systems. Transport Policy, 55, 87-98.
7. Aydin, N., Celik, E., & Gumus, A. T. (2015). A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 61-81.
8. Borhan, M. N., Ibrahim, A. N. H., Syamsunur, D., & Rahmat, R. A. (2019). Why public bus is a less attractive mode of transport: A case study of Putrajaya, Malaysia. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 47(1), 82–90.

9. Brons, M., Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(2), 136-149.
10. Brons, M., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Improving the quality of the door-to-door rail journey: A customer-oriented approach. Built Environment, 35(1), 122–135.
11. Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33 - 55.
12. Celik, E., Aydin, N., & Gumus, A. T. (2014). A multi-attribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Transport Policy, 36, 283-293.
13. Chaloux, N., Boisjoly, G., Grisé, E., El-Geneidy, A., & Levinson, D. (2019). I only get some satisfaction: Introducing satisfaction into measures of accessibility. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 833-843.
14. De Oña, J., de Oña, R., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2013). Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach. Transport Policy, 29, 219-226.
15. Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2009). A new customer satisfaction index for evaluating transit service quality. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(3), 21 - 37.
16. Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2011). A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures from the passenger’s point of view. Transport Policy, 18(1), 172-181.
17. Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2012). Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. European Transport, 51, 1-21.
18. Ettema, D., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Olsson, L. E., & Fujii, S. (2012). How in-vehicle activities affect work commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.007
19. Hadiuzzman, M., Das, T., Hasnat, M. M., Hossain, S., & Rafee Musabbir, S. (2017). Structural equation modeling of user satisfaction of bus transit service quality based on stated preferences and latent variables. Transportation Planning and Technology, 40(3), 257-277.
20. Hassan, M. N., Hawas, Y. E. & Ahmed, K. (2013). A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50, 47-61.
21. Ibrahim, A. N. H., Borhan, M. N., & Ismail, A. (2020). Rail-based Public Transport Service Quality and User Satisfaction–A Literature Review. Promet-Traffic & Transportation, 32(3), 423–435.
22. Jain, S., Aggarwal, P., Kumar, P., Singhal, S., & Sharma, P. (2014). Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of Delhi. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 60-70.
23. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing in the Twenty-First Century. Marketing Management, 10th Edition, Millenium, New Jersey.
24. Li, L., Bai, Y., Song, Z., Chen, A., & Wu, B. (2018). Public transportation competitiveness analysis based on current passenger loyalty. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.016
25. Metro Istanbul (2021). Tüm hatlarimiz. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from http://www.metro.istanbul/Hatlarimiz/TumHatlarimiz
26. Mohajerani, P. (2013). Customer satisfaction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 3(3), 1-11.
27. Nathanail, E. (2008). Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic railways. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(1), 48-66.
28. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
29. Shen, W., Xiao, W., & Wang, X. (2016). Passenger satisfaction evaluation model for Urban rail transit: A structural equation modeling based on partial least squares. Transport Policy, 46, 20-31.
30. Shiftan, Y., Barlach, Y., & Shefer, D. (2015). Measuring passenger loyalty to public transport modes. Journal of Public Transportation, 18(1), 1-16.
31. Tyrinopoulos, Y., & Antoniou, C. (2008). Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transport Policy, 15(4), 260-272.
32. Weinstein, A. (2000). Customer satisfaction among transit riders: How customers rank the relative importance of various service attributes. Transportation Research Record, 1735(1), 123–132.
33. Wen, C. H., Lan, L., & Cheng, H. L. (2005). Structural equation modeling to determine passenger loyalty toward intercity bus services. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1927, 249-255.
34. Yannis, T., & Georgia, A. (2008). A complete methodology for the quality control of passenger services in the public transport business. European Transport, 38, 1-16.
35. Yirmibesoglu, F., & Ergun, N. (2007). Property and personal crime in Istanbul. European Planning Studies, 15(3), 339-355.
36. Zaim, S., Turkyilmaz, A., Tarim, M., Ucar, B., & Akkas, O. (2010). Measuring customer satisfaction in Turk Telekom Company using structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 7, 89-99.