Tibor Rongen , Taede Tillema , Sander Lenferink , Jos Arts
{"title":"How to ensure sufficient access to public transport in rural areas? A comparative analysis of institutional designs for multimodal integration","authors":"Tibor Rongen , Taede Tillema , Sander Lenferink , Jos Arts","doi":"10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Integrating traditional public transport services with flexible modes (paratransit and shared mobility) may enhance accessibility in rural areas by efficiently using resources. However, integrating transport modes across spatial scales increases institutional complexity, requiring fit institutional designs to achieve sufficient modal availability. This paper explores how institutional designs for multimodal integration can ensure sufficient modal availability by comparing modes in three case studies in the Netherlands. Based on a literature review and expert workshops (n = 16), a design framework was developed comprising six parameters for intermodal comparison: initiative, decision-making level, service requirements, network size, risk allocation, and contract flexibility. Data collection proceeded through focus group discussions and interactive surveys with public servants (n = 23) to inventory the institutional designs in the cases. Results indicate a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to the institutional design of shared mobility, while public transport and paratransit institutional designs are more interventionist. Overall, rural cases show greater risks born by authorities combined with decentralised decision-making. Design alternatives for multimodal integration vary by transport mode. Risk allocation and contract flexibility are crucial for consistent public transport. Paratransit contracts should be more flexible to coordinate with demand-responsive services. Considerable network size and government risk, supported by centralised decision-making, are key to setting high service requirements for shared mobility to become a full-fledged complement to public transport. These findings can guide policymakers in crafting new institutional designs based on each transport mode’s contribution to modal availability rather than fitting transport modes within existing designs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51534,"journal":{"name":"Travel Behaviour and Society","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 101096"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Travel Behaviour and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X25001140","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Integrating traditional public transport services with flexible modes (paratransit and shared mobility) may enhance accessibility in rural areas by efficiently using resources. However, integrating transport modes across spatial scales increases institutional complexity, requiring fit institutional designs to achieve sufficient modal availability. This paper explores how institutional designs for multimodal integration can ensure sufficient modal availability by comparing modes in three case studies in the Netherlands. Based on a literature review and expert workshops (n = 16), a design framework was developed comprising six parameters for intermodal comparison: initiative, decision-making level, service requirements, network size, risk allocation, and contract flexibility. Data collection proceeded through focus group discussions and interactive surveys with public servants (n = 23) to inventory the institutional designs in the cases. Results indicate a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to the institutional design of shared mobility, while public transport and paratransit institutional designs are more interventionist. Overall, rural cases show greater risks born by authorities combined with decentralised decision-making. Design alternatives for multimodal integration vary by transport mode. Risk allocation and contract flexibility are crucial for consistent public transport. Paratransit contracts should be more flexible to coordinate with demand-responsive services. Considerable network size and government risk, supported by centralised decision-making, are key to setting high service requirements for shared mobility to become a full-fledged complement to public transport. These findings can guide policymakers in crafting new institutional designs based on each transport mode’s contribution to modal availability rather than fitting transport modes within existing designs.
期刊介绍:
Travel Behaviour and Society is an interdisciplinary journal publishing high-quality original papers which report leading edge research in theories, methodologies and applications concerning transportation issues and challenges which involve the social and spatial dimensions. In particular, it provides a discussion forum for major research in travel behaviour, transportation infrastructure, transportation and environmental issues, mobility and social sustainability, transportation geographic information systems (TGIS), transportation and quality of life, transportation data collection and analysis, etc.