Advertisement

Determinants of Public Transport Integration in Cities and in the Region at the Example of Pomorskie Voivodeship

  • Krzysztof GrzelecEmail author
  • Olgierd Wyszomirski
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Unintegrated public transport in cities and regions fails to meet the needs and preferences of the inhabitants. Disintegration can be observed mainly within the operational and economic areas. There are various types and forms of public transport integration in the cities and regions. Specific integration-related solutions can be observed in the cities and regions of France, the USA and Great Britain. The region where further public transport integration is necessary is the Pomorskie Voivodeship in Poland. The region is home to polycentric metropolis of Gdańsk with Gdańsk and Gdynia as its major cities. The earlier achievements related to public transport integration in this area cannot be regarded as satisfactory. They resulted from specific circumstances, the most important of which were political ones. Fares for services in terms of their amount, structure and collection play an important role in the process of public transport integration in the cities and the region. Modal split between public transport and individual trips by private cars can be recognized as a measure of success related to integration with impact on the attractiveness of public transport offer.

Keywords

Public transport City Region Transport integration Determinants of integration 

References

  1. 1.
    Public Transport Integration. Guidelines in market organisation. Strategies for public transport in cities. http://documents.rec.org/publications/SPUTNIC2MO_ptintegration_AUG2009_ENG.pdf
  2. 2.
    Solecka, K., Żak, J.: Integration of the urban public transportation system with the application of traffic simulation. 17th Meeting of the EURO Working Group on Transportation, EWGT2014, 2–4 July 2014, Sevilla, Spain. Trans. Res. Procedia 3, 260 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    May, A.D., Kelly, C., Shepherd, S.: The principles of integration in urban transport strategies. Transp. Policy 13(4), 2 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poliaková, B.: Key success factors of integrated transport systems. In: The 13th International Conference “Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication (2013). http://www.tsi.lv/sites/default/files/editor/science/Publikacii/RelStat_13/session_3_ed_poliakova_ok.pdf
  5. 5.
    Saliara, K.: Public transport integration: the case study of Thessaloniki, Greece. Transp. Res. Procedia 4, 537 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Häll, C.H: A framework for evaluation and design of an integrated public transport system. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Licentiate Thesis No. 1257, Norrköping, p. 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dotter, F.: CIVITAS Insight integrated ticketing and fare policy for public transport (2015). http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civitas_insight_12_integrated_ticketing_and_fare_policy_for_public_transport.pdf
  8. 8.
    Allen, H.: Integrated public transport. Nantes France (2013). https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GRHS.2013.Case_.Study_.Nantes.France.pdf
  9. 9.
    Purcher, J.: Integrating bicycling and public transport in North America. J. Publ. Transp. 12(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Błaszczak, A.: Biuletyn Komunikacji Miejskiej. IGKM, Warszawa, nr 10, pp. 8–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gdańskie badania ruchu wraz z opracowaniem modelu symulacyjnego Gdańska. Raport 2 (2016). http://www.brg.gda.pl/attachments/article/282/Raport-II.pdf
  12. 12.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Gdyni w 2015 r. Gdynia. Raport z badań (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Gminy Pruszcz Gdański w 2010 r. Gdańsk. Raport z badań (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Pruszcza Gdańskiego w 2010 r. Gdańsk., Raport z badań (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Gminy Luzino w 2012 r. Gdańsk. Raport z badań (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Gminy Kolbudy w 2014 r. Gdańsk. Raport z badań (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preferencje i zachowania komunikacyjne mieszkańców Gminy Żukowo w 2017 r. Gdańsk. Raport z badań (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plan zintegrowanego transportu publicznego dla województwa pomorskiego. Załącznik do Uchwały nr 788/XXXVII/14 Sejmiku Województwa Pomorskiego z 24 lutego 2014 r., s. 77–88 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wyszomirski, O.: Funkcjonowanie transportu miejskiego w Leeds i Sheffield. Cz. I i II. Transport Miejski nr 5 i 6 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Litman, T.: Transit price elasticities and cross-elasticities. J. Publ. Transp. 7(2), 52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grzelec, K.: Funkcjonowanie transportu miejskiego w warunkach konkurencji regulowanej, Fundacja Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Gdańsk, p. 305 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gdańsk University of TechnologyGdańskPoland
  2. 2.University of GdańskSopotPoland

Personalised recommendations