An Expert Study on the Significance of Passenger Transport Characteristics in Choosing a Mode of Travel, Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
Source abstract
Abstract
Passengers choose a mode of public transport from the available options based on characteristics that are important to them. The importance of these characteristics has received little research attention and varies. This study presents 10 characteristics of passenger transport, the significance of which was examined using four MCDM (multi-criteria decision-making) methods. The questionnaire was conducted and 27 specialists (experts) in road, rail and air transport rated the importance of various characteristics (criteria) using rankings, percentage weights and intensity of importance values derived from pairwise criterion comparisons using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results of the study show that the opinions of the expert panel, expressed as ratings, were consistent, as the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (0.64) was 9.2 times greater than its minimum threshold value of 0.07. The ranks of the criteria were used to calculate their relative weights using the ARTIW-L (average rank transformation into weight–linear) and ARTIW-N (non-linear) methods. The relative weights were calculated from the criteria percentage weights using the DPW (direct percentage weight) method. The consistency ratios of all 27 matrices calculated using the AHP method were less than 0.1. This demonstrates their consistency. The average calculated for each criterion using the four MCDM methods is the final measure of the significance of the passenger transport characteristic. For experts, the most important factors were safety (0.2234), travel costs (0.1488), travel time (0.1465), and comfort (0.1181). Factors of moderate importance included door-to-door delivery (0.0847), environmental friendliness (0.0685), and vehicle capacity (0.0597). The following factors were deemed the least important: service quality (0.0571), the impact of weather conditions (0.0532) and the risk of contracting COVID-19 (0.0400). The most important criterion was 5.6 times more significant than the least important criterion. This data will be used to carry out a thorough evaluation of the different transport options and select the most suitable one for intercity passenger transport.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Urban Transport and Accessibility · Education, Safety, and Science Studies · Korean Urban and Social Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Transport Engineering, Department of Mobile Machinery and Railway Transport, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytinės Street 25, LT-10105 Vilnius, Lithuania
Civil Engineering Research Centre, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio Ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. Stradling, S. (2011). Travel Mode Choice, Handbook of Traffic Psychology, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-381984-0.10034-7 ↗
2. Competition and substitution between public transport modes10.1016/j.retrec.2018.05.005 ↗
3. Multi-mode choice behavior for passenger in comprehensive transportation corridor10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.325 ↗
4. Travel behaviour in Saudi Arabia and the role of social factors10.3846/16484142.2014.913199 ↗
5. Sivilevičius, H., and Maskeliūnaitė, L. (2025). Assessment of the Quality of Passenger Transportation by Train Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-85877-2 ↗
6. Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: Bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility
7. Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.034 ↗
8. Palevičius, V., Ušpalytė-Vilkūnienė, R., Damidavičius, J., and Karpavičius, T. (2020). Concepts of development of alternative travel in autonomous cars. Sustainability, 12.10.3390/su12218841 ↗
9. Impact of traveller information on mode choice behaviour
10. Factors that influence the choice of mode of transport in Penang: A preliminary analysis10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.409 ↗
11. Better understanding the choice of travel mode by urban residents: New insights from the catchment areas of rail transit stations10.1016/j.scs.2019.101968 ↗
12. Spatial modelling of the transport mode choice: Application on the Vienna transport network10.3846/transport.2021.16128 ↗
13. Travel mode and travel route choice of transportation mode—A theoretical study
14. The experienced mode choice set and its determinants: Commuting trips in the Netherlands10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.027 ↗
15. Travel mode choices of residents in developing cities: A case study of Lusaka, Zambia10.4102/JTSCM.v18i0.1005 ↗
16. McGrath, J. (2024, February 27). Top 10 Alternative Transportation Methods. HowStuffWorks. Available online: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/10-alternative-transportation-methods.htm.
17. Exploring preferences for transportation modes in the city of Munich after the recent incorporation of ride-hailing companies10.1177/0361198121989726 ↗
18. ‘I feel the weather and you just know’. Narrating the dynamics of commuter mobility choices10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103407 ↗
19. Todorova, M. (2015, January 2–3). Choice of passenger transport mode using Logit model. Proceedings of the EURO—ZEL 2015 23rd International Symposium, Zilina, Slovakia. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332557511.
20. Modelling mode choice in passenger transport with integrated hierarchical information integration10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70045-9 ↗
21. Bus or rail: An approach to explain the psychological rail factor10.5038/2375-0901.15.1.5 ↗
22. Environmental impacts and associated costs of railway turnouts based on Austrian data10.1016/j.trd.2021.103168 ↗
23. Lin, J., Cheng, S., Li, H., Yang, D., and Lin, T. (2019). Environmental footprints of high-speed railway construction in China: A case study of the Beijing–Tianjin line. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.3390/ijerph17010105 ↗
24. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2020). Transport and Environment Report 2020. Train or Plane?, Publications Office of the European Union.
25. The model assessing the impact of price and provided services on the quality of the trip by train: MCDM approach
26. Choice of transportation mode—A theoretical study
27. Cobenefits of replacing car trips with alternative transportation: A review of evidence and methodological issues10.1155/2013/797312 ↗
28. Jing, P., Zhao, M., He, M., and Chen, L. (2018). Travel mode and travel route choice behavior based on Random Regret Minimization: A systematic review. Sustainability, 10.10.3390/su10041185 ↗
29. Substitutability as a spatial concept to evaluate travel alternatives10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102469 ↗
30. Transportation mode choice behavior with recommender systems: A case study on Beijing
31. Han, Y., Li, W., Wei, S., and Zhang, T. (2018). Research on passenger’s travel mode choice behavior waiting at bus station based on SEM-Logit integration model. Sustainability, 10.10.3390/su10061996 ↗
32. Price-matching-based regional energy market with hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm10.1109/TII.2024.3390595 ↗
33. Freight flow equilibrium assignment on a multimodal transport network integrating urban roads and passenger-freight metro lines10.1109/TITS.2025.3618277 ↗
34. Broniewicz, E., and Ogrodnik, K. (2025). Application potential of MCDM/MCDA methods in transport—Literature review and case study. Sustainability, 17.10.3390/su17177671 ↗
35. Saaty, T.L., and Kearns, K.P. (1985). Analytical Planning: The Organization of Systems, Pergamon Press.10.1016/B978-0-08-032599-6.50007-6 ↗
36. Theory and methodology. Relative measurement and the power function10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00057-0 ↗
37. Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F., Podvezko, V., Ubarte, I., and Kaklauskas, A. (2017). MCDM assessment of a healthy and safe built environment according to sustainable development principles: A practical neighborhood approach in Vilnius. Sustainability, 9.10.3390/su9050702 ↗
38. Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM10.1142/S0219622016500036 ↗
39. Comprehensive evaluation of Complex quantities [Sudėtingų dydžių kompleksinis vertinimas]10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.160-168 ↗
40. A new methodology for treating problems in the field of traffic safety: Case study of Libyan cities10.3846/transport.2023.20609 ↗
41. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill.10.21236/ADA214804 ↗
42. Kendall, M., and Gibbons, J.D. (1990). Rank Correlation Methods, Oxford University Press. [5th ed.].
43. Kendall, M.E. (1970). Rank Correlation Methods, Griffin and Co.. [4th ed.]. Available online: https://www.worldcat.org/title/Rank-correlation-methods/oclc/3827024.
44. Application of expert evaluation method to determine the importance of operating asphalt mixing plant quality criteria and rank correlation10.3846/bjrbe.2011.07 ↗
45. Modeling and significance assessment of road construction participant and user benefits using expert evaluation methods10.3846/tede.2024.21881 ↗
46. Sivilevičius, H., and Martišius, M. (2023). The significance of the factors increasing the asphalt pavement recycling rate in the country, determined using multiple-criteria decision-making methods. Appl. Sci., 13.10.20944/preprints202310.1660.v1 ↗
47. Sivilevičius, H., and Žuraulis, V. (2025). Modeling the impact of interaction factors for transport system elements on quality of life using multi-criteria decission-making and applied statistical methods. Sustainability, 17.10.3390/su17051784 ↗
48. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for site selection of distributed PV power stations along high-speed railway10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124086 ↗
49. Yu, B., Sun, Z., and Qi, L. (2021). Maintenance Time of Permeable Asphalt Pavement Based on Entropy–Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. Coatings, 11.10.3390/coatings11121516 ↗
50. Ai, Q., Huang, J., Du, S., Yang, K., and Wang, H. (2022). Comprehensive evaluation of very thin asphalt overlays with different aggregate gradations and asphalt materials based on AHP and TOPSIS. Buildings, 22.10.3390/buildings12081149 ↗
51. The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00071-9 ↗
52. Analytical hierarchy process method and data envelopment analysis application in terrain vehicle selection10.3846/transport.2019.11710 ↗
53. Analytical hierarchy process: Revolution and evolution10.1007/s10479-021-04432-2 ↗
54. Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for sustainable pavement performance management in Qatar10.1108/ECAM-02-2020-0136 ↗
55. Assessment of factors influencing the number and consequences of electric scooter accidents10.7250/bjrbe.2025-20.670 ↗
56. Sachs, L. (1972). Statistische Auswertungsmethoden, Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-10037-0 ↗
57. Gonestas, E., and Strielčiūnas, R.R. (2003). Applied Statistics [Taikomoji Statistika], Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education [Lietuvos Kūno Kultūros Akademija]. (In Lithuanian).
58. Determination and evaluation of railway aggregate sub-ballast grasdation and other properties variation10.3846/13923730.2016.1177586 ↗
59. Significance for road quality of asphalt pavement indicators to evaluate violation tolerance of limit states10.7250/bjrbe.2025-20.660 ↗
60. Cost of quality evaluation in mass-housing projects in developing countries10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000837 ↗
61. Montgomery, D. (2013). Design and Analysis of Experiments. International Student Version, John Wiley & Sons. [8th ed.].
62. Selection of the best alternative of railway traction for passenger transportation using the analytic hierarchy process method distributive and ideal modes10.1177/09544097251335061 ↗