Accessibility to Riga Public Transport Services for Transit Passengers

Abstract

The research suggests the concept of more public transport-oriented cities that accessible for transit passengers and considers the role of Riga public transport system in determining the level of accessibility for different spatial aspects, which in turn facilitates the creation of economies of scale, agglomeration effects and networking advantages. Authors consider long distance travels and assess accessibility and connections between the Riga city and the key destinations in the Latvian regions and Baltic states. It involves the entire urban transport system, regional and international network and, also, long distance terminal in chain of movements.

Full text

Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.353
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017:
Transportation Science and Technology
Accessibility to Riga Public Transport Services
for Transit Passengers
Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
a,
*, Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
a
, Vaira Gromule
b
a
Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Riga, Latvia
b
JSC Riga International Coach Terminal, Latvia
Abstract
The research suggests the concept of more public transport-oriented cities that accessible for transit passengers and considers the
role of Riga public transport system in determining the level of accessibility for different spatial aspects, which in turn facilitates
the creation of economies of scale, agglomeration effects and networking advantages. Authors consider long distance travels and
assess accessibility and connections between the Riga city and the key destinations in the Latvian regions and Baltic states. It
involves the entire urban transport system, regional and international network and, also, long distance terminal in chain of
movements.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017:
Transportation Science and Technology.
Keywords: passenger transportation, long distance travel, accessibility, intracity, intracity, travel time, integration
1. Introduction
The European Commission foresees a European Union in 2050 integrated in the globalised economy [1]
.
This
requires strong relationships and links internally in Europe and with other continents and the potential of the
transportation systems should to enhance economic productivity and social justice.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Jackiva.I@tsi.lv
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017

83
Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
European accessibility will have to satisfy a demand for transport of goods and people from European regions
and cities on 3 geographical scales: within European countries, between European countries and regions, between
the EU and other regions or countries in the World. Long-distance travel is one of the factors at play in the on-going
spatial integration process in Europe and elsewhere.
The research is focused on analysis accessibility taking into account the wider geographical area to assess
accessibility and connections between the Riga city and the key destinations in the Latvian regions and Baltic states.
Thus, we will do this analysis on base the concept of long-distance travel. One most popular definition “long-
distance travel” – long-distance differ from daily travel by distance and the most commonly used distance is around
100 kilometres (one-way straight line) [2].
Accessibility generally refers to physical access to goods, services and destinations, which is what people usually
mean by transportation. In the fields of geography and urban economics, accessibility refers to the relative ease of
reaching a particular location or area. In social planning, accessibility refers to people’s ability to use services and
opportunities [9]. Accessibility is the main ‘product’ of a transport system and it determines the locational advantage
of an area (i.e. a region, a city or a corridor) relative to all areas [3]. Of course, the configuration of the
transportation system of a city can also have an influence on mode use in long-distance travel and development the
concept “door to door mobility” is important for public transport attractiveness in all stages on long-distance travel
and development of accessibility services in order to provide social quality.
The research by Yatskiv and Budilovich [4] presents the accessibility analysis of the Riga public transport system
in the current moment, before reconstruction that is planned in the frame of the Rail Baltica project. The results of
the accessibility analyses highlights the zones with the high level of travelling time that needs to be improved. Goal
in current research is to analyse the accessibility of long-distance multimodal trip between the Riga city and the key
destinations in the Latvian regions/Baltic states.
The key aspect of Mobility as a Service is easy access to the most appropriate transport mode or service will be
included in a bundle of flexible travel service options for end users [5]. Often researchers in the field of transit
network design do not appear to have explicitly incorporated issues of equity and access, predominantly focusing on
the minimization of user and operator costs [8]. But for attractive of public transport in long-distance travel and
providing the door-to-door movement comfortable, it is significant − the time, price, information and infrastructure.
In [6] analysed the infomobility issues in Latvia and concluded that the information services in Latvia remain
very fragmented both in the geographical scope and the coverage of the modes of transport; they rarely provide
cross-border travel information and door-to-door coverage. At present, the public transport authorities in Latvia
focus their attention on ticketing and real-time information. Real-time information on public transport (e.g. bus and
rail) already exists, but the existing services do not offer travellers real-time information across all the stages of a
multimodal trip. The same highlighted on EU level [7]: the review of 123 existing multimodal travel information
and planning services demonstrated that the end user in Europe is not provided with complete and reliable
information due to insufficient geographical and modal coverage of the current offer. Only 38% of journey planners
are cross-border and from them only 30% (out of 46) cover both long distance transport and the first and last mile by
including walking, cycling and public urban transport.
In terms of infrastructure another critical aspect of multimodal long distance travel attractiveness is sustainable
transport interchange. Interchanges are crucial in bringing forth the shift from the traditional use of individual
private car to wide scale collective public transport.
Access to services and the accessibility of urban public transport (UPT) have always been focal service issues [8]
and [9] classified accessibility measures with respect to UPT into three categories: access to transit stops, duration of
public transit journeys and access to destinations. We will consider duration of public transit journeys in
accessibility analysis.
The paper is organized as follows. The next session provides methodology of accessibility analysis for transit
passengers in Baltic States. Then the results of the analysis are presented and discussed. Finally, concluding remarks
and are offered.

84 Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
2. Methodology
There are many stakeholders involved in transit system planning: users, operators, planning agencies, property
owners and numerous government agencies etc. A framework for the co-development of transit and land-use
planning will promote compact development patterns, encourage transportation choices and optimize public interest
and investment in the transit system. Furthermore, planning for access and connectivity among all transportation
modes, including bicycling and walking, will promote transit as a viable alternative to automobile use [10].
Research Object – multimodal long-distance travel in Baltic States (BS) region and subject is the public transport
accessibility in aspect of multimodal trip in this region. Study zone − Riga City and Baltic States-Riga Journeys.
Accessibility analysis can help identify who has access to and therefore benefits from services and who might be
disadvantaged. The popular way of measuring accessibility is the time taken to travel to destinations. In this
research, these dimensions, that are related to three accessibility levels: macro, meso and micro, are considered.
Each level or dimension deals with different geographical scale:
• the macro level deals in our case Baltic States scale: Vilnius (Lithuania), Tallinn (Estonia) to Riga;
• the meso level refers to the analysis of accessibility on regional level. The main regional Latvian cities (RLC),
such as Ventspils, Liepaja, Rezekne, Daugavpils, Valmiera, and Valka are analyzed;
• the micro level zooms in Riga public transport System accessibility. Authors choose 4 statistical zones with the
high accessibility journey time, such as Dārziņi, Brekši, Čiekurkalns, Mārupe.
The research focused on analysis accessibility taking into account the time distribution between intercity part
(from BS and RLC) of trip and intracity (Riga city) part. Structure of multimodal trip is presented on Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Multimodal trip structure.
For the long-distance journey time calculation is needed the following measures, such as access time, egress time
and main trip time.
The intercity trips service the Riga International Coach Terminal (RICT). RICT is a leader in the area of
passenger bus transportation services in Latvia (151803 routes per 2015 year). From all routes 15% take
international routes and 83% accrue to the long distance routes. RICT serves approximately more than 1.860 million
of passengers per year.
Intercity part (journey) consists of: travel from origin (in BS/RLC) to stop/station and travel until RICT. The
average access time of station (stop), which is defined in [11], equal to 10 minutes. The intercity journey time
calculated as an average trip time from BS/RLC to Riga (RICT) in a morning peak hours.
The intracity part in the Riga, is one of the main part of this research. Riga is a city of 641007 residents according
to the latest Census from 2011. Riga city and surrounding municipalities is the main regional metropolis, accounting
for about 60% of the population of the country. The Latvian capital covers an area of 303996 km2, and boasts a wide
range of urban and regional transport options (urban, regional, national and international bus, regional and national
rail services, ferries to nearby municipalities and a urban international airport). The total length of Latvian roads is

85
Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
20131 km. The national road network is classified by three categories: the major roads with total length 1672 km,
the regional highway – 5388 km, the local roads – 13031 km [12]. Intracity trips service Rīgas satiksme (bus, trams
and trolleybus), Rīgas mikrobusu satiskme (minibus), Pasažieru vilciens (rail), TAXI, bicycles.
Riga development strategy until 2025 [13] defined that indicator of average travelling time PT must be not higher
than 37 minutes in 2005, but in 2025 – 30 minutes. The transport planning experts’ point of view is that the access
of stops from household must be not higher than 8 minutes. This time do not regulated in normative acts, but
Krygsman supported this time (8min) after inhabitant’s survey result analysis [11].
In [4] the accessibility analysis of the Riga public transport system in the current moment was calculated using
the optimal strategy for public transport assignment [14] and represented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Accessibility of the Riga city centre (blue: with travel times (TT) less than 30 min for PT and cars; camel: with TT more than 30 min
for PT, green: with TT more than 30 min for cars, red: with TT more than 30 min for PT and cars).
The accessibility was assessed on the base of the shortest journey time (or the fastest possible route) during the
morning peak hours by public transport and by private cars. The comparing results of the accessibility analyses
highlights the zones with the high level of travelling time (greater than 30 min) that needs to be improved we can
conclude that 25% of areas (colored by red) situated in the north and north–west, have a huge accessibility problems
both by cars and by PT. Moreover, for public transport the worst situation with 12% areas (colored by camel) and
56% areas (colored by blue) have no problem to access the center.
For long distance travel, access really involves the entire urban transport system as long distance terminals can be
at any location within an urban area, and often in larger cities, multiple terminals are available, including those
within city limits, and those much further away like airports.
3. Results
Based on the above presented methodology, authors analyse the long-distance journey time and their distribution
between inter- and intra- parts.
Table 1 represents results of travel time’s calculation for journey for/to RLC to/for 4 most problematic zones in
Riga city – with high travel time to center (40 and 48 min). As discussed above, the access time for intercity trips is

86 Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
defined 10 min [11]. There the intercity journey times from RLC to Riga (RICT), the estimated average times of
delay are included. The delay time was included, because exists the huge problem to access the PT stops from RICT
(especially for analysing destinations). Accessing time from RICT until PT stop – 5 min. Intracity trips were taken
for four areas with high travel time to center (40 and 48 min). Egress time from bus stop until household and delay
time. The ratio between intracity part of whole travel and total time is presented in last column.
Table 1. Journey time from/to regional Latvia cities from/to different zones in Riga city.
Intercity Intracity Sum of
journey
time, hours
Intracity
time to
total
journey
time, %
From/to Riga (RICT) Riga City (RICT – Riga city directions)
Access
time, min
Journey
time,
hours
Delay
time, min
Access
time from
RICT until
PT stop
City
directions
Journey
time
(minimum),
min
Egress
time,
min
Ventspils 10 3.23 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 4.51 28.43
6 Brekši 48 4.51 28.43
9 Čiekurkalns 40 4.43 27.09
3 Mārupe 48 4.46 27.63
Liepaja 10 3.58 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 4.86 26.39
6 Brekši 48 4.86 26.39
9 Čiekurkalns 40 4.78 25.10
3 Mārupe 48 4.81 25.62
Rezekne 10 4.20 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 5.48 23.40
6 Brekši 48 5.48 23.40
9 Čiekurkalns 40 5.40 22.22
3 Mārupe 48 5.43 22.70
Daugavpils 10 3.59 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 4.87 26.33
6 Brekši 48 4.87 26.33
9 Čiekurkalns 40 4.79 25.05
3 Mārupe 48 4.82 25.57
Valmiera 10 2.07 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 3.35 38.27
6 Brekši 48 3.35 38.27
9 Čiekurkalns 40 3.27 36.70
3 Mārupe 48 3.30 37.34
Valka 10 3.42 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 4.70 27.29
6 Brekši 48 4.70 27.29
9 Čiekurkalns 40 4.62 25.97
3 Mārupe 48 4.65 26.50
Table 2 represents data about intercity and intracity journey time for/to BS to Riga City.
As we can see from the results of the calculation for the most critical areas in the city while traveling by urban
public transport (intracity part) can make a quarter of the total travel time. For regional trips (see Table 1) – more
than 25%, till 38% for Valmiera. It should be taking into account that the minimum delay and the access/egress
times have been selected. Therefore, to attract more passengers to use public transport for long distances need to
carefully analyse the intracity part of long distance travel.

87
Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
Table 2. Journey time from/to Baltic states capitals from/to different zones in Riga city.
Intercity Intracity Sum of
journey
time,
hours
Intracity
time to
total
journey
time, %
From/to Riga (RICT) Riga City (RICT − Riga city directions)
Access
time, min
Journey
time, hours
Delay time,
min
Access
time from
RICT until
PT stop
City
directions
Journey time
(minimum),
min
Egress
time, min
Vilnius 10 3,90 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 5.19 24.71
6 Brekši 48 5.19 24.71
9 Čiekurkalns 40 5.11 23.48
3 Mārupe 48 5.14 23.98
Tallinn 10 4,2 6 5 Dārziņi 48 8 5.48 23.40
6 Brekši 48 5.48 23.40
9 Čiekurkalns 40 5.40 22.22
3 Mārupe 48 5.43 22.70
4. Conclusions
The paper suggests the concept of more public transport-oriented cities that accessible for rural citizens, tourists
and business. We consider accessibility within Baltic States taking into account that potential accessibility today is
an important factor in the development of territories, regions and cities; and considers the role of Riga public
transport system in determining the level of accessibility for different spatial aspects.
As clear from analysis it is need to consider the existing urban transport network and its’ role in multimodal long
distance travel. The sustainable planning approach involves the identification the most demanded travels in different
spatial levels and then analyze how better coordinate and integrate various part of long distance trips for following
infrastructure investments, which develop the public transport’s competitiveness in the long term. Transport
infrastructure and services need to be integrated right from planning to operating and maintenance and the
integration is a long term process that involves many stakeholders. But services that combine public urban, regional
and international transportation services into door-to-door packages are an important step towards having a feasible
alternative for a private car and attractive for transit passengers.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the ALLIANCE Project (Grant agreement no.: 692426) funded under
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
References
[1] Global Europe 2050. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_reviews/global-europe-2050-
report_en.pdf, [Accessed: 14- Jan- 2017].
[2] W. Brög, E. Erl, G. Sammer, B. Schulze, DATELINE – Design and application of a travel survey for long-distance trips based on an
International network of expertise – concept and methodology. 2003. 104 p.
[3] O. Biosca, K. Spiekermann, M. Stepniak, Transport accessibility at regional scale 24 (2013) 5–17.
[4] I. Yatskiv (Jackiva), E. Budilovich, Evaluating Riga Transport System Accessibility.
[5] Mobility as a Service – A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration. Available from Internet:
http://www.hel.fi/static/public/hela/Kaupunkisuunnittelulautakunta/Suomi/Esitys/2014/Ksv_2014-06-03_Kslk_17_El/4612BA69-A916-4377-
BA22-B9E1D340618C/Liite.pdf, [Accessed: 14- Jan- 2017]
[6] I. Yatskiv (Jackiva), V. Gromule, I. Pticina, Analysis of Different Aspects of Infomobility for Public Transport in Latvia. 2015.
[7] A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility, [Online]. Available from Internet: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
11333-2016-ADD-2/en/pdf., [Accessed: 14- Jan- 2017].

88 Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva) et al. / Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 82 – 88
[8] A. Murray, A coverage model for improving public transit system accessibility and expanding access 123 (2003) 143–156.
[9] S. Mavoa, K. Witten, T. McCreanor, D. O’Sullivan, GIS based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New
Zealand, Journal of Transport Geography 20 (2012) 15–22.
[10] APTA STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, Transit Sustainability Guidelines, American Public Transportation Association,
Published March 31, 2011.
[11] S. Krygsman, M. Dijst, T. Arentze, Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio, 11
(2004) 265–275.
[12] Latvijas autoceļi, Lv.wikipedia.org, 2017. [Online]. Available from Internet: https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvijas_autoce%C4%BCi,
[Accessed: 13- Jan- 2017].
[13] Rīgas domes pilsētas attīstibas departaments, Rīgas ilgtermiņa attīstības stratēģija līdz 2025, 2005. Available from Internet:
http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Rigas_ilgtermina_attistibas_strategija_2025.g.pdf
[14] H. Spiess, M. Florian, Optimal Strategies: A New Assignment Model For PT Networks, Transportation research B 2 (1989) 83–102.