Case studies’ comparison

In this final section similarities and differences across the case studies, and consequently across the cities and countries, as regards key quality factors, travellers profiles and policy strategies and priorities are pointed out.

In all case studies there are 4-5 key quality factors explaining (summarising) travellers’

perception of quality attributes. These factors provide two kinds of information: which are the perceived quality attributes and how are they perceived, i.e. which is their level of satisfaction. Generally, it can be observed that ticketing, comfort, pleasure and connectivity are the key-issues for interurban interchanges.

In all cases there are from 2 to 5 clusters, i.e. travellers profiles, who characterise the intermodal demand at interchanges. In all case studies it can be identified a “main cluster”, accounting for the larger percentage of the intermodal demand, and “minor clusters” which represent typology of travellers that although play a minor role (they have a minor weight), have to be considered when planning interconnectivity measures.

As regards policy strategies and guidelines, according to the priorities identified in the previous sections, it can be stated that priorities 1, i.e. the key-aspects to be improved in the short-term to enhace travellers’ satisfaction, are different across the case studies: “well-being” in Madrid, “ticketing” in Zaragoza, “time” and “connectivity” in Gothenburg, no factors in Lyon. This is explained because of different characteristics of the main clusters, as reported in sections 9.1-9.4.

As regards the other priorities, it can be observed that the level of satisfaction is different across the clusters and, generally, it is difficult to identify absolut statements, since KQF that are priority 3 (high satisfaction for main clusters) can also be priority 2 (low satisfaction for minor clusters). Therefore, measures have to be targeted to specific typology of travellers to be effectively useful, so that the quality of interurban interchange could be enhanced. As a matter of fact, the approach of this work aims at identifying hints and suggestions for policy making. It does not pretend to identify detailled measures: this should be the next step of this work, i.e. to investigate which are the problems and gaps at interchanges according to the KQF and TP identified in this work.

As regards the findings of the previous sections, it is worth noting that ticketing issues play an important role for business travellers, as in Zaragoza, and young students travellers, as in Madrid. They both negatively perceive this factor, although for different reasons: young students want to spare money, on the other hand business users are less influenced by monetary cost and stress the personal contact when purchasing tickets. These findings correspond to recent analysis of intermodality, where ticketing and price is considered as determinant in the use of PT and necessary requirement of better interconnectivity to experience a seamless long-/short distance journey (Bak, 2010; Rojo et al., 2011).

Physical and spatial issues play a particular role in the Spanish cases. In Madrid, perceptions are different between the main cluster (high satisfaction) and the minor ones (low satisfaction), meaning that measures should be implemented according to the different needs of travellers. In this case, improvements are related to the topic of seating capacity for business travellers who only need a place where to seat, making themselves comfortable while waiting. Seating capacity is a topic also in Zaragoza, where it is positively perceived by travellers. Other physical aspects of the interchanges, as for example accessibility (to the very interchange, but also to facilities within it) did not emerged from the analysis. This result could contrast with literature findings where accessibility is a determinant in PT and terminals (Brons et al., 2009; Cheng, 2010), but the reason can be found in the high standards of all four interchanges, which are furnished with lifts, escalators, ramps, platform facilities for persons with reduced mobility, etc.

Connectivity emerges in Lyon and Gothenburg, where different patterns can be observed in the main clusters. Connectivity is a priority for shopping travellers in Gothenburg, but not in Lyon. However, it is perceived as a secondary priority by groups of sporadic and business travellers in both cases. These contrasting perceptions confirm the complexity of timetables coordination, which is difficult to achieve because of different travellers’ needs, as well as different stakeholders’ –transport operators– interests (Hutchinson, 2009).

An issue which is generally well perceived (and therefore set as priority 3 or 4) is comfort, i.e. the making the time spent at interchange pleasant and useful. This is particular true for holiday travellers who spent more time in the interchange, waiting for the next connection of their intermodal journey. Comfort is also related to the availability of shopping and commercial facilities at interchange terminals, being important determinant of overall satisfaction (Han et al., 2012). In this work, negative ratings were found only among business travellers in Lyon who want to move quickly in their transfer, do not care about spending time in the interchange and tend to perceive the negative implication of shops and retail activities (overcrowded space, passengers’ flow congestion).

As regards environmental and atmosphere issues, such as ventilation, cleaning, lighting, etc, the findings depends on the case study and on typologies of travellers. They are still controversial issues which influence travellers’ satisfaction and their decisions about how they travel, since the aesthetic and a wholesome climate of the interchange attracts more passengers (Abreu and Bazrafshan, 2013; Cascetta et al, 2013; Lyons & Utty, 2005; Van Hagen, 2011). For example, looking at the main clusters, in Madrid they are critical aspects

(priority 1), but in Zargoza travellers are enthusiastic with them (priority 3). It can be also observed that travellers of the minor cluster in Zaragoza negatively perceive these aspects, while they assessed the envionrment of the bus station.

It is curious that temporal issues were (positively and negatively) perceived only in Gothenburg station. It can be observed that perceptions vary and depend on the typologies of travellers and above all the purpose of their journey –in the Swedish case study, for example, female who travel for shopping purpose have no time-pressure and tend to be positively satisfied with temporal aspects. This is in accordance with other studies where temporal aspects are priorities for interchanging commuters (Stradling, 2002).

Finally, it is also puzzling that classical issues, as safety/security and information, did not emerge from the analysis of this work, when comparing with the other issues. As regards security, it emerged only for the case study in Lyon. The explanation is that this issues could be indirectly considered (integrated) in spatial and environmental issues, since security is strictly linked to comfort and physical aspects, as not isolated spaces, well-lighted waiting rooms, presence of staff. As concern information related to signs, maps, Real-Time information, etc., the reason could be found in the several and efficient improvements introduced at the interchanges during the last years, enhanced by the fact that information is often considered the main determinant of PT quality (Dell’Olio et al., 2011; Grotenhuis et al., 2007; Hine and Preston, 2003). This finding is linked to the fact that respondents of all countries stated that the orientation within the building or the complex was easy and, apparently, no informational measures are needed. Information is still important and much more is needed to improve it, but it is evident that travellers perceive other factors / dimensions which, according to their point of view, play a more important role in interurban intermodality.

10. CONCLUSIONS

The chapter summarises the key-findings of the present research work, whose objective is to identify key quality factors and travellers profiles at interurban interchanges through the application of a well-grounded methodology. Particularly, it highlights the importance of focussing on key quality factors or dimensions and segmenting the intermodal demand to develop hints and recommendations for stakeholders who are responsible for policy making at interurban interchanges. It is also stressed that the approach is exploratory and no absolute statements are given in this work. Finally, the chapter also reports limitation of the research, as well as recommendations for further research in the sector of Quality of Service and intermodality.