Train passengers' perceptions and preferences for different platform and carriage design features

IF 2 4区 工程技术 Q3 TRANSPORTATION
Jie Yang , Nirajan Shiwakoti , Richard Tay
{"title":"Train passengers' perceptions and preferences for different platform and carriage design features","authors":"Jie Yang ,&nbsp;Nirajan Shiwakoti ,&nbsp;Richard Tay","doi":"10.1016/j.jpubtr.2024.100085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Specific design features and functions on the platform and inside of the train carriage can significantly affect how efficiently and smoothly passengers can move in and out of the train. Industry follows the design standard and guidelines to satisfy the minimum requirement. However, the views of rail users are often overlooked and not well understood. This study fills the knowledge gap by investigating different platform and train carriage design features and understanding train passengers' perceptions and preferences for the proposed design. An online passenger survey targeting Melbourne Metro train users was conducted. By analyzing 429 valid responses, we gained insights into passengers' perceptions and preferences regarding train and platform design. A novel finding is that a vertical pole is the most preferred handhold type, while a rigid handrail is the least preferred handhold type. The 2+2 seating is voted as the most preferred interior layout, which is consistent with previous studies. The ranking on 2+2 seating layout is moderately associated with travel time and travel frequency, while the ranking on 2+3 seating is strongly associated with travel time. It is also found that the preferences for boarding sign and occupancy sign design are significantly associated with gender, age group, and travel frequency. Surprisingly, no statistically significant associations were found between any of the personal or travel variables with queuing sign preference, side seating ranking, or hanging strips ranking. The findings drawn from the analysis and the recommendation of this paper can provide valuable guidance for rail manufacturers in implementing design changes, as well as for service operators in adopting new strategies and interventions to enhance service quality and customer satisfaction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47173,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Transportation","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100085"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X24000055/pdfft?md5=74ead63f34ea59b6ce9f31a36882d63e&pid=1-s2.0-S1077291X24000055-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X24000055","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Specific design features and functions on the platform and inside of the train carriage can significantly affect how efficiently and smoothly passengers can move in and out of the train. Industry follows the design standard and guidelines to satisfy the minimum requirement. However, the views of rail users are often overlooked and not well understood. This study fills the knowledge gap by investigating different platform and train carriage design features and understanding train passengers' perceptions and preferences for the proposed design. An online passenger survey targeting Melbourne Metro train users was conducted. By analyzing 429 valid responses, we gained insights into passengers' perceptions and preferences regarding train and platform design. A novel finding is that a vertical pole is the most preferred handhold type, while a rigid handrail is the least preferred handhold type. The 2+2 seating is voted as the most preferred interior layout, which is consistent with previous studies. The ranking on 2+2 seating layout is moderately associated with travel time and travel frequency, while the ranking on 2+3 seating is strongly associated with travel time. It is also found that the preferences for boarding sign and occupancy sign design are significantly associated with gender, age group, and travel frequency. Surprisingly, no statistically significant associations were found between any of the personal or travel variables with queuing sign preference, side seating ranking, or hanging strips ranking. The findings drawn from the analysis and the recommendation of this paper can provide valuable guidance for rail manufacturers in implementing design changes, as well as for service operators in adopting new strategies and interventions to enhance service quality and customer satisfaction.

列车乘客对不同月台和车厢设计特点的看法和偏好
站台和列车车厢内部的具体设计特点和功能会极大地影响乘客进出列车的效率和顺畅程度。行业遵循设计标准和准则,以满足最低要求。然而,铁路用户的意见往往被忽视,也没有得到很好的理解。本研究通过调查不同的站台和列车车厢设计特点,了解列车乘客对建议设计的看法和偏好,填补了这一知识空白。本研究针对墨尔本地铁列车用户进行了在线乘客调查。通过分析 429 份有效回复,我们深入了解了乘客对列车和站台设计的看法和偏好。一个新发现是,垂直杆是最受欢迎的扶手类型,而刚性扶手则是最不受欢迎的扶手类型。2+2 座位被评为最受欢迎的内部布局,这与之前的研究结果一致。2+2 座椅布局的排序与旅行时间和旅行频率的关联度较低,而 2+3 座椅布局的排序与旅行时间的关联度较高。研究还发现,乘客对登车指示牌和乘车指示牌设计的偏好与性别、年龄组和乘车频率有明显相关。令人惊讶的是,没有发现任何个人或旅行变量与排队标志偏好、侧座位排序或悬挂条排序之间存在统计学意义上的显著关联。本文的分析结果和建议可为铁路制造商实施设计变更以及服务运营商采取新策略和干预措施以提高服务质量和客户满意度提供有价值的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Transportation, affiliated with the Center for Urban Transportation Research, is an international peer-reviewed open access journal focused on various forms of public transportation. It publishes original research from diverse academic disciplines, including engineering, economics, planning, and policy, emphasizing innovative solutions to transportation challenges. Content covers mobility services available to the general public, such as line-based services and shared fleets, offering insights beneficial to passengers, agencies, service providers, and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信