Public transit evaluation: a comparative analysis

3.6 Public transit evaluation: a comparative analysis

Another aspect of the analysis is based on the users’ score about the transport choice motivation and the evaluation of public transport services of the cities of Varese and Como. This analysis considers all the respondents of Como and Varese that have chosen public transportation as their principal vehicle. The three means, involved in this analysis, are Urban Bus, Inter Urban Bus and Train to be evaluated with Likert scales from 0 to 3.

The following graphs present the results of this analysis.

Figure 3.5 Motivations of transport choice in Varese.

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

Availability of private means Economic convenience Frequency service Low travel time Intermodality Stress level Parking problems Environmental Elements

Rail Extra Urban Bus Urban bus

92

Figure 3.6 Motivations of transport choice in Como.

As for the determinants of the service, it emerges that the lack of availability of a private vehicle and parking problems, as far as Como is concerned, are the most relevant elements that emerge from this descriptive analysis. It should also be noted that stress level and low travel time are common determinants for all the users involved in the two university poles.

Figure 3.7 Evaluation of public transport services in Varese.

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

Availability of private means Economic convenience Frequency service Low travel time Intermodality Stress level Parking problems Environmental Elements

Rail Extra Urban Bus Urban bus

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8

Affordability Time reliability Information Frequency Tariff Integration Intermodality

Rail Extra Urban Bus Urban bus

93

Figure 3.8 Evaluation of public transport services in Como

The judgment of the service and the scores linked to it show low values (almost all <1.5) and a low train punctuality (with a score <1 for Varese). In this regard we find a good frequency with problems of intermodality (score below 1). To evaluate the possible different evaluation between users of the two different cities it was decided to use the pairwise test tool.

In a paired sample t-test, each element is measured two times, and results as a pair of observations.

Usual applications of this test include case-control studies or repeated-measures designs.

Such as other statistical instruments, the paired sample t-test has two hypotheses, (null and alternative). The null hypothesis presumes that the true mean difference between the paired samples is zero. With this model, all observable differences are explained by random variation.

Contrariwise, the alternative hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference between the samples is not equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis has different forms and depend to the expected outcome, in fact it is possible to have a one tail test or a two tails hypothesis if there is not a precise direction but only a difference and its power increase if the test is one tail (Faliva & Zoia, 2004;

Faliva & Venini, 2000; Paruolo, 1999). In this case the interest is to check the score of the motivations that drives the users of one of the three means of transport to verify if there are differences between the two considered cities. The second step is to reply the same test on the questions related to the evaluation of the services. To analyse these results, we start from the assumption that the evaluation of users is similar, and the individual has the same preferences and capability to evaluate the questions (Armstrong, 1987; Gob et al., 2007).

The paired sample t-test hypotheses are formally defined below:

H0: d = 0 where d is the difference between Como and Varese

H1: d 0 (two-tailed) where d is the difference between Como and Varese

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8

Affordability Time reliability Information Frequency Tariff Integration Intermodality

Rail Extra Urban Bus Urban bus

94

Varese=84 Sample: Como= 133 ;

Varese= 76 Sample: Como=247 ; Varese=450

Table 3.14 Results of the paired sample t-test.

The different assessment between public transport between Como and Varese emerges in many of its aspects and for this motivation RQ3 is partially accepted.

Regarding the urban bus we note how the frequency is evaluated in a positive way in Como and there is a strong difference with the Varese evaluation’s. So, it is possible that the commuters of Como use the bus because it has a better frequency. The extra-urban bus has much more complex results, in fact the availability of private vehicles is absolutely in favor of Varese. Moreover, in the part dedicated to the evaluation a statistically significant situation emerges, and in favor of Varese, with regard to frequency and time reliability. The train is relevant (for the Varese side) in the variables related to the availability of private vehicles and economic convenience. Furthermore, as far as the evaluation section is concerned, affordability is relevant. The analysis of the last two means of transport (inter-urban bus and train) shows a similarity about the concept of tariff integration. In fact, for respondents, this variable is very relevant and the results outlines a strong

95

significance. This is determined by the fact that, to reach the main pole (Bizzozero), it is highly probable to use more than one mean of public transportation. A significant variable for all three vehicles is the parking availability. The strong use of the private vehicle in Varese, connected with the evaluations of public transport and the lack of availability of parking places in the Como offices, underlines the difficulties encountered in the land of Como. The result is statistically significant, at 1% for all three-public transport means. It is important to underline that the use of public transportation, in Como, is high due to the position, in the center of the city, of the university poles.

There are no particular differences in the score related to the motivation regarding the environmental impact, the level of perceived stress and the frequency of the service. Finally, the evaluation of the information does not present any differences between the two poles.