Quality of Bus Services Performance: Benefits of Real Time Passenger Information Systems

Open access

One of the main problems in urban areas is the steady growth in car ownership and traffic levels. Therefore, the challenge of sustainability is focused on a shift of the demand for mobility from cars to collective means of transport. For this purpose, buses are a key element of the public transport systems. In this respect Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) systems help people change their travel behaviour towards more sustainable transport modes.

This paper provides an assessment methodology which evaluates how RTPI systems improve the quality of bus services performance in two European cities, Madrid and Bremerhaven. In the case of Madrid, bus punctuality has increased by 3%. Regarding the travellers perception, Madrid raised its quality of service by 6% while Bremerhaven increased by 13%. On the other hand, the users´ perception of Public Transport (PT) image increased by 14%.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Banister D. Stead D. Steen P. Akerman J. Dreborg K. & Nijkamp P. (2000). European transportpolicy and sustainable mobility. London: Spon Press.

  • 2. Bristow A. Pearman A. & Shires J. (1997). An assessment of advanced transport telematics evaluation procedures. Transport Reviews 17(3) 177-205.

  • 3. Cascajo R. (2004). Socio-environmental benefits of rail urban projects: A European benchmarking. In Proceedings of the European Transport Conference 2004 4-6 October. Strasbourg: ETC.

  • 4. Daskalakis N. & Stathopoulos A. (2008). Users’ perceptive evaluation of bus arrival time deviations in stochastic networks. Journal of Public Transportation 11(4) 25-38.

  • 5. Delle Site P. Filippi F. (2009). Weighting methods in multi-attribute assessment of transport projects. European Transport Research Review 1 199-206.

  • 6. EBSF. (2012). Evaluation report of use cases. (Deliverable 4.2.3 Ed.)

  • 7. EBSF. (2008-2012). European Bus System of the Future. VII Framework Programme. European Commission. Retrieved 25th September 2012 from http://www.ebsf.eu/index.php/objectives

  • 8. Hounsell N. B. Shrestha B. P. Piao J. & McDonald M. (2009). Review of urban traffic management and the impacts of new vehicle technologies. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 3(4) 419-428.

  • 9. Lappin J. (2000). What have we learned about advanced traveler information systems and customer satisfaction? Chapter 4. In What have we learned about ITS? (pp. 66-85). Washington D.C.: Federal Highway Administration U.S Department of Transportation.

  • 10. Monzon A. & de la Hoz D. (2009). Efectos sobre la movilidad de la dinámica territorial de Madrid. Urban 14 58-71.

  • 11. Monzón A. Pardeiro A. & Vega L. (2007). Reducing car trip and pollutant emissions through strategic transport planning in Madrid Spain. Highway and Urban Environment 12(1) 81-90.

  • 12. Politis I. Papaioannou P. Basbas S. & Dimitriadis N. (2010). Evaluation of a bus passenger information system from the users’ point of view in the city of Thessaloniki Greece. Research inTransportation Economics 29 (1) 249-255.

  • 13. Tang L. & Thakuriah P. (2012). Ridership effects of real-time bus information system: A case study in the city of Chicago. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 22(0) 146-161.

  • 14. Tyrinopoulos Y. & Antoniou C. (2008). Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transport Policy 15(4) 260-272.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 1.19

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.251
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.982

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 398 259 9
PDF Downloads 221 152 5