Assessing the Design and Operation of Riga’s International Coach Terminal

  • Maria Tsami
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)Email author
  • Vissarion Magginas
  • Giannis Adamos
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 36)


This paper aims at identifying the performance level of Riga’s International Coach Terminal, by assessing its design and operation. Based on an extended state-of-the-art review of best practices, a list of representative indicators, grouped into eight groups, were used and evaluated by terminal’s users. These groups deal with mobility provision, way-finding information, time and movement issues in the terminal, accessibility, comfort, station image and attractiveness, safety and security, and handling of emergency situations. The objectives of the research are to: (a) point out the level of user’s satisfaction from the current terminal operation, infrastructure and services, and (b) correlate the above attributes with the overall terminal assessment. For the data collection, a face-to-face and internet-based questionnaire survey was conducted, with users stating their perceptions and level of satisfaction, related to the terminal infrastructure, operation and services, as classified in the aforementioned eight groups of indicators. A decision-tree approach was applied to indicate the key performance indicators in users’ assessment formulation for the case study. Research findings reveal the most significant parameters that need to be modified in order to increase users’ satisfaction, which will gradually increase the overall image and attractiveness of the terminal and the usage of its services.


Urban transport Interchanges Design Operation Decision tree 



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. The authors would like to thank both the consortium of the project and the European Commission.


  1. 1.
    European Commission: Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility /COM/2013/913 final/, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission: White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system /COM/2011/0144 final/, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission: White Paper- European transport policy for 2010 – Time to decide /COM/2001/370 final/, Brussels (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terzis, G., Last, A.: Urban Interchanges - A Good Practice Guide, Final Report (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monzon, A., Alonso, A., Lopez-Lambas, M.: Key factors affecting the efficiency of transport interchanges. In: 13th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Ciommo, F., Vassallo, J., Oliver, A.: Private funding of intermodal exchange stations in urban areas. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2115(12), 20–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brons, M., Givoni, M., Rietveld, P.: Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 43(2), 136–149 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    MIMIC: Mobility Intermodality and Interchanges (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    PIRATE: Promoting Interchange Rationale, Accessibility and Transfer Efficiency, Sheffield (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    KITE: A Knowledge Base for Intermodal Passenger Transport in Europe, Vienna (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    City-HUB: Deliverable D3.2, Guide for Efficient and Smart Design (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palmer, D., Millard, K., Harmer, C., Spousta, J., Kostiainen, J.: Making a successful interchange in reality. In: CITY-HUBs: Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nathanail, E., Adamos, G., Tsami, M.: Why interchanges?. In: CITY-HUBs: Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crozet, Y., Joly, I.: Budgets Temps de Transport: Les Societes Tertiaires Confrontees a la Gestion Paradoxale du Bien le Plus Rare. Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport 45, 27–48 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mackie, P.J., Jara-Diaz, S., Fowkes, A.S.: The value of travel time savings in evaluation. Transp. Res. Part E. Logistics Transp. Rev. 37(2–3), 91–106 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wardman, M., Hine, J.: Cost of Interchange: A Review of the Literature. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hine, J., Scott, J.: Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange. Transp. Policy 7(3), 217–226 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nathanail, E.: Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic railways. Transp. Res. Part A. Policy Pract. 42(1), 48–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J.: Classification and regression trees. Monterey, Wadsworth (1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsami, M., Nathanail, E.: A decision tree application in transit quality of service in the city of Volos. In: 2nd Conference of Sustainable Urban Mobility, 5–6 May 2014, Volos, Greece (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Tsami
    • 1
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
    • 2
    Email author
  • Vissarion Magginas
    • 1
  • Giannis Adamos
    • 1
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
    • 2
  1. 1.Traffic, Transportation and Logistics LaboratoryUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  2. 2.Transport and Telecommunication InstituteRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations