Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Application of the Hierarchy Analysis Method to Assess
Interchanges in Cracow
Katarzyna Solecka 1, Łukasz Dumanowski 1, Igor Taran 2, * and Yana Litvinova 2
Citation: Solecka, K.; Dumanowski,
Ł.; Taran, I.; Litvinova, Y. Application
of the Hierarchy Analysis Method to
Assess Interchanges in Cracow.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su131910593
Academic Editors:
El˙
zbieta Macioszek,
Margarida Coelho, Anna Granàand
Raffaele Mauro
Received: 23 July 2021
Accepted: 21 September 2021
Published: 24 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Krakow, Poland;
ksolecka@pk.edu.pl (K.S.); lukaszdumanowski@gmail.com (Ł.D.)
2Transportation Management Department, Dnipro University of Technology, Dmytra Yavornytskoho 19,
49005 Dnipro, Ukraine; litvinovayana87@gmail.com
*Correspondence: taran7077@gmail.com; Tel.: +380-976673251
Abstract:
We propose an assessment methodology of interchanges, which is based on one of four
multi-criteria decision aid method, the AHP method, allowing the ranking of interchanges from
best to worst with regard to specific criteria. The selected criteria account for different evaluation
aspects (social, technical, functional, environmental, and economic ones). The final ranking of
the interchanges from best to worst allows making conclusions related to assessed elements of
interchanges, which should be improved to make interchanges friendlier to the passengers. The
proposed interchange assessment method allows the identification of the weakest elements of the
assessed interchanges, which require improvement in order to make the interchanges friendlier for
passengers, with a view to increasing the number of passengers and boosting passengers’ willingness
to use the interchanges.
Keywords: interchanges; multiple criteria decision aid; AHP method
1. Introduction
The stable growth of urban population and the global tendency for urban sprawl
have given rise to changes in mobility patterns [
1
]. The municipal transport as well as
concurrent traffic and transport infrastructure, which should correspond to both interest
and realia of time, are important for the progress of the current mega-cities. Using and
combining the flexibly of different transport modes on a single trip is suggested [
2
] as
being crucial to a more efficient and sustainable urban transport system. Alternatively,
Monzon et al. [
3
] believe that the increase in multi-modal mega-city journeys makes public
transport less attractive.
Despite certain improvements of design and performance processes of transportation
systems of public transport in cities, travel patterns in urban areas are becoming increas-
ingly complex, and many public transport users need to transfer between its different
modes for their daily trips. The above-mentioned may restrict seriously the mobility of
elderly people, visually handicapped people, and physically disabled people since public
transport provide them with full involvement in social and economic life. Sun and Lau [
4
]
applied a go-along interview to understand how older people interact with walking envi-
ronments when approaching public transport in high-density cities. It has been proved
that adaptation of transport system elements (inclusive of interchanges) to their needs is
the key way to improve a trip of such passenger categories [5,6].
Hence, precise design (development) of interchanges, redistributing passenger flows
among different transport modes, has become urgent and more relevant than ever since
interchange or transfers for passengers in large multi-modal public transport networks are
more or less inevitable [
7
]. The problem is extremely important for the developed European
countries as well as for developing FSU countries such as Ukraine [
8
] or Kazakhstan [
9
],
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910593 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 2 of 20
where problems connected with scheduling and building of the modern interchanges are
still at their initial development stage.
Passenger-friendly interchange is the key component of any modern transportation
system. World experience in the construction of such facilities shows that it helps relieve
pedestrian and car traffic by reducing the effort required to change a vehicle and reducing
the time spent on the road. According to Hernández and co-workers [
10
], the quality of
the service provided in an urban transport interchange has a direct influence on the daily
experience of travelers. The cities offer different variants of the interchanges, but it is diffi-
cult to determine which option is the best. The above-mentioned can be explained by the
following. Currently, there is no logically perfect method of comparative analysis of inter-
changes at a design stage that would help substantiate planning concepts of the interchange
supporting the most efficient interplay of all the elements of the transport system.
In Poland, the Act on public collective transport of 16 December 2010 [
11
] defines the
term “integrated interchange” as “a place providing for comfortable change of means of
transportation, provided with the required passenger infrastructure, in particular: parking
spaces, transportation stops, ticket sales outlets, information systems to study timetables,
information on transportation lines, transportation system”. A paper that considers inter-
changes should also mention Park and Ride interchanges [
12
,
13
], combining individual and
collective transport types where passengers may leave their vehicles at special car parks
located within the site of an interchange and continue traveling by means of collective trans-
port. European countries have no standards or regulations specifying how interchanges
should be developed, but good practices can be found in modern literature on this subject.
The question is how to evaluate and compare the advantages and disadvantages caused by
various interchanges.
Researchers apply various criteria as indices to evaluate interchange parameters. Use
of the criteria is stipulated by optimization of the interchange structure and functions or by
improvements of its qualitative and quantitative indices. Rather often the following is used
as the criteria: distances between the interchange elements [
14
,
15
]; service quality and pas-
senger satisfaction [
1
,
2
,
14
–
17
]; data accessibility information
exhaustiveness [14,16,18,19];
time factor [
1
,
2
,
15
,
17
,
18
,
20
–
23
]; personal safety [
14
,
16
,
21
]; combination of the parameters
or their interdependence [16,17,23,24].
Bryniarska and ˙
Zakowska [
14
] proposed a comprehensive analysis (on the basis of the
assessment of selected interchanges in Cracow, Poland) that takes into account the distance
between tram/bus stops within the interchange; it considers the quality of the infrastructure
maintenance of stops and footpath, availability and comprehensiveness of information
for passengers and personal safety and the safety of the traffic as well as qualitative
dimensions of these indicators. Lunke [
15
] defines the satisfaction of commuters with their
last trip to work in Oslo (Norway). The findings indicate that efficient transport routes
with short waiting times and reliable time use are more important than short distances to
stations and direct routes. Chauhan et al. [
16
] examine the factors (‘transfer environment
and important facilities’; ‘safety and security’; ‘transport modes and travel information’;
‘accessibility and signposting’; ‘comfort, convenience, and quality of environment’ and
‘staff management and ticketing’) and their effects influencing the service quality of Multi-
Modal Transportation Hub in Anand Vihar, Delhi. While applying their own methods,
Shesterov and Mikhailov [
20
] analyze the time cost of making interchanges at transit
hubs in Saint Petersburg (the Russian Federation), based on the data obtained in systemic
inspections between the 1980s and 2018.
Oostendorp and Gebhardt [
2
] analyze how intermodality is practiced in everyday
mobility (for example, in different neighborhoods of Berlin) by examining the appropriate
combinations of modes, travel goals, spatial differentiation, and user requirements. Four
essential components of an urban public transport journey are evaluated by Espino and
co-workers: access/egress walking time, waiting time, transfers between different legs of
a trip, and security, both in- an out-of-vehicle [
21
]. The research results [
1
] highlight the
ambivalent nature of the urban transport interchanges—the functional aspects identified
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 3 of 20
contribute to facilitating the transfer and reducing the waiting time, and the psychological
factors make the stay more comfortable for users.
To aid the designers of multi-modal transport interchanges, performance measures
such as the average area occupied by commuters, blocking probability, average sojourn
time, and throughput have been identified [
22
]. Mulley and Nelson [
18
] discuss the prin-
ciples of network planning, including a discussion of timeframes and the necessity of
understanding how network planning outcomes fit into the demand for a trip by the end
user and the role of public transport in the future in the post-COVID-19 world. Gkiot-
salitis [
19
] represents a model modifying the public transport service patterns to account
for the imposed COVID-19 capacity. The model has been tested in a bus line connecting
the University of Twente (The Netherlands) with its surrounding cities. Additionally,
for the city of Amsterdam (The Netherlands), [
24
] proposes a multi-modal route choice
and assignment model that allows users to combine line/schedule-based public transport
systems and on-demand services or use them as individual modes. Lois et al. [
17
] analyze
how attitudes towards several service factors can predict general satisfaction with the Mon-
cloa transport interchange in Madrid, Spain. They also examine the relationship between
waiting time and perceived quality. The authors prove that reducing transfer disruption in
multi-modal trips is a key element for ensuring seamless mobility in big cities.
Yen et al. [
7
] analyze the interchange effects from an analysis of trip patterns of
passengers in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Lee and co-workers [
23
] develop a transit
assignment model, which takes account of the actual commute time, congestion, and fare
of the public transport in a Hong Kong Island using a simulation model MATSim. The
model of transport line synchronization in a transfer node, proposed by [
25
], is based on
simulations of the demand for changing the public transport lines. In order to evaluate the
objective function, simulations of public transport lines of Cracow city (Poland) servicing
the passengers in a transfer node were provided. As it follows from the review, the time
factor is one of the key parameters influencing the selection of a transport mode if only a
passenger is satisfied by the transport mode accessibility as well as its service quality.
The subject of designing and assessment of interchanges is referred to in multiple EU
projects (MIMIC, PIRATE, GUIDE, LINK, NICHES+, NODES, and CITY HUB). Examples
of the most recent projects include NODES [
26
–
28
] and City-HUB projects [
3
]. NODES
proposal is an R&D project of the European Commission aiming to build a toolbox to
support European cities in the design and operation of new or upgraded public transport
interchanges. The underlying hypothesis is that the interchange could be a catalyst of life
and security in the city. The City-HUB 7FP project1 has developed a three-year schedule for
deploying new interchanges and improving existing ones. One dimension of integration is
to reduce the disruption of transfer among modes and interchanges as the best solution
when a large number of travelers has to transfer. Other interchanges related projects include
HERMES [29] and Alliance [30].
In the literature, Polish interchanges are assessed with the indicator assessment
method (AMPTI—Assessment Methodology for Public Transport Interchanges), developed
in 2010 and published in the document “Analysis of the organization and functioning
of interchanges in the capital city of Warsaw” [
31
]. Subsequently, the methodology was
developed and presented in the document “Use of the indicator method and question-
naires to assess selected interchanges in Warsaw” [
32
]. The document contains 14 detailed
quantitative indicators to assess interchanges. However, Olszewski and co-workers [
31
]
recommend the use of eight indicators. The proposed indicators relate to the following
aspects of the node: compactness of the node, legibility of the node, additional equipment,
core infrastructure, accessibility for the disabled, personal safety, safety in motion, and
passenger information. The objective of this article is to assess interchanges in Cracow
on the basis of the indicators proposed in AMPTI, relying on a multiple criteria decision
aid method.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 4 of 20
2. Research Methodology
In order to assess interchanges, one of the existing multiple criteria decision aid
methods was used—the AHP method (analytic hierarchy process) [
33
]. Multiple criteria
decision aid is a field of knowledge deriving from operational research—the method
provides decision makers with tools and methods to support resolving complex multi-
criteria decision problems. A multiple criteria decision problem aid may cover [34,35]:
–
The problem of choice (optimization)—the decision maker determines a subset of
decisions (variants) considered the best ones in terms of the family of criteria in
question. The most popular methods used to resolve problems of choice are the
following: Electre Is and Electre I;
1.
The problem of classification (sorting)—the decision maker splits a set of decisions
(variants) into subsets (classes, categories) in accordance with the accepted standards.
The methods applied to resolve problems of classification include, e.g., Electre TRI
and UTADIS;
2.
The problem of ranking—the decision maker aims to put the variants in order from
the best to the worst. Among the most popular methods used to resolve problems
of ranking are AHP (analytic hierarchy process), ANP (analytic network process),
UTA (utility additive), SAW (simple additive weighting), Electre III/IV, Promethee,
and Oreste.
One of the most popular multi-criteria ranking methods used in Poland [
36
–
39
]
and in the world [
40
–
44
] is the AHP method, which is used in this study to evaluate
the interchanges. The popularity of using this method, compared to other methods of
multi-criteria decision support, is constantly growing [
45
]. It is widely used in many
areas such as management, political science, sociology, transport, logistics, and economics.
Here, only some of the examples of how the AHP method is applied for transport are
considered. The method was used to evaluate the assumed variant solutions in terms of
transport of oversize cargo [
36
], selection of routing schemes taking into environmental
impact [
37
,
43
], multi-criteria evaluation of public transport projects [
38
], improvement of
public transport [
39
,
44
], improvement of human security within railway stations [
40
], road
accident factor prioritization [
41
], and building of a new metro station [
42
]. According to
research by Huang et al. [
45
], out of 312 analyzed articles, 150 concern the AHP method,
which is 48%. This method, thanks to its simplicity, scientific basis, transparency of
calculations, and the possibility of using qualitative assessments and free software, is a
useful method and willingly used by researchers. The AHP method provides a multi-
criteria approach based on a compensation strategy of preference modeling and assuming
the variants are comparable. The AHP method consists of four stages:
Stage 1: Development of a hierarchical model—determination of a hierarchy of factors
(criteria) affecting problem solution (identification of the purpose of the decision process,
variants and criteria). The hierarchical method is best presented using a hierarchical tree in
order to facilitate the description of the decision structure of the problem. The hierarchical
tree involves the following four levels:
Level 0, identifying the objective of the decision process.
Level 1, containing assessment criteria.
Level 2, containing assessment sub-criteria for each criterion.
Level 3, a specification of decision variants.
Stage 2: Assessment by way of comparing pairs—both of criteria and variants. Identi-
fication of the decision makers’ local and global preferences. In stage II, at each hierarchy
level, participants in the decision process specify their preferences in the form of relative
importance assessments made for the pairs of decision criteria and variants. The compara-
ble elements of the hierarchy (criteria, variants) are allocated points from 1 to 9. The greater
the priority that is given to an element, the higher its score. Intermediate values from 2 to
8 reflect the proportional extent of the relative advantage of one element over another. All
the indicators are of compensatory nature—the value of assessment for a less important
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 5 of 20
element (given less priority) in a pair is inverse to the value assigned to the most important
element (given more priority). Therefore, values like 1/2, 1/5, or 1/7 appear, and they are
assigned to less desirable or less material elements. The indicator of relative materiality a
ij
between Kiand Kjcriteria is presented with Formula (1):
aij =ei
ej
,i,j=1, 2, 3 . . . n(1)
where
ei
is the criterion absolute rank K
i
,
ej
is the criterion absolute rank K
j
, where a
ij ∈
{1,
2, 3 . . . 9}.
Stage 3: Review of the cohesion of the matrix at all hierarchy levels or verification of
the uniformity of the information on preferences specified by the decision maker. To this
end, the consistency index (CI) is calculated. The consistency index (CI) is calculated from
the following Formula (2) [33]:
CI =(λmax −n)
n−1, (2)
where
λmax
is the maximum sum, calculated as the sum of the priority line;
n
is the number
of criteria.
Variants are fully consistent when CI = 0. The priority line is the product of the sum in
each column and the values of the priority vector in each line. In the end, the calculation is
made of the consistency ratio CR with Formula (3) [33]:
CR =C I
RI , (3)
where RI is the Random Index, calculated in accordance with Table 1, determined by
Saaty [33], where nis the number of criteria.
Table 1. The values of RI subject to the number of criteria [33].
n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
The limiting values of the consistency ratio CR were defined by Saaty [
33
]. If the value
of the CR coefficient is less than or equal to 0.1, it is assumed that the factor is accepted and
the comparisons used are in agreement. Otherwise, when CR > 0.1, it is recommended to
repeat some or all of the comparisons in order to get rid of the pairwise incompatibility. This
means that the information is inconsistent or an error was made (data input, calculations).
In such situation, it is necessary to return to stage II of the AHP method algorithm. If
the values of CI and CR. at different levels of the hierarchy are equal to 0, the preferences
presented are perfectly consistent.
Stage 4: Final ranking of variants. In stage IV of the algorithm, the standardized
absolute weights of variants and criteria obtained in stage II are aggregated with an
additive usability function that synthesizes the weighted shares of elements from each
level. The weights represent the share of the element in the global objective of the decision
process. The algorithm of the AHP method results in a ranking of variants from top down,
in compliance with the calculated values of their usability from the highest to the lowest.
The individual steps of the method are presented in Figure 1below.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 6 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
Figure 1. Methodological steps in AHP method.
However, the AHP method is subject to certain restrictions:
– The method does not allow in-comparability of criteria and variants with each other.
– The AHP method is not flexible in terms of adding new variants. Each new variant
added causes the destruction of the existing comparison matrices and the necessity
to build new matrices.
– This method relies on the knowledge and experience of the assessors because the
method uses subjective expert opinions expressed in numbers.
– When the number of criteria, sub-criteria and variants increases, the number of levels
and elements of the hierarchy also increases, which makes the number of pairwise
comparisons by the decision maker also larger, which increases the labor intensity
and thus reduces the attractiveness of the method. The size of the comparison matrix
with several dozen decision variants is very large.
– During modeling and computational experiments, the values of the criteria are not
used, which increases the risk of making a mistake while transforming the data.
3. Application of the AHP Method to Assess Interchanges in Cracow
In Cracow, there are about 18 interchanges of major importance for passengers of
collective transport—those that are used by the largest number of passengers in a day
(over 1200 passengers/day). The largest number of passengers was recorded at five inter-
changes with streams of over 14,000 a day on a regular working day [15]. For the multi-
criteria analysis, the following interchanges were used as assessment variants: Variant 1
(W1)—Rondo Mogilskie (31.594 passengers/day); Variant 2 (W2)—Main Railway Station
(47.537 passengers/day); Variant 3 (W3)—Krowodrza Górka Station (16.996 passen-
gers/day); Variant 4 (W4)—ICE Congress Centre (18.186 passengers/day); Variant 5
(W5)—Rondo Grzegórzeckie (14.808 passengers/day). The locations of the interchanges
Figure 1. Methodological steps in AHP method.
However, the AHP method is subject to certain restrictions:
– The method does not allow in-comparability of criteria and variants with each other.
1.
The AHP method is not flexible in terms of adding new variants. Each new variant
added causes the destruction of the existing comparison matrices and the necessity to
build new matrices.
2.
This method relies on the knowledge and experience of the assessors because the
method uses subjective expert opinions expressed in numbers.
3.
When the number of criteria, sub-criteria and variants increases, the number of levels
and elements of the hierarchy also increases, which makes the number of pairwise
comparisons by the decision maker also larger, which increases the labor intensity
and thus reduces the attractiveness of the method. The size of the comparison matrix
with several dozen decision variants is very large.
4.
During modeling and computational experiments, the values of the criteria are not
used, which increases the risk of making a mistake while transforming the data.
3. Application of the AHP Method to Assess Interchanges in Cracow
In Cracow, there are about 18 interchanges of major importance for passengers of
collective transport—those that are used by the largest number of passengers in a day
(over 1200 passengers/day). The largest number of passengers was recorded at five in-
terchanges with streams of over 14,000 a day on a regular working day [
15
]. For the
multi-criteria analysis, the following interchanges were used as assessment variants: Vari-
ant 1 (W1)—Rondo Mogilskie (31.594 passengers/day); Variant 2 (W2)—Main Railway
Station (47.537 passengers/day); Variant 3 (W3)—Krowodrza Górka Station (16.996 pas-
sengers/day); Variant 4 (W4)—ICE Congress Centre (18.186 passengers/day); Variant 5
(W5)—Rondo Grzegórzeckie (14.808 passengers/day). The locations of the interchanges
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 7 of 20
are presented in Figure 2. Example of an analysis of the interchange in terms of traffic
organization in Figures 3–10.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
are presented in Figure 2. Example of an analysis of the interchange in terms of traffic
organization in Figures 3–10.
Each interchange was characterized in detail in terms of [15] interchange location,
traffic organization in the interchange both for individual and collective transport vehicles
(interchange chart—location of collective transport stops, pedestrian crossings, traffic
lights, lanes for individual and collective transport traffic, common stops), number of bus
and tram lines, frequency of operation in peak hours and outside of peak hours, types of
stops, additional devices: ticket vending machines, kiosks, toilets, information points, in-
formation at stops (type of information), network of cycling paths in the interchange and
within 500 m from the interchange (including the length of contraflow lanes, separated
cycling paths), bicycle stands, condition of surface within the interchange, facilities for the
handicapped (lifts, escalators, ramps), and parking.
Figure 2. Locations of the interchanges used for the analysis. Source: Own elaboration with the use
of Google Maps base.
Figure 2.
Locations of the interchanges used for the analysis. Source: Own elaboration with the use
of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Figure 3. Example of an analysis of the Rondo Mogilskie interchange in terms of traffic organization. Source: Own elabo-
ration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 3.
Example of an analysis of the Rondo Mogilskie interchange in terms of traffic organization.
Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 8 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Figure 4. Diagram of the Main Railway Station interchange. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 5. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stop location on the Main Station and traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 4. Diagram of the Main Railway Station interchange. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Figure 4. Diagram of the Main Railway Station interchange. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 5. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stop location on the Main Station and traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 5.
Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stop location on the Main Station and traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 9 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 6. Example of an analysis of the Main Station tunnel in terms of traffic organization. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 7. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Main East and West Station. Source: Own elabora-
tion with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 6. Example of an analysis of the Main Station tunnel in terms of traffic organization. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 6. Example of an analysis of the Main Station tunnel in terms of traffic organization. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 7. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Main East and West Station. Source: Own elabora-
tion with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 7.
Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Main East and West Station.
Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 10 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
Figure 8. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Krowodrza Górka. Source:
Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 9. Example of an analysis of the Centrum Kongresowe ICE interchange in terms of traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 8.
Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Krowodrza Górka. Source:
Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
Figure 8. Example of an analysis of the bus and tram stops location on Krowodrza Górka. Source:
Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 9. Example of an analysis of the Centrum Kongresowe ICE interchange in terms of traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Figure 9.
Example of an analysis of the Centrum Kongresowe ICE interchange in terms of traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 11 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
Figure 10. Example of an analysis of the Rondo Grzegórzeckie interchange in terms of traffic organ-
ization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
A set of eight criteria were applied to assess interchanges. Definitions of the criteria
were applied in compliance with the AMPTI methodology [31]:
– K1 Spatial compactness of the interchange—spatial compactness of the interchange
consists of three indicators: average weighted time of walk between stops, average
weighted length of a walk between stops, and average arithmetic mean of a walk
between all platforms in the interchange.
– K2 Interchange legibility—the indicator relies on the assumption that orientation in
the interchange is facilitated with mutual visibility of stops: check of the number of
stop posts, visible from each platform—or one-level interchanges; for multi-level in-
terchanges, marked entrances to station buildings or tunnels are used instead of stop
posts.
– K3 Additional equipment—additional equipment at an interchange shall include
roofing over platforms and pedestrian passages, benches, waste baskets, ticket vend-
ing machines, shops, toilets, taxi ranks, car parking, and bicycle stands, calculated as
a percentage of all equipment at the interchange.
Figure 10.
Example of an analysis of the Rondo Grzegórzeckie interchange in terms of traffic
organization. Source: Own elaboration with the use of Google Maps base.
Each interchange was characterized in detail in terms of [
15
] interchange location,
traffic organization in the interchange both for individual and collective transport vehicles
(interchange chart—location of collective transport stops, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights,
lanes for individual and collective transport traffic, common stops), number of bus and
tram lines, frequency of operation in peak hours and outside of peak hours, types of
stops, additional devices: ticket vending machines, kiosks, toilets, information points,
information at stops (type of information), network of cycling paths in the interchange and
within 500 m from the interchange (including the length of contraflow lanes, separated
cycling paths), bicycle stands, condition of surface within the interchange, facilities for the
handicapped (lifts, escalators, ramps), and parking.
A set of eight criteria were applied to assess interchanges. Definitions of the criteria
were applied in compliance with the AMPTI methodology [31]:
–
K1 Spatial compactness of the interchange—spatial compactness of the interchange
consists of three indicators: average weighted time of walk between stops, average
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 12 of 20
weighted length of a walk between stops, and average arithmetic mean of a walk
between all platforms in the interchange.
1.
K2 Interchange legibility—the indicator relies on the assumption that orientation in
the interchange is facilitated with mutual visibility of stops: check of the number
of stop posts, visible from each platform—or one-level interchanges; for multi-level
interchanges, marked entrances to station buildings or tunnels are used instead of
stop posts.
2.
K3 Additional equipment—additional equipment at an interchange shall include roof-
ing over platforms and pedestrian passages, benches, waste baskets, ticket vending
machines, shops, toilets, taxi ranks, car parking, and bicycle stands, calculated as a
percentage of all equipment at the interchange.
3.
K4 Core infrastructure—the following criteria are taken into account in assessing the
indicator: platform or pavement width, length of the platform, surface quality, no
obstacles within stops, maximum curb height, and open-sided shelters. In order to
accept the indicator as positive, all the criteria have to be complied with. The values
of the indicator are calculated as percentage of platforms that meet the requirements
concerning infrastructure quality; percentage of passage segments that meet the
requirements concerning infrastructure quality.
4.
K5 Accessibility for the handicapped and elderly—here, the following accessibility
criteria have to be met: ramps and lifts by the stairs, handrails along the ramps,
warning pavement slabs, well-marked edges along the platforms, lower curbs at road
crossings, and sound signals at crossings with traffic lights. The values of the indicator
are calculated as percentage of platforms that meet the criterion and percentage of
passage segments that meet the criterion.
5.
K6 Personal safety—the core criteria ensuring safety are good lighting and visual
monitoring of interchange elements. The indicator is calculated as percentage of
platforms that meet the criterion and percentage of passage segments that meet the
criterion.
6.
K7 Safety in motion—the indicator relates solely to pedestrian road crossings. The
safety level is assessed by the type of crossing: underground passage or footbridge
= 100%; passage with traffic lights without collision with turning vehicles = 70%;
passage with traffic lights with collision with turning vehicles = 50%; passage without
traffic lights, zebra crossing = 30%; unmarked passage = 0%.
The indicator is calculated as an average safety level for all the road crossings within
the interchange.
–
K8 Passenger information—passenger information is required in complex inter-
changes so that they can function better. The core requirements are as follows: timeta-
bles and tariff information at stops, maps of an interchange and its surroundings, and
network charts, including directional signs at platforms and branching of pedestrian
passages. It is calculated as follows: percentage of platforms and pedestrian passages
provided with information for passengers. Table 2presents the obtained criteria
values (K1–K8) for each interchange (variant).
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 13 of 20
Table 2. Criteria value.
Criteria Variants
Direction of
Preferences/Units V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
K1 min [-] 180.02 191.94 91.14 109.19 106.23
K2 max [%] 54 60 78 80 100
K3 max [%] 66 60 49 48 49
K4 max [%] 98 95 93 96 100
K5 max [%] 68 63 46 60 81
K6 max [%] 60 66 64 50 52
K7 max [%] 79 31 19 64 60
K8 max [%] 45 43 30 33 50
Another step was to carry out a multi-criteria assessment of interchanges and to rank
them from the top down with respect to the reviewed criteria category. The assessment
was made with a variant ranking method—AHP. As a result of calculation experiments,
the following results were obtained:
–
Comparison matrix with criteria pairs where criteria were compared in pairs in
compliance with the AHP method, applying scores from 1 to 7 and resulting in
relative importance indicators. The values presented in Table 3in the form of integers
mean advantage of a criterion on the left-hand side over a criterion located on the
right-hand side. Fractional values mean advantage of a criterion on the right-hand
side over a criterion located on the left-hand side.
–
Weights of individual criteria—Table 3and the value of the inconsistency index. The
highest weight was assigned to criterion K4—Core infrastructure—0.341 and the
lowest to criterion K3—additional equipment—0.026. The value of the consistency
index CI = 0.014. Consistency ratio CR = 0.01. The ratio was under 0.1, which means
the assessments are consistent.
–
Comparison matrix of variants with respect to individual criteria. To this end, impor-
tant indicators were identified for the variants compared in pairs for each criterion.
An example of variant assessment with respect to criterion K1 (spatial compactness of
the interchange) is presented in Table 4.
Table 3. Comparison matrix of criteria pairs and criteria weights.
Criteria K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 Weight
K1 1 1 3 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/5 0.047
K2 1 1 2 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/5 0.044
K3 1/3 1/2 1 1/9 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/7 0.026
K4 7 7 9 1 5 3 3 2 0.341
K5 2 2 3 1/5 1 1/2 1/2 1/3 0.074
K6 3 3 5 1/3 2 1 1 1/2 0.126
K7 3 3 5 1/3 2 1 1 1/2 0.126
K8 5 5 7 1/2 3 2 2 1 0.216
Total 22.333 22.5 35 2.763 14.333 8.367 8.367 4.876 1
Priority 1.050 0.986 0.895 0.944 1.060 1.056 1.056 1.051 8.099
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 14 of 20
Table 4. Comparison matrix by variant pairs with respect to the criterion K1.
Variants V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 Weight
V1 1 2 1/4 1/4 1/4 0.0806
V2 1/2 1 1/5 1/4 1/4 0.0576
V3 4 5 1 2 2 0.3824
V4 4 4 1/2 1 1 0.2397
V5 4 4 1/2 1 1 0.2397
With respect to criterion K1, the best was variant V3—Krowodrza Górka with a weight
of 0.3824. In terms of the reviewed criterion, K1 proved to be variant V2—Main railway
Station with a weight of 0.0576.
–
Consistency index and consistency ratios. At each level of comparison of pairs
of variants versus the criteria, the consistency index and consistency ratio were
determined, which is presented in Table 5. This is an example of a specific matrix for
pairwise comparisons according to the K1 criterion—which option showed the best
result and which one the worst. Such matrices are created for each criterion (from K1
to K8). Subsequently, we get the validity of the option in relation to the considered
criterion. The results are then used to select the best alternative.
Table 5. Consistency of assessment.
Consistency Index CI Random Index Consistency Ratio CR Consistency of
Assessment
Average distance of walk 0.026 1.11 0.024 yes
Legibility in interchange 0.012 1.11 0.011 yes
Additional equipment 0.002 1.11 0.002 yes
Core infrastructure 0.019 1.11 0.017 yes
Accessibility for the
handicapped and elderly 0.027 1.11 0.024 yes
Personal safety 0.011 1.11 0.010 yes
Safety in motion 0.007 1.11 0.006 yes
Passenger information 0.013 1.11 0.012 yes
As a result of the calculation of CI and CR, it was determined that the provided
information was consistent at each stage of the calculations.
–
Final ranking. The last stage of the AHP method was to rank variants from top
down on the basis of the calculated global usability of all variants (calculation of the
usability function and its standardization), calculating the product of the weight for
the criterion and the weight of the corresponding variant (usability of the variant for
each criterion)—Tables 6and 7.
As a result of a multi-criteria analysis using the AHP method, a final ranking of the
variants was obtained; as a result, the best variant versus the reviewed criteria provided
to be variant V5—Rondo Grzegórzeckie with a global assessment value of 28.22%, while
the worst variant proved to be variant V3—Krowodrza Górka with a global assessment of
14.08%. The difference between the best and the worst variants is 14.14 percentage points,
while the difference between the best—Rondo Grzegórzeckie and the second-ranked Rondo
Mogilskie is 4.15 percentage points.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 15 of 20
Table 6. Usability of variants versus the criteria.
Criteria Variants
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
Average distance of walk 0.0038 0.0027 0.0180 0.0113 0.0113
Legibility in interchange 0.003 0.0045 0.0090 0.0099 0.0175
Additional equipment 0.0101 0.0060 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032
Core infrastructure 0.0771 0.0574 0.0499 0.0574 0.0997
Accessibility for the
handicapped and elderly 0.0182 0.0120 0.0050 0.0110 0.0277
Personal safety 0.0262 0.0407 0.0328 0.0127 0.0138
Safety in motion 0.0522 0.0093 0.049 0.0313 0.0285
Passenger information 0.0501 0.0460 0.0180 0.0209 0.0807
Weighted sum 0.2407 0.1786 0.1408 0.1577 0.2822
Table 7. Final ranking.
Position in the
Ranking Variant Name of the
Interchange Global Score
1 V5 Rondo Grzegórzeckie 28.22%
2 V1 Rondo Mogilskie 24.07%
3 V2 Main Railway Station 17.86%
4 V4 ICE Congress Centre 15.77%
5 V3 Krowodrza Górka 14.08%
4. Discussion
This article discusses the assessment of interchange nodes using one of the multi-
criteria decision support methods, namely, the AHP method, along with a set of criteria
proposed under the AMPTI method [
31
]. The assessment carried out in this way allows
for a comprehensive analysis of various criteria related to spatial compactness of the
interchange, legibility interchange, infrastructure quality, the necessary equipment facilitat-
ing passengers to move around the interchange, including people with reduced mobility,
personal safety, and traffic safety, and criteria related to information about passengers.
The assessment carried out in this way also makes it possible to identify the interchange
elements that need to be improved and which aspects of the infrastructure and elements
related to interchange movement should be given special attention. Such information may
prove useful when planning new and modernizing existing interchanges. We used the
method to assess interchanges in Cracow, Poland, and the results in the form of the final
ranking of the interchanges under consideration show that the Rondo Grzegórzeckie inter-
change is the best solution in terms of the criteria under consideration, obtaining a global
rating of 28.22%. The Rondo Mogilskie interchange was the second in the ranking with a
global rating of 24.07%. The high position of these variants in the ranking resulted mainly
from the obtained high utility values of the variants in relation to the following criteria: core
infrastructure, passenger information, personal safety, and safety in motion, which were
characterized by high weights. The winning W5 variant was characterized by the highest
utility value of the variants in relation to the core infrastructure and passenger information
criterion, obtaining utility values of 0.0997 and 0.0807, respectively. Although the final
result of the study is the interchanges ranking, the individual stages of the analysis also
provide important information such as the significance of a specific element of interchange
equipment in relation to the studied group of users (weighting of the assessment criteria),
and the extent to which the analyzed interchanges meet the requirements with regard to
the considered elements of interchange equipment (the utility of the variant in relation to
the given criterion). In addition, this type of analysis also provides information about the
strengths and weaknesses of the analyzed interchange nodes, making it easier to identify
elements that require improvement. With regard to the importance of the criteria, as a
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 16 of 20
result of the analyses, the most important criteria turned out to be K4—basic infrastructure,
K6—personal safety, K7—safety in motion, and K8—passenger information. The utility
values of a given variant (the interchange) in relation to the considered criteria show which
criteria should be improved in order to make the variant more passenger-friendly. The
attractiveness of the interchange is evidenced by the high utility values of the variants in
relation to a given criterion. The higher the utility of a variant, the more user-friendly and
attractive the variant is. For example, the highest utility value of the variant in relation to
one of the most important criteria for passengers—the passenger information criterion—
was obtained by the W5—Rondo Grzegórzeckie variant with a result of 0.0807, while the
lowest utility values in relation to this criterion were obtained by variants W3 and W4,
which means that in the case of interchanges W3—Main Railway Station and W4—ICE
Congress Center focus primarily on improving elements related to passenger information.
The results are largely consistent with findings of previous studies, including
Starzy´nska et al. [46]
and the results of the City-HUB project [
29
,
47
,
48
]. The above research
shows that the most important elements that people traveling by public transport pay atten-
tion to are primarily elements related to the quality of the stop infrastructure (e.g., height
and width of the stop platform, platform roof, height of the vehicle floor), information
quality (legibility of information, height at which information is located, ease of reception,
voice information informing about approaching vehicles, clear timetables), according to
the study by Starzy´nska et al. [
46
] and Monzón et al. [
29
], and ensuring safety during the
transfer (safety while waiting for the vehicle and when changing the means of transport),
according to the results of the City-HUB project, Heddebaut [
47
]. The transfer conditions
related to the differences in the levels necessary to overcome during the transfer, as well
as the protection against unfavorable weather conditions, are indicated in the research by
˙
Zmuda-Trzebiatowski et al. [48].
With regard to the method used in the research, it should be mentioned that the
problem of assessing interchanges in Poland was addressed by Olszewski P. et al. [
31
],
proposing the AMPTI methodology, which is based on 14 quantitative indicators (currently
eight indicators are recommended) and can be used to assess both existing and planned
interchanges. The methodology presented above was used to evaluate 10 interchanges of
public transport in Warsaw [
32
]. For each interchange, 14 rating indicators were derived
from the interchanges audits, measurements, and surveys and identified interchange
weaknesses. Another example of the application of the AMPTI method is the assessment of
three interchange nodes in Cracow presented by Bryniarka Z., Czekała K. [
49
]; in this study,
the interchange nodes were assessed using the AMPTI method using eight assessment
indicators.
As a result, weaknesses of individual interchanges in relation to the considered
assessment indicators were indicated. However, looking globally at this type of assessment,
having the values of eight indicators for each of the interchanges, it is difficult to clearly
assess which interchange is the most travel-friendly. In such cases, each indicator is
analyzed separately for the interchange. For the assessment of five interchange nodes
in Cracow, the authors of this study proposed a combination of two approaches so as
to ultimately obtain an unambiguous global assessment for interchange, meaning an
assessment that would take into account all indicators at the same time. Therefore, in
addition to using the eight indicators proposed under the AMPTI method, the multi-
criteria method of ranking variants was also used the AHP method. As a result of the
computational experiments, the final ordering of the analyzed transfer interchanges was
obtained from the best to the worst in relation to the obtained global score, taking into
account the considered assessment criteria. Thanks to this approach, it is easy to indicate
which interchange is the most trip-friendly; additionally, on the basis of the calculated value
of the utility function of the variants in relation to each criterion, it is possible to indicate
weaknesses of a given interchange and suggest which criterion should be improved in
order to make the interchange more user-friendly. A similar approach was used by Solecka
K., Nosal Hoy K. [
6
] where two approaches, the AMPTI method and the multi-criteria
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 17 of 20
decision aid method, were also combined to assess interchange nodes. However, in this
case, one of the simplest methods was used: the compensation–conjunction method [
50
].
Based on the literature review, it can be concluded that there are currently few studies
dealing with the issue of assessment of interchange nodes with the use of multi-criteria
decision support methods.
5. Conclusions
The aim of the analysis implemented in this study was to assess the interchanges in
Cracow, Poland, with regard to a set of criteria and rank the variants from best to worst
with regard to these criteria. The analyses show that Rondo Grzegórzeckie is the best
variant. In terms of the acceptance criteria, it has the best core infrastructure and passenger
information; it is most friendly to the handicapped and elderly; it is also characterized
with the best legibility in the interchange. The second-ranked Rondo Mogilskie is the best
variant in terms of safety in motion in view of a large number of underground passages
and no collision with car traffic, and it has the best additional equipment. The variant of
the Krowodrza Górka interchange was ranked at the end. The interchange has no roofs on
most of the platforms, and it is not friendly to the handicapped. The interchange also scored
the lowest in terms of safety in motion due to the absence of traffic lights at pedestrian
crossings. The interchange is the best in terms of walking distances. A multi-criteria
assessment of interchanges shows which interchanges are more friendly to passengers than
others. The analysis indicates a direction of modifications; elements may be identified to
be improved so that such interchange may become more friendly to passengers. Improved
functioning of interchanges may increase the number of passengers on public transport
and will cause passengers to be more willing to use interchanges—which means that they
will make transfers in their trips.
During the implementation of research related to the assessment of interchange nodes,
we encounter a number of problems, in particular related to the proper definition of evalu-
ation indicators, parameterization of indicators, or the availability of data for determining
indicators. In order to determine the assessment indicators, it is usually necessary to
conduct a detailed interchange audit, measurement or survey. The first two tools do not
cause major problems but are very time-consuming, which translates into the cost of work,
while survey research requires contact with other people. Currently, direct contact is very
difficult; people are reluctant to engage in discussions while on the interchange. On the
one hand, they feel threatened, and on the other hand, they are afraid that they will miss
their means of transport. Surveys can also be conducted via websites, but also, in this case,
access to some social groups is difficult. Willingness to perform an analysis, e.g., from the
point of view of the elderly, through websites, is practically impossible; the elderly often
do not use computers and the Internet fluently or have difficult access to them. The return
in this case of online questionnaires would be negligible. Surveys are also necessary in the
case of using methods of multi-criteria decision support, which require determining the
weighting of the criteria or, for example, obtaining comparisons between criteria or variants
according to criteria. Therefore, in the case of more advanced research, it is proposed to use
the experience and knowledge of experts (study in the article was based on the knowledge
of transport experts).
In the case of applying multi-criteria decision aid methods, one of the main limitations
in the use of more advanced methods is the availability of software, which is mostly paid
and sometimes also difficult to access. In this study, the AHP method was used, which is
characterized by a relatively simple calculation algorithm, which does not require the use
of advanced computer programs.
In order to deepen the analyses related to the assessment of interchange nodes, it is
proposed to carry out a sensitivity analysis in further studies, which will allow to determine
the impact of the change in the importance of individual elements on the obtained results
(final ranking). The starting point for such analysis may be a change in the values of
individual evaluation criteria and observation of how the final rankings change. To perform
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 18 of 20
this type of analysis, it is suggested to use Expert Choice software, which can greatly
facilitate the work related to the calculations as well as gives the possibility of a graphical
presentation of the results. Moreover, in order to deepen the analysis, it is suggested to
evaluate the interchange nodes from various points of view, e.g., from the point of view
of people with reduced mobility, as well as from the point of view of the city authorities.
The research may also extend the set of criteria by, for example, economic criteria. The
results of the assessment can be used to prepare recovery and modernization plans for the
assessed interchanges, where the greatest problems have been identified; they are also a
guideline for planning and designing new interchanges. Investments related to the design
of interchange nodes and, furthermore, integrated interchange nodes are a complex and
long-term process. In Poland, in the absence of legible legal legislation, they require a
goodwill to cooperate from various parties, for example, on the part of railways, communes,
starosties, provinces, and carriers. Investments are often implemented “quickly” without
exchanging experiences and without proper recognition of the needs of future users,
resulting in higher operating costs and underdeveloped design solutions. In Poland, local
governments seem to be well prepared to organize interchanges nodes. Another problem is
the negligible number of good Polish examples. That is why the right attitude of designers
and the search for appropriate foreign solutions is very important. Integrated interchange
nodes are being built in Poland, but often the solutions adopted do not work in practice,
and the impressive objects are not effective at the same time. The most common problem is
the lack of appropriate experience of designers and decision makers. It is recommended
that at the national level, in particular, focus on the needs of users in legal acts, including
those related to the construction of elements of transport infrastructure and interchanges.
A valuable solution would be to create instructions and guides on how to properly plan
passenger-friendly interchange nodes. In addition, it is suggested that when assessing
the application for funding for junction construction projects, greater attention should
be paid to the planning of interchange nodes adapted to the needs of all users, paying
particular attention to the criteria of basic infrastructure, information, and personal and
traffic safety. Local governments should pay particular attention to ensuring a high level of
basic infrastructure, focusing on improving the infrastructure around platforms, walkways,
and stairs and paying special attention to the surface, width, roofing, as well as the
presence of obstacles within the platforms, pavements, and stairs in the interchanges. It is
necessary to ensure access to the infrastructure of the integration interchange surroundings
(parking lots, bicycle paths). There are many potential threats in the interchange areas,
both for travelers and people working in such facilities. Therefore, it is recommended
to pay special attention to the elements related to the lighting of sidewalks, platforms,
bus shelters, proper lighting of information elements, so that travelers have no problem
with reading them after dusk; monitoring and the possibility of contact with uniformed
services should be provided—the presence of such services on the platforms. At pedestrian
crossings within junctions, it is recommended to use additional elements that improve
safety, such as reflective points installed in the road, appropriately selected times between
green in controlling traffic lights, and acoustic announcements informing about the color
of the displayed signal for pedestrians. It is recommended that local governments and
carriers strive to provide comprehensive, integrated information, including information
tailored to particularly sensitive groups. Information on the departures of subsequent
buses, trams, and trains (in chronological order), traffic delays, and breakdowns should be
provided; thus, the Passenger Information System would fulfill its real role by integrating
various carriers, remembering to ensure the legibility of information, the height at which
the information is located, ease of reception, voice information, and legible timetables.
Moreover, one should strive to ensure the integrated frequency of timetables of individual
means of transport.
It is widely recognized that passenger-friendly interchanges play a significant role
in increasing the attractiveness and competitiveness of public transport and are often the
showcase of the city transport system.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 19 of 20
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, K.S. and Ł.D.; methodology, K.S., Ł.D., I.T. and Y.L.;
software, K.S. and Ł.D.; validation, I.T. and Y.L.; formal analysis, K.S., Ł.D., I.T. and Y.L.; investigation,
K.S., Ł.D., I.T. and Y.L.; data curation, K.S. and Ł.D.; writing—review and editing, K.S., Ł.D., I.T. and
Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study did not involve humans or animals.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Hernandez, S.; Monzon, A. Key factors for defining an efficient urban transport interchange: Users’ perceptions. Cities
2016
,
50, 158–167. [CrossRef]
2.
Oostendorp, R.; Gebhardt, L. Combining means of transport as a users’ strategy to optimize traveling in an urban context:
Empirical results on intermodal travel behavior from a survey in Berlin. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018,71, 72–83. [CrossRef]
3.
Monzón, A.; Hernández, S.; Di Ciommo, F. Efficient Urban Interchanges: The City-HUB Model. Transp. Res. Procedia
2016
,
14, 1124–1133. [CrossRef]
4.
Sun, G.; Lau, C.Y. Go-along with older people to public transport in high-density cities: Understanding the concerns and walking
barriers through their lens. J. Transp. Health 2021,21, 101072. [CrossRef]
5.
Low, W.; Cao, M.; De Vos, J.; Hickman, R. The journey experience of visually impaired people on public transport in London.
Transp. Policy 2020,97, 137–148. [CrossRef]
6.
Solecka, K.; Nosal-Hoy, K.; Deryło, A. Assessment of transport interchanges for the needs of people with reduced mobility. Travel
Behav. Soc. 2020,21, 48–56. [CrossRef]
7.
Yen Barbara, T.H.; Mulley, C.; Tseng, W.C.; Chiou, Y.C. Assessing interchange effects in public transport: A case study of South
East Queensland, Australia. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018,6, 364–375. [CrossRef]
8.
Taran, I.; Litvin, V. Determination of rational parameters for urban bus route with combined operating mode. Transp. Probl.
2018
,
13, 157–171. [CrossRef]
9.
Naumov, V.; Zhamanbayev, B.; Agabekova, D.; Zhanbirov, Z.; Taran, I. Fuzzy-logic approach to estimate the passengers’ preference
when choosing a bus line within the public transport system. Commun. Sci. Lett. Univ. Zilina 2021,23, A150–A157. [CrossRef]
10.
Hernández, S.; Monzón, A.; de Oña, R. Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality. Transp.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016,84, 31–43. [CrossRef]
11.
Act of 16 December 2010 on Public Collective Transport, Journal of Laws of 2011, No.5, Item 13, as Amended. Available online:
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20110050013 (accessed on 2 September 2021).
12.
Mills, G.; White, P.R. Evaluating the long-term impacts of bus-based park and ride. Res. Transp. Econ.
2018
,69, 536–543. [CrossRef]
13.
Katoshevski-Cavari, R.; Bak, N.; Shiftan, Y. Would free park-and-ride with a free shuttle service attract car drivers? Case Stud.
Transp. Policy 2018,6, 206–213. [CrossRef]
14.
Bryniarska, Z.; ˙
Zakowska, L. Multi-criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges. Transp. Res. Procedia
2017
,24, 25–32.
[CrossRef]
15. Lunke, E.B. Commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. J. Transp. Health 2020,16, 100842. [CrossRef]
16.
Chauhan, V.; Gupta, A.; Parida, M. Demystifying service quality of Multimodal Transportation Hub (MMTH) through measuring
users’ satisfaction of public transport. Transp. Policy 2021,102, 47–60. [CrossRef]
17.
Lois, D.; Monzón, A.; Hernández, S. Analysis of satisfaction factors at urban transport interchanges: Measuring travellers’
attitudes to information, security and waiting. Transp. Policy 2018,67, 49–56. [CrossRef]
18.
Mulley, C.; Nelson, J.D. Public Transport Network Planning. Int. Encycl. Transp.
2021
, 388–394. Available online: https:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008102671710781X?via%3Dihub (accessed on 2 September 2021). [CrossRef]
19.
Gkiotsalitis, K. A model for modifying the public transport service patterns to account for the imposed COVID-19 capacity.
Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021,9, 100336. [CrossRef]
20.
Shesterov, E.; Mikhailov, A. Method of evaluating transit hubs in Saint Petersburg. Transp. Res. Procedia
2020
,50, 654–661.
[CrossRef]
21.
Espino, R.; de Dios Ortúzar, J.; Rizzi, L.I. The Value of Security, Access Time, Waiting Time, and Transfers in Public Transport. Int.
Encycl. Transp.
2021
, 122–126. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008102671710020X?
via%3Dihub (accessed on 2 September 2021). [CrossRef]
22.
Khattak, A.; Hussain, A. Hybrid DES-PSO framework for the design of commuters’ circulation space at multimodal transport
interchange. Math. Comput. Simul. 2021,180, 205–229. [CrossRef]
23.
Lee, E.; Zaman Patwary, A.U.; Huang, W.; Lo, H.K. Transit interchange discount optimization using an agent-based simulation
model. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020,170, 702–707. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 10593 20 of 20
24.
Narayan, J.; Cats, O.; Van Oort, N.; Hoogendoorn, S. Integrated route choice and assignment model for fixed and flexible public
transport systems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020,115, 102631. [CrossRef]
25.
Naumov, V. Genetic-based algorithm of the public transport lines synchronization in a transfer node. Transp. Res. Procedia
2020
,
47, 315–322. [CrossRef]
26.
Carpio-Pinedo, J.; Martínez-Conde, J.A.; Daudén, F.L. Mobility and Urban Planning Integration at City-regional Level in the
Design of Urban Transport Interchanges (EC FP7 NODES Project–Task 3.2.1.). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2014
,160, 224–233.
[CrossRef]
27.
Lucietti, L.; Hoogendoorn, C.; Cré, I. New Tools and Strategies for Design and Operation of Urban Transport Interchanges. Transp.
Res. Procedia 2016,14, 1240–1249. [CrossRef]
28.
Daudén, F.L.; Carpio-Pinedo, J.; García-Pastor, A. Transport Interchange and Local Urban Environment Integration. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2014,160, 215–223. [CrossRef]
29.
Monzón, A.; Alonso, A.; López-Lambas, M. Joint analysis of intermodal long distance-last mile trips using urban interchanges in
EU cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017,27, 1074–1079. [CrossRef]
30.
Yatskiv, I.; Savrasovs, M.; Kabashkin, I.; Nathanail, E.G.; Adamos, G.; Mitropoulos, L.K. Knowledge Sharing Strategy as a
Key Element of the H2020 Programme: Enhancing Excellence and Innovation Capacity in Sustainable Transport Interchanges
(Alliance) Project. Procedia Eng. 2017,187, 458–464. [CrossRef]
31.
Krukowska, H.; Krukowski, P.; Olszewski, P. Metodyka Oceny Wska´znikowej W˛ezłów Przesiadkowych Transportu Publicznego
[Indicator Assessment of Public Transport Interchanges]. Urban Reg. Transp. 2014,6, 4–6.
32.
Transplan Konsulting, Wykorzystanie Metody Wska´znikowej i Ankietowej do Oceny Wybranych W˛ezłów Przesiadkowych w
Warszawie [Use of the Indicator Method and Questionnaires to Assess Selected Interchanges in Warsaw]. Available online: http:
//siskom.waw.pl/komunikacja/wezly/Transplan/Wykorzystanie_metody_wskaznikowej_i_ankietowej_do_oceny_WP.pdf (ac-
cessed on 10 August 2020).
33.
Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation; Mcgraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
34. Roy, B. Multiple Criteria Decision Aid; Wydawnictwo Naukowo—Techniczne: Warsaw, Poland, 1990.
35. Vincke, P. Multicriteria Decision-Aid; John Wiley&Sons: Chichester, UK, 1992; 174p.
36.
Wolnowska, A.; Konicki, W. Multi-criterial analysis of oversize cargo transport through the city, using the AHP method. Transp.
Res. Procedia 2019,39, 614–623. [CrossRef]
37.
Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.
2020
,
83, 102351. [CrossRef]
38.
˙
Zak, J.; Kruszy´nski, M. Application of AHP and ELECTRE III/IV Methods to Multiple Level, Multiple Criteria Evaluation of
Urban Transportation Projects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015,10, 820–830. [CrossRef]
39.
Nosal, K.; Katarzyna Solecka, K. Application of AHP Method for Multi-criteria Evaluation of Variants of the Integration of Urban
Public Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014,3, 269–278. [CrossRef]
40.
Szatmári, M. Proposal AHP method for Increasing the Security Level in the Railway Station. Transp. Res. Procedia
2021
,
55, 1681–1688. [CrossRef]
41.
Fernandez, J.J.; Maria Cecilia Paringit, M.C.; Salvador, J.R.; Paolo Ian Lucero, P.I.; Joenel, G.; Galupino, J.G. Driver’s Road
Accident Factor Prioritization using AHP in Relation to Mastery of Traffic Signs in the City of Manila. Transp. Res. Procedia
2021
,
48, 1316–1324. [CrossRef]
42.
Ignaccolo, M.; Inturri, G.; García-Melón, M.; Giuffrida, N.; Le Pira, M.; Torrisi, V. Combining Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
with role-playing games for stakeholder engagement in complex transport decisions. Transp. Res. Procedia
2017
,27, 500–507.
[CrossRef]
43.
Basbas, C.M.; Makridakis, A. Review of the contribution of multi-criteria analysis to the evaluation process of transportation
projects. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2007,2, 387–407. [CrossRef]
44.
Boujelbene, Y.; Derbel, A. The Performance Analysis of Public Transport Operators in Tunisia Using AHP Method. Procedia
Comput. Sci. 2015,73, 498–508. [CrossRef]
45.
Huang, I.B.; Keisler, J.; Linkov, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends.
Sci. Total Environ. 2011,409, 3578–3594. [CrossRef]
46.
Starzy´nska, B.; Kujawi ´nska, A.; Grabowska, M.; Diakun, J.; Wi˛ecek-Janka, E.; Schnieder, L.; Schlueter, N.; Nicklas, J.-P. Require-
ments elicitation of passengers with reduced mobility for the design of high quality, accessible and inclusive public transport
services. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2015,6, 70–76. [CrossRef]
47.
Heddebaut, O. Creating sustainable and efficient transport interchanges: Some findings of the city-HUB project. Adv. Civ. Eng.
Technol. 2018,1, 3. [CrossRef]
48.
Zmuda-Trzebiatowski, P.; Bienczak, M.; Kici ´nski, M.; Fierek, S. Wielokryterialna ocena wariantów przebudowy skrzy˙
zowania
z ruchem okr˛e ˙
znym na przykładzie modernizacji Ronda Rataje w Poznaniu [Multiple criteria evaluation of different redesign
variants of the roundabout Rataje in Poznan City]. TTS Tech. Transp. Szyn. 2012,9, 4585–4594.
49.
Czekała, K.; Bryniarska, Z. Ocena wska´znikowa wybranych w˛ezłów przesiadkowych publicznego transportu zbiorowego w
Krakowie [The empty method for assessment of selected interchanges in Krakow’s public transport]. Transp. Miejski i Reg.
2017
,
6, 5–10.
50. Rudnicki, A. Quality of Urban Transportation; SITK: Kraków, Poland, 1999; pp. 199–202.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
