A Cross-case Analysis of Riga Interchanges’ Information Services and Technologies

  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)Email author
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
  • Iveta Blodniece
  • Eftihia Nathanail
  • Giannis Adamos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 68)


The design of an optimal interchange depends on the local environment and individual preferences of users on modal choices. Various issues in quality are important for good interchange management and operation, and priorities may significantly differ among different interchanges. This paper aims to investigate and assess the performance level of four interchanges in Riga, Latvia: Riga International Coach Terminal, Riga Central Railway Station, Riga International Airport and Riga Passenger Terminal that serves cruise ships.

To achieve the aim of this study, a structured form was used for face-to-face interviews, and key stakeholders of each interchange were invited to give their feedback in selected items.


Public transport Terminals Information services Comparison analysis 



This paper is based on the research and work that has been conducted in the framework of the ALLIANCE project (, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. This study is a part of an EU project that is surely carried out according to ethical policies. The authors would like to thank both the consortium of the project and the European Commission.

The authors would like to thank the representatives of Riga International Coach Terminal and, especially Dr. V. Gromule; M. Ozols (Riga Railway Station); A. Saveljevs (Riga International Airport); J. Dzenitis (Riga Passenger Terminal).


  1. 1.
    European Commission: White Paper—European Transport Policy for 2010—Time to Decide, Brussels: /COM/2001/370 final/ (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grotenhuis, J.W., Bart, W.W., Rietveld, P.: The desired quality of integrated multimodal travel information in public transport: customer needs for time and effort saving. Transp. Policy 14, 27–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission: The Framework for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the Field of Road Transport and for Interfaces with Other Modes of Transport, Brussels: 2008/0263/COD (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commission: White paper—Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System, Brussels: /COM/2011/0144 final/ (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission: Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility, Brussels: /COM/2013/913 final/ (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monzon, A., Ciommo, F.: City-HUBs Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EN13816: Transportation—Logistics and Services—Public Passenger Transport—Service Quality Definition, Targeting and Measurement, Brussels (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    EN15140: Public passenger Transport—Basic Requirement and Recommendations for Systems that Measure Delivered Service Quality, Brussels (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9. (2018). Accessed 8 Dec 2018
  10. 10.
    T-TRANS Upbringing ITS Products and Services to Market (2018). Accessed 8 Dec 2018
  11. 11.
    Yatskiv, I., Gromule, V., Pticina, I.: Analysis of different aspects of infomobility for public transport in Latvia. In: Zamojski, W., Mazurkiewicz, J., Sugier, J., Walkowiak, T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Dependability and Complex Systems DepCoS-RELCOMEX (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adamos, G.: Operation and Management of Intermodal Transport Systems: Passenger Interchanges. 2nd Summer School, Project Alliance, Riga (2018).
  13. 13.
    Adamos, G., Builovich, E., Yatskiv, I., Nathanail, E., Tsami, M., Magginas, V.: Quality of service in urban transport interchanges: understanding the gaps between users and operators expectations. In: European Transport Conference, Dublin (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    CIHT: Institute of Highways & Transportation, Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot, 0902933302, 9780902933309 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmer, D., James, C., Jones, M.: The door to door journeys. A Report Produced by Transport Research Laboratory for the Campaign for Better Transport, 55 p. (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preston, J., Wall, G., Whiteing, T.: Delivery of user needs: final report. Rail Research UK report: RRUK/C2/06 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crockett, J., Beecroft, M., McDonald, M., Whitein,g T., Whelan, G., Nash, C., Fowkes, T., Wardman, M.: Rail user needs and delivery mechanisms. Rail Research UK report RRUK/C2/02 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
    • 1
  • Iveta Blodniece
    • 1
  • Eftihia Nathanail
    • 2
  • Giannis Adamos
    • 2
  1. 1.Transport and Telecommunication InstituteRigaLatvia
  2. 2.University of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations