The ongoing development of the concept ‘Mobility as a Service (MaaS)’ along with Shared Mobility contributes to the integration of transportation systems. Several MaaS or similar services are already in operation. The perceived quality of MaaS by the users varies significantly, and no general method is proposed to evaluate the service quality. This scantiness is identified as the research gap. The objective of the research is to elaborate a quantitative method to assess MaaS services. The research question is how to assess the quality of MaaS, and how to transform the qualitative description into quantitative numerical values, namely, the quality index and the level of quality. Since user expectations towards the importance of criteria are taken into consideration, the modified triangular fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method is introduced to calculate the weights of criteria. A quantitative method to calculate the quality index and to assign the quality level has been elaborated. Ten MaaS services are assessed with the method. It was found that the journey comfort is regarded with significant importance among the respondents. Furthermore, the quality index of MaaS services is not high; accordingly, the service quality requires continuous improvement. Our method facilitates decision-making when planning MaaS to identify the expected service attributes.
Smith G, Sochor J, Sarasini S. Mobility as a Service: comparing developments in Sweden and Finland. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2018;27: 36-45. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.09.004
Audouin M, Finger M. The development of Mobility-as-a-Service in the Helsinki metropolitan area: A multi-level governance analysis. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2018;27: 24-35. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.09.001
Ho CQ, Hensher DA, Mulley C, Wong YZ. Potential uptake and willingness-to-pay for Mobility as a Service (MaaS): A stated choice study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2018;117:302-18. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.025
Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson IM. Mobility as a Service: Development scenarios and implications for public transport. Research in Transportation Economics. 2018;69: 592-599. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2018.04.001
Li Y, Voege T. Mobility as a service (MaaS): Challenges of Implementation and Policy Required. Journal of Transportation Technologies. 2017;7(02): 95-106. Available from: doi:10.4236/jtts.2017.72007
Karlsson IM, Sochor J, Strömberg H. Developing the ‘Service’ in Mobility as a Service: Experiences from a field trial of an innovative travel brokerage. Transportation Research Procedia. 2016;14: 3265-73. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.273
Güner S. Measuring the quality of public transportation systems and ranking the bus transit routes using multicriteria decision making techniques. Case Studies on Transport Policy. 2018;6(2): 214-24. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2018.05.005
Garrido C, De Oña R, De Oña J. Neural networks for analyzing service quality in public transportation. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014;41(15): 6830-8. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.04.045
Liou JJ, Hsu C-C, Chen Y-S. Improving transportation service quality based on information fusion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2014;67: 225-39. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.007
Sakellariou A, Kotoula K, Morfoulaki M, Mintsis G. Identification of quality indexes in school bus transportation system. Transportation Research Procedia. 2017;24: 212-9. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.110
Kamargianni M, Li W, Matyas M, Schafer A. A critical review of new mobility services for urban transport. Transportation Research Procedia. 2016;14: 3294-303.
Sochor J, Arby H, Karlsson M, Sarasini S. A topological approach to Mobility as a Service: A proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2018;27: 3-14. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.003
Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1977;15(3): 234-81. Available from: doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
Balaji M, Santhanakrishnan S, Dinesh S. An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Vehicle Routing Problem. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. 2019;47(3): 196-205. Available from: doi:10.3311/PPtr.10701
Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965;8(3): 338-53.
Ly PTM, Lai W-H, Hsu C-W, Shih F-Y. Fuzzy AHP analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;136: 1-13. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.016
Kaganski S, Majak J, Karjust K. Fuzzy AHP as a tool for prioritization of key performance indicators. Procedia CIRP. 2018;72: 1227-32. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.097
Dragan Krstić M, Radoman Tadić S, Brnjac N, Zečević S. Intermodal Terminal Handling Equipment Selection Using a Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Model. Promet – Traffic&Transportation. 2019;31(1): 89-100.
Gnanavelbabu A, Arunagiri P. Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2018;5(5): 13406-12. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.02.334
Wang Y-M, Chin K-S. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference programming methodology. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 2011;52(4): 541-53. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2010.12.004
Kossiakoff A, Sweet WN, Seymour SJ, Biemer SM. Systems engineering principles and practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Šipuš D, Abramović B. Tariffing in Integrated Passenger Transport Systems: A Literature Review. Promet – Traffic&Transportation. 2018;30(6): 745-51.
Csiszár C, Csonka B, Földes D. Innovative Transportation Systems. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó; 2019. Available from: doi:10.1556/9789630599412
Giesecke R, Surakka T, Hakonen M. Conceptualising mobility as a service. 2016 Eleventh International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), 6-8 April 2016, Monte Carlo, Monaco. IEEE; 2016.
Miao Q, Welch EW, Sriraj P. Extreme weather, public transport ridership and moderating effect of bus stop shelters. Journal of Transport Geography. 2019;74: 125-33. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.007
ZICLA. Smart bus stops. What is it and why is it so important? Available from: https://www.zicla.com/en/blog/smart-bus-stops/ [Accessed 15th April of 2019].
Csonka B, Csiszár C. Service Quality Analysis and Assessment Method for European Carsharing Systems. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. 2016;44(2): 80-8. Available from: doi:10.3311/PPtr.8559
San Cristóbal JR. Multi criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
Yang B. [Multi-objective Decision Analysis Theory, Method and Application Research]. Donghua University Press; 2008.
Liou T-S, Wang M-JJ. Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1992;50(3): 247-55. Available from: doi:10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q
CEDR. MAASiFiE Project Results. Available from: http://www.cedr.eu/ [Accessed 1st May 2019].
Maas4EU. Project Overview. Available from: http://www.maas4eu.eu/ [Accessed 1st May 2019].
Guest Editor: Eleonora Papadimitriou, PhD
Editors: Dario Babić, PhD; Marko Matulin, PhD; Marko Ševrović, PhD.
The mission of our journal is to provide high quality communication of research results, which is crucial for the effectiveness of scientific research, the promotion of scientific information, new ideas, and original research in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
1848-4069
0353-5320
Proud publisher
Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science |
2024 © Promet - Traffic&Transportation journal
