Article
citation information:
Wołek,
M., Hebel, K., Birr, K., Nozari, H. The importance of
punctuality in particular segments of public transport users: a case study from
Gdynia (Poland). Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2025, 127, 277-289. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2025.127.17
Marcin WOŁEK[1], Katarzyna HEBEL[2], Krystian BIRR[3], Hamed NOZARI[4]
THE IMPORTANCE OF
PUNCTUALITY IN PARTICULAR SEGMENTS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS: A CASE STUDY FROM
GDYNIA (POLAND)
Summary. Increasing the share of
trips using public transport is a long-term activity that necessitates
continuous improvement of the offer. What is crucial here is not only the
tangible sphere, measured by objective indicators of punctuality, but also the
subjective area of passenger feelings and assessments. The latter is
significantly influenced by punctuality, which can be the catalyst for a
long-term process of strengthening passenger loyalty and enhancing the public
transport experience. The article aims to assess the importance of punctuality
against the background of other transport requirements in the opinion of all
city residents, with particular emphasis on the views of people using public
transport to varying degrees. Research carried out in Gdynia (Poland) showed
that punctuality is one of the most important parameters through which
residents evaluate the functioning of public transport, regardless of the
method of urban travel. Punctuality is of the greatest importance for people
who always travel by car and usually by bicycle. Punctuality is the second most
important transport requirement for people who always and usually travel by
public transport, i.e., the most important segment of public transport users.
The research results confirm the high significance of punctuality among
residents, irrespective of their mode of urban travel. Punctuality, though just
one of the many aspects of the quality of transport services, plays a pivotal
role in shaping the overall opinion about the transport system.
Keywords: public transport, punctuality, case study in public transport
1. INTRODUCTION
Transport,
among water and energy, remains the core system of the resilient city
Hence,
for many years, the pillar of planning sustainable urban mobility has been
building an attractive public transport offer, the quality of which will
encourage the use and change of modal split. To shape an attractive public
transport offer, you need to understand how users assess the quality of public
transport services. One of the most important features of a public transport
service is punctuality. Its meaning is multi-faceted, as it includes:
• passenger's
perspective - through the prism of punctuality (or lack thereof), the
attractiveness of public transport is assessed, which translates into
satisfaction and, ultimately, into loyalty and determines the way urban travel
is carried out;
• operator's
perspective - lack of punctuality means an increase in expenses for
implementing the assumed timetable (increase in the number of vehicle hours and
the number of vehicles);
• transport
authority/public authority’s perspective - punctuality is an element of the
service contract.
The
article aims to assess the importance of punctuality in relation to other
transport requirements, as perceived by all city residents, with a particular
emphasis on the views of public transport users. This research is particularly
relevant to transport planners, public transport operators, and urban
policymakers, as it provides insights into the factors that influence user
satisfaction. Therefore, marketing research results on the transport behaviour
and preferences of Gdynia (Poland) inhabitants were used. To achieve the
research goal, the following research questions were asked:
RQ
1: What is the place of punctuality in assessing urban transport users compared
to other transport features?
RQ
2: Does the importance of punctuality vary depending on the scope of public
transport use for urban travel?
2. LITERATURE
REVIEW
Punctuality,
a determinant of service quality, denotes the extent to which the planned
departure and arrival times of urban transport vehicles are fulfilled in the
scheduled timetable. It is a fundamental aspect of service quality, a basic
specification of the service quality being described, and a straightforward
criterion for measuring the quality of urban transport services. Punctuality
can be divided into:
• objective
punctuality as the measured deviation between the times specified in the
timetable and the times achieved,
• subjective
punctuality perceived by the passenger by comparing known target timetable
values (departure times, arrival times) with absolute values
Real-time
timetables, accessible via a mobile website or QR code at stops, and dynamic
passenger information boards at public transport stops can positively influence
subjective punctuality.
Passengers
show varying sensitivity to deviations from the arrival of public transport
from the timetable, namely
• premature
departures of public transport vehicles are perceived as particularly unfavorable and should be strictly avoided,
• early
arrivals are not perceived negatively,
• public
transport users notice delayed departures and are evident in the absence of
information about the delay,
• delays
are of great importance to the passenger, especially when the means of
transport is late at the transfer hub, and there is a very high risk that the
passenger may miss the next connection,
• both
premature departures and delayed connections are particularly unfavourable to
passengers who make mandatory trips.
2.1. Quality
of public transport service
The quality of public transportation services is
influenced by many objective and subjective factors. Moreover, as research
shows, the determinants influencing the quality assessment depend not only on
the individual characteristics of the passenger but also on the geographical region
over long periods (Abenoza et al., 2017) and the size
and type of the urban area. For example, in studies conducted in Italy, the
highest share of people satisfied with public transport services (70%) was
characteristic of residents of small cities; in the case of larger
municipalities, this percentage dropped to approximately 60% and to just over
40% in metropolitan areas
The quality of public transport services is assessed
by meeting its individual features. From the user's point of view, these
features may have different meanings; therefore, it is essential to examine
their significance. Much empirical research and theoretical arguments have been
devoted to establishing the list of features. Although most of
the identifications overlap to a large extent, some discrepancies can be
observed between them. They concern:
• combining
specific postulates into one synthetic one;
• omitting
particular demands as less important;
• taking
into account rare or even specific demands.
2.2.
Punctuality as a public transport attribute
The
punctuality of public transport is one of the most critical parameters through
which the service is assessed
Based
on secondary data
Regardless
of the research methodology adopted, punctuality significantly determines the
perception of public transport services. The quality of the service affects
customer satisfaction, which in turn is the foundation for shaping customer
loyalty
3. DATA AND
METHODS
3.1. Case
study and site description
Gdynia
is a young city (city rights granted in 1926) located on the Baltic Sea. Its
creation and development are related to the construction of a seaport in the
area of a former fishing village. This chronology of events led to the
formation of the city around the seaport, with consequences for the transport
system that are still visible today. Gdynia is part of the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot
Metropolitan Area, which includes 51 communes and eight poviats,
being one of the most significant metropolitan areas in Poland and the Baltic
Sea Region.
Table
1 includes primary data about the city. High rate of motorisation index is a
general trend that can be observed in all Polish mid-size and large cities.
Fig.
1. From service quality to customer loyalty in public transport
Source:
Self-study based on
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Redman & et. al, 2013; Tyrinopoulos
& Antoniou, 2008)
Tab. 1
Main characteristics
of Gdynia city (Poland)
|
Feature |
Unit |
Year |
Value |
|
Population |
inhabitants |
2022 |
241 189 |
|
Population change |
% |
2022 to 2010 |
-2,6 |
|
Density |
inhabitants / sq. km |
2022 |
1799 |
|
Share of population in post-working age |
% |
2022 |
26% |
|
Rate of unemployment |
% |
2022 |
2,0 |
|
Rate of unemployment |
Poland = 100 |
2022 |
38,5 |
|
Carbon footprint per capita |
tonnes of CO2e / inhabitant |
2020 |
4,89 |
|
Share of forests in the total area of the city |
% |
2020 |
46 |
|
Motorisation index |
individual cars / 1000 inhab. |
2022 |
682 |
|
Public transport density |
vehicle-km of public
transport per capita |
2022 |
68 |
|
Public transport passengers |
million |
2022 |
67 |
|
Punctuality index of public transport |
% |
2022 |
66 |
Source: self-study based on
The
public transport system is well-developed. It consists of two subsystems, i.e.,
railway (managed by the regional government) and urban, managed by the
municipal government and represented by the Public Transport Authority. Buses
(including electric and CNG) and trolleybuses supply urban transport
3.2. Data
In
the methodology for examining the quality of public transport and its
components, two approaches can be distinguished, namely:
• based
on a direct inquiry from the respondent (customer satisfaction survey)
• based
on modelling to detect the contribution of each attribute influencing overall
passenger satisfaction (Abenoza 2017)
To verify the research questions
posed in the article, the results of marketing research conducted with the
participation of the authors by the Department of the Transport Market of the University
of Gdańsk and the Municipal Transport Authority in
Gdynia in 2010, 2013, 2015 and 2018 were used on a sample of 1% of residents
aged 16-75. The sample size of each study was approximately 2,000 respondents.
The research was conducted through individual interviews in households, using a
survey questionnaire specifically developed for the needs of this study. In
total, results from 4 research rounds were used. The research sample was random
and obtained through stratified sampling. When distinguishing and building
layers, the city districts and the demographics of the inhabitants, including
their gender and age, were taken into account. The primary characteristics of
the research sample are presented in Table 2.
Tab. 2
Sample characteristics
(n=1837)
|
Category |
Result |
|
Gender |
Female 52,9%; male 47,1% |
|
Age |
Under 20 years 4,9%;
21-30 years 13,7%; 31-40 years 21%; 41-50 years 18,4%; 51-60 years 15,5%;
61-70 years 20,5%, 71-75 years 6% |
|
Car in the household |
Yes 75,5%; no 24,5%
|
|
Bike in the household
(excluding bikes for children) |
Yes 60,3%, no 39,7% |
|
Socio-economic status |
Work professionally
57,9%; work professionally and studying 2,1%; studying 5,8%; retired 21,9%;
not working 7,4%;
retired and working 1,5%, others 3,4%. |
|
Modal split |
Car 48,9%; public
transport 37,1%; walking (trips above 500 m) 11,4%; cycling 2,1%. |
|
Trip motivation |
Home 45,4%, work 25,8%,
shopping 9,2%, personal matters 8,2%, education 3,3%. |
Source:
self-study based on
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This
subsection comprises two parts that address the respective research questions.
4.1. What is the place of punctuality in
assessing urban transport users compared to other transport demands?
Since
2000, punctuality has consistently ranked among the highest in evaluating
individual public transport features among Gdynia citizens (Table 3). Since
2006, it has been the second most important parameter (after direct travel,
i.e. no need to change trains). Generally, Gdynia's residents considered
directness, punctuality, frequency and accessibility the most essential
features of public transport services. The first four are features strongly
associated with travel time. The conclusions are pretty consistent with the
aforementioned study
Tab. 3
Hierarchy of individual characteristics of public transport in light of
the results of marketing research conducted among Gdynia residents from 2000 to
2018
|
PT attribute |
Place in the passengers’ hierarchy in a given year |
||||||||
|
2000 |
2002 |
2004 |
2006 |
2008 |
2010 |
2013 |
2015 |
2018 |
|
|
directness |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
frequency |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2/3* |
3 |
3 |
|
accessibility |
2 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
information |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
cost |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
reliability |
7 |
7 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
|
speed |
8 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
|
punctuality |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2/3* |
2 |
2 |
|
rhythmicity |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|
comfort |
6 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Source: (Hebel
K & Wyszomirski, 2016; Grzelec
et al., 2020)
4.2. Does the importance of punctuality vary depending
on the level of public transport use for urban travel?
Public
transport users are not homogeneous. They can be divided into relatively
homogeneous groups based on multiple criteria
This
passenger segmentation is based on a generalised travel pattern, described by
the answer to the question, "How do you conduct your urban travel?"
The response category included seven options, and the distribution of responses
is shown in Figure 2. This approach is not fully compatible with a more precise
method of travel analysis, as expressed through the so-called "picture of
the previous day", which serves as the basis for calculating the modal
split. However, it allows for a simplified segmentation of
respondents.
Fig. 2. The
way of urban travel in Gdynia in 2018
Source:
self-study based on
Punctuality is of the utmost
importance for people who always travel by car and usually by bicycle.
Punctuality is the second most important transport requirement for people who frequently
travel by public transport, which is currently the most crucial segment of
public transport users. However, the third priority in the hierarchy of
transport requirements is for people travelling mainly by passenger car, as
well as those travelling equally by public transport and passenger car.
The
differences in the importance of punctuality depending on the declared method
of travel are not very visible. Still, punctuality is the second most crucial
transport requirement for people who use public transport more frequently.
People who use a passenger car more often do so because punctuality is most
important to them. They believe that travelling by car will provide it more
than public transport.
This
is confirmed by the data in Table 5, which compares the importance of
punctuality for the main users of passenger cars and other individuals who use
the car as a passenger. For both groups, punctuality is the second most crucial
transport requirement.
Tab. 4
The three most important public transport attributes divided into
segments in 2018
|
Most important attribute |
Second most important attribute |
Third most important attribute |
|
|
Always by public transport |
Frequency |
Punctuality |
Directness |
|
Mostly by public transport |
Frequency |
Punctuality |
Directness |
|
Equally, by public transport
and private car |
Frequency |
Directness |
Punctuality |
|
Mostly by private car |
Frequency |
Directness |
Punctuality |
|
Always by private car |
Punctuality |
Frequency |
Accessibility |
|
Mostly by bike |
Punctuality |
Frequency |
Directness |
Source:
self-study based on
Tab. 5
The hierarchy of transport demands depending on access to a personal car
among the residents of Gdynia in light of the results of marketing research
from 2018
|
Access to car |
directness |
frequency |
accessibility |
information |
cost |
reliability |
speed |
punctuality |
rhythmicity |
comfort |
|
main car users |
1 |
3 |
5 |
10 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
9 |
8 |
|
other car users |
1 |
3 |
4 |
9/10 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
2 |
9/10 |
8 |
Source:
self-study based on
5. CONCLUSIONS
The
sustainable mobility paradigm determines the priority in planning and
developing transport systems, especially in urbanized areas
Punctuality
is an element of the passengers’ perceived transportation system reliability.
It is directly related to the ability to organise individual journeys,
especially those involving multiple transfers, with confidence that they can be
completed. The research results indicate that regular disruptions in
punctuality, and thus the perceived increase in service unreliability, are
significant factors, alongside travel time, influencing the choice of
transportation mode for daily commutes.
In
addition, providing passengers with accurate information, including the
location of a given vehicle or the estimated time of arrival at the stop, and
constantly updating the data reduces the feeling of uncertainty and,
consequently, increases the attractiveness of public transport. Parallel
activities aimed at minimising the share of travel by individual transport and
giving priority and many privileges to alternative means of transport to car
transport will reduce traffic congestion and improve the driving time and
punctuality of public transport vehicles. In the long term, an improvement in
the quality of life in the city can be expected, thanks to reduced emissions,
noise and improved road safety.
Planners
face the challenge of developing a public transportation system while
simultaneously maintaining high levels of punctuality and directness of
connections, as residents consider these two factors to be the most important
in evaluating the system.
References
1.
Abenoza R., O. Cats, Y.O. Susilo.
2017. “Travel satisfaction with public transport: Determinants, user classes,
regional disparities and their evolution”. Transportation Research Part A
95. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.11.011.
2.
Altarifi F., et. al. 2023. “User
Preference Analysis for an Integrated System of BRT and on-demand mob services
in Amman, Jordan”. Urban Science 7(4): 111. DOI: 10.3390/urbansci7040111.
3.
Boarnet M.G., R. Crane.
2001. Travel by Design. The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. Oxford
University Press.
4.
Chakrabarti S. 2017. “How can public transit get
people out of their cars? An analysis of transit mode choice for commute trips
in Los Angeles”. Transport Policy 54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.11.005.
5.
City of
Gdynia. 2019. Studium uwarunkowań i kierunków zagospodarowania
przestrzennego Gdyni. [In Polish:
Spatial masterplan of the city of Gdynia].
6.
City of Gdynia. 2022. Raport
o stanie miasta Gdyni. [In Polish: A Report on the state of the city of
Gdynia]. Report. Gdynia City Office. Available at: https://bip.um.gdynia.pl/ogloszenia-urzedu-miasta,2206/raport-o-stanie-gminy-miasta-gdyni-w-roku-2022,585850.
7.
Corazza M.V., U. Guida, A. Musso, M. Tozzi.
2016. “A European
vision for more environmentally friendly buses”. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment 45: 48-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.001.
8.
de Ona J., E. Estevez, R. de Ona. 2021. “How does
private vehicle users perceive the public transport service quality in large
metropolitan areas? A European comparison”. Transport Policy 112. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.08.005.
9.
Diana M. 2012. “Measuring the satisfaction of
multimodal travelers for local transit services in
different urban contexts”. Transportation Research Part A 46. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.018.
10.
Eboli L., G. Mazzulla. 2009. “A new customer
satisfaction index for evaluating transit service quality”. Journal of
Public Transportation 12(3): 21-37. DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.12.3.2.
11.
Eboli L., G. Mazzulla. 2018. “A methodology for
evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures
from the passenger’s point of view”. Transport Policy 18(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.007.
12.
Esmailpour J., et. al. 2022. “Has
COVID-19 changed our loyalty towards public transport? Understanding the
moderating role of the pandemic in the relationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction and loyalty”. Transportation Research Part A 162.
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.05.023.
13.
European Environmental Agency. 2006. Urban sprawl in
Europe The ignored challenge. In: Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes,
Land-Use Change & Policy (Issue 10).
14.
Friman M., M. Fellesson.
2009. “Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction with Public Transport: A
Quality Paradox”. Journal of Public Transportation 12(4). DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.4.
15.
Garrido-Cumbrera M., O. Braçe,
D. Gálvez-Ruiz, E. López-Lara, J. Correa-Fernández. 2023. “Can the mode,
time, and expense of commuting to work affect our mental health?” Transportation
Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 21. DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.100850.
16.
Garrido-Valenzuela F., et al. 2022. “Identifying and
visualizing operational bottlenecks and Quick win opportunities for improving
bus performance in public transport systems”. Transportation Research Part
A 164. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.08.005.
17.
Goswami R., G.Ch. Tripathi. 2019. “Economic,
environmental and congestion impact on the life-cycle cost of ownership: a
case study in the Delhi transit bus system”. International Journal of
Electric and Hybrid Vehicles 11(1). DOI: 10.1504/IJEHV.2019.098719.
18.
Grzelec K. 2024. “Wykorzystanie
wyników badań marketingowych preferencji i zachowań
transportowych na rynku transportu miejskiego - przykład aglomeracji gdańskiej”.
[In Polish: “Marketing
research on transport preferences and behaviors on
the urban transport market - the example of the Gdańsk”].
Marketing i Rynek 31(5). DOI: 10.33226/1231-7853.2024.5.1.
19. Grzelec K., K. Hebel, O. Wyszomirski. 2020. Zarządzanie zbiorowym transportem miejskim w
warunkach polityki zrównoważonej mobilności. [In Polish: Managing
public transport in the context of sustainable mobility policy]. University of Gdańsk Press.
20. Hebel K., O. Wyszomirski. 2016. „Ewolucja postulatów przewozowych dotyczących
podróży miejskich mieszkańców Gdyni w świetle wyników badań marketingowych z
lat 1985-2015”. [In Polish: “Evolution of transport demands
concerning urban travel of Gdynia residents in the light of marketing research
results from 1985-2015”]. Problemy
Transportu i Logistyki 35(3). DOI: 10.18276/ptl.2016.35-06.
21.
Hensher D., P. Stopher, P.
Bullock. 2003. “Service quality – developing a service quality index for bus
contracts”. Transportation Research Part A 37. DOI: 10.1016/S0965-8564(02)00075-7.
22.
Hickman R., P. Hall, D. Banister. 2013. “Planning
more for sustainable mobility”. Journal of Transport Geography 3. DOI:
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.07.004.
23.
Ikeda E., E. Hinckson, K. Witten, M. Smith. 2019. “Assessment
of direct and indirect associations between children active school travel and
environmental, household and child factors using structural equation modelling”.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 16(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12966-019-0794-5.
24.
Kalbar P.P., M. Birkved, M. Hauschild, S. Kabins, S.E. Nygaard. 2018. “Environmental impact of urban
consumption patterns: Drivers and focus points”. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 137: 260-269. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.019.
25.
Kędzior R. 2015. „Informacja
pasażerska w publicznym transporcie zbiorowym”. [In Polish: “Passenger
information in public transport”]. Transport Miejski i Regionalny 6.
26.
Levy J.I., J.J. Buonocore, K. von Stackelberg. 2010. “Evaluation
of the public health impacts of traffic”. Environ Health 9. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-9-65.
27.
Lozzi G., M.S. Monachino. 2021. “Health
considerations in active travel policies: A policy analysis at the EU level
and of four member countries”. Research in Transportation Economics 85:
101006. DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2020.101006.
28.
Monchambert G., A. de Palma.
2014. “Public transport reliability and commuter strategy”. Journal of
Urban Economics 81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2014.02.001.
29.
Mouratidis K., D. Ettema,
P. Næss. 2019. “Urban form, travel behavior,
and travel satisfaction”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 129: 306-320. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.002.
30.
Okraszewska R., A. Romanowska,
M. Wołek, J. Oskarbski, K. Birr,
K. Jamroz. 2018. „Integration
of a multilevel transport system model into sustainable Urban mobility
planning”. Sustainability 10(2). DOI: 10.3390/su10020479.
31.
Olivieri C., X. Fageda.
2021. “Urban mobility with a focus on gender: The case of a middle-income
Latin American city”. Journal of Transport Geography 91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102996.
32.
Parasuraman A., V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry. 1985. “A
Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implication for Future Research”. Journal
of Marketing 49(4): 41-50. DOI: 10.2307/1251430.
33.
Perveen S., et. al. 2020. “How can transport impacts
of urban growth be modelled? An approach to consider spatial and temporal
scales”. Sustainable Cities and Society 55. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102031.
34.
Redman L., et. al. 2013. “Quality attributes of
public transport that attract car users: A research review”. Transport
Policy 25. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.11.005.
35.
Sukhov A., et. al. 2021. “Assessing travel
satisfaction in public transport: A configurational approach”. Transportation
Research Part D 93. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102732.
36.
Tanwar R., P.K. Agarwal. 2024. “Analysis of the
determinants of service quality in the multimodal public transport system of
Bhopal city using structural equation modelling (SEM) and factor analysis”. Expert
Systems with Applications 256. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124931.
37.
Tavares V.B., S.T. Lucchesi, A.M. Larranaga, H.B.B. Cybis. 2021. “Influence of public transport quality
attributes on user satisfaction of different age cohorts”. Case Studies on
Transport Policy 9(3): 1042-1050. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2021.04.018.
38.
Tyrinopoulos Y., C. Antoniou.
2008. “Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications”.
Transport Policy 15(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.06.002.
39.
van Lierop D., M.G. Badami, A.M. El-Geneidy. 2018. “What influences satisfaction and loyalty
in public transport? A review of the literature”. Transport Reviews 38(1).
DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2017.1298683.
40.
Wołek M., K. Hebel. 2020. “Strategic Planning of the
Development of Trolleybus Transportation Within the Cities of Poland”. In: G.
Sierpinski (Ed.). Smart and Green Solutions for Transport Systems. 16th
Scientific and Technical Conference “Transport Systems. Theory and Practice
2019”. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-35543-2.
41.
Wołek
M., A. Jagiełło. 2017. “Preferencje pasażerów gdyńskiego transportu
miejskiego w zakresie wzrostu dostępności przestrzennej usług poprzez
wydłużenie trasy linii trolejbusowej”. [In Polish: “Preferences of passengers of Gdynia public
transport in terms of increasing the spatial availability of services by
extending the route of the trolleybus line”]. Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Katowicach 332. [In Polish:
Studies of Economics. Scientific Letters
of University of Economics in Katowice]. Available at: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/wydawnictwo/SE_Artykuły_321_340/SE_332/06.pdf.
42.
Wołek M., A. Szmelter-Jarosz, M. Koniak, A. Golejewska.
2020. „Transformation
of trolleybus transport in Poland. Does in-motion charging (technology)
matter?” Sustainability 12(22). DOI: 10.3390/su12229744.
43.
World Bank Group. 2018. Financing a Resilient Urban
Future. A Policy Brief on World Bank and Global Experience on Financing
Climate-Resilient Urban Infrastructure. Financing a Resilient Urban Future.
DOI: 10.1596/31068.
44.
Zhang L., H. Chen, S. Li, Y. Liu. 2023. “How road
network transformation may be associated with reduced carbon emissions: An
exploratory analysis of 19 major Chinese cities”. Sustainable Cities and
Society 95. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104575.
45. ZKM Gdynia. 2019. Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne
mieszkańców Gdyni. Raport z badań marketingowych 2018. [In Polish: Preferences
and transport behavior of citizens of Gdynia. Marketing research report 2018].
46. Zych-Lewandowska M., A. Dobrzycka. 2017. „Wybrane aspekty jakości usług publicznego
transportu zbiorowego w Warszawie w opinii jego użytkowników”. [In Polish: „Selected aspects of the quality of
public transport services in Warsaw in the opinion of its users”]. Ekonomika i Organizacja Logistyki 1(4): 101-110. DOI: 10.22630/eiol.2016.1.4.40.
Received 05.10.2024; accepted in revised form 08.02.2025
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License