Investigating the Accessibility Level in Riga’s International Coach Terminal: A Comparative Analysis with European Interchanges

  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
  • Vissarion Magginas
  • Giannis AdamosEmail author
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
  • Maria Tsami
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


This paper investigates the accessibility level of the International Coach Terminal in Riga, Latvia, determining crucial parameters, such as needs, elements and policies that can reform existing transportation hubs into fully accessible ones for all citizens. In order to receive users’ feedback on the existing conditions of the terminal and gather their expectations for future interventions, a questionnaire survey was conducted by the Transport and Telecommunication Institute in cooperation with the terminal administration. Achieving a response rate of 95%, 239 users provided useful information about their travel habits, preferences and level of satisfaction, by rating thirty indicators. The results of this survey were also compared, through a meta-analysis approach, with relevant findings of similar surveys realized in five European transport interchanges.


Interchange Accessibility Intermodality Transport Hub Meta-analysis 



This paper is based on the research and work that has been conducted in the framework of the ALLIANCE project (, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.


  1. 1.
    Buzási, A., Csete, M.: Sustainability indicators in assessing urban transport systems. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 43, 138–145 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    RD PAD: The Economic Profile of Riga 2017. Riga city council Development Department, Riga (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Csato, L.: Distance-based accessibility indices. Cornell University Library (2015). arXiv:1507.01465 [cs.SI]
  4. 4.
    Gulhan, G., Ceylan, H., Baskan, O., Ceylan, H.: Using potential accessibility measure for urban public transportation planning: a case study of Denizli. Turkey. Traffic Transp. 26(2), 129–137 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Litman, T.: Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning. Measuring People’s Ability to Reach Desired Goods and Activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2017).
  6. 6.
    Park, H.M.: Comparing Group Means: T-test and One-Way ANOVA Using STATAM, SAS, R, and SPSS. Working paper. Indiana University: The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrical 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monzon, A., di Ciommo, F.: City-HUBs Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges (2016).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
    • 1
  • Vissarion Magginas
    • 2
  • Giannis Adamos
    • 2
    Email author
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
    • 1
  • Maria Tsami
    • 2
  1. 1.Transport and Telecommunication InstituteRigaLatvia
  2. 2.Traffic, Transportation and Logistics LaboratoryUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations