Passenger Satisfaction in Urban Rail Transit: Effects of Operational Service Attributes under Normal and Disrupted Conditions

Abstract

Passenger satisfaction in urban rail transit is shaped by operational service attributes whose relative importance may shift across operating conditions. This study investigates the context-dependent associations between operational service attributes and passenger satisfaction under normal and disrupted service conditions, using Nanning Rail Transit Line 1 as an empirical case. Based on 439 valid survey responses, ordinal logistic regression, confirmatory factor analysis, and non parametric statistical tests were employed to identify key satisfaction drivers across two operating scenarios. The results reveal that train frequency is the strongest independent predictor of overall satisfaction under normal operating conditions, while the number of stops displaces train frequency as the dominant predictor under service disruptions. Alighting time, non significant under normal operations, becomes independently significant under disruption, alongside platform waiting time which remains significant across both conditions, reflecting the heightened salience of congestion management when service stability is compromised. Exploratory segment analysis further suggests that satisfaction may vary by passenger characteristics, with nominally significant differences observed for leisure users with respect to coach congestion, work commuters with respect to running speed under disruption, and high-frequency riders with respect to train frequency, though these patterns did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. These findings demonstrate that the relative importance of operational service attributes is condition-sensitive and potentially user-specific, implying that a single uniform operational strategy is insufficient across varying service states. Transit agencies should prioritise service frequency and headway consistency under normal conditions, while shifting emphasis to maintaining service coverage and managing passenger flow during disruptions.

Keywords

Passenger satisfaction / Urban rail transit / Operational service attributes / Service disruption / Context-dependent / Passenger heterogeneity

References

[1] Pan FQ, Cheng S, Pan HT, Li SW, Zhang LX, Yang JS. Satisfaction analysis of urban rail transit based on the personal characteristics of passengers. Sustainability, 2024

[2] Ahmad M, Anwer I, Yousuf MI, Javid MA, Ali N, Tesoriere G, et al.. Investigating the key factors affecting public transport ridership in developing countries through structural equation modeling. Sustainability, 2024, 16(11): 4426

[3] Ibrahim ANH, Borhan MN, Yazid MRM, Rahmat RA, Yukawa S. Factors influencing passengers’ satisfaction with the light rail transit service in Alpha Cities: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia using structural equation modelling. Mathematics (Basel), 2021

[4] Prabhakaran P, Anandakumar S, Priyanka EB, Thangavel S. Development of service quality model computing ridership of metro rail system using fuzzy system. Results Eng, 2023

[5] Zeng ZZ, Wang MZ, Gao XYS, Wang N. Exploring passenger satisfaction in multimodal railway hubs: a social media-based analysis of travel behavior in China’s major rail stations. Sustainability, 2024

[6] Weng J, Yu J, Di X, Lin P, Wang J-J, Mao L-Z. How does the state of bus operations influence passengers’ service satisfaction? A method considering the differences in passenger preferences. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 2023, 174: 103734

[7] Yang J, Shiwakoti N, Tay R. Passengers’ perception of satisfaction and its relationship with travel experience attributes: results from an Australian survey. Sustainability, 2023

[8] Machado LC, Larranaga AM, Ruiz-Padillo A, Nodari CT, Cybis HBB. Quantifying the impact of metrorail transport quality factors on overall user satisfaction: a Brazilian case study. Transportation, 2024

[9] Allen J, Muñoz JC, Ortúzar JD. Modelling service-specific and global transit satisfaction under travel and user heterogeneity. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 2018, 113: 509-528

[10] De Ona J, DeOna R, Eboli L, Mazzulla G. Heterogeneity in perceptions of service quality among groups of railway passengers. Int J Sustain Transp, 2015, 9(8): 612-626

[11] Eldeeb G, Mohamed M. Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model. Transp Res A-Policy Pract, 2020, 139: 119-133

[12] Soltanpour A, Mesbah M, Habibian M. Customer satisfaction in urban rail: a study on transferability of structural equation models. Public Transp, 2020, 12(1): 123-146

[13] Monsuur F, Enoch M, Quddus M, Meek S. Modelling the impact of rail delays on passenger satisfaction. Transp Res A-Policy Pract, 2021, 152: 19-35

[14] Li BB, Yao EJ, Yamamoto T, Tang Y, Liu SS. Exploring behavioral heterogeneities of metro passenger’s travel plan choice under unplanned service disruption with uncertainty. Transp Res A-Policy Pract, 2020, 141: 294-306

[15] Rahimi E, Shamshiripour A, Shabanpour R, Mohammadian A, Auld J. Analysis of transit users’ waiting tolerance in response to unplanned service disruptions. Transp Res D-Transp Environ, 2019, 77: 639-653

[16] Bakhshayesh MAA, Mesbah M, Habibian M, Latifi K. The new norm, a reality or a fiction? A longitudinal passenger satisfaction study on the persisting effects of COVID-19. Transp Policy, 2024, 155: 47-57

[17] Shang J, Feng JR, Ibrahim ANH, Borhan MN, Huang QS. Collectively satisfactory urban rail transit dispatching optimization. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electromechanical Control Technology and Transportation (ICECTT 2024). SPIE: SPIE; 2024.

[18] Nanning Rail Transit Co. L: Nanning Rail Transit Network Map. http://www.nngdjt.com/html/service/ (2023). Accessed 12-31 2023.

[19] Television NRa: Record breaking again! Nanning Rail Transit network daily passenger traffic amounted to 1,77 million. https://www.nntv.cn/news/ms/2024-1-2/1704204225412.shtml (2024). Accessed 01-02 2024.

[20] Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol, 1932, 140: 55

[21] Biederbick C, Suhl L. Decision support tools for customer-oriented dispatching. International Methods for Railway Optimization. Bergen, NORWAY2004. p. 171-83.

[22] Phasouliotis A, Williams C, Ieee. Intelligent Platform Management. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Rail Transportation (ICIRT). Birmingham, ENGLAND2016. p. 145-9.

[23] Yang YX, Li J, Wen C, Huang P, Peng QY, Lessan J. A bi-level passenger preference-oriented line planning model for high-speed railway operations. Transp Res Rec, 2018, 2672(10): 224-235

[24] Bi J, Wu Z, Wang L, Xie DF, Zhao XM. A tabu search-based algorithm for airport gate assignment: a case study in Kunming, China. J Adv Transp, 2020

[25] De Oña J, Estévez E, de Oña R. Perception of public transport quality of service among regular private vehicle users in Madrid Spain. Transp Res Record, 2020, 2674(2): 213-224

[26] Zhao JD, Lei W, Li ZJ, Zhao DF, Han MM, Hou XQ. Detection of crowdedness in bus compartments based on ResNet algorithm and video images. Multimed Tools Appl, 2022, 81(4): 4753-4780

[27] Luo JJ, Chen SF, Yao YP, Huang XK, Fu H, Chen QY. Modeling and Optimization of Integrating Demand-Responsive Shared Connected Vehicles and Public Buses. 23rd COTA International Conference of Transportation Professionals (CICTP) - Innovation-Empowered Technology for Sustainable, Intelligent, Decarbonized, and Connected Transportation. Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA2023. p. 2512-21.

[28] Lin P, He C, Zhong L, Pei M, Zhou C, Liu Y. Bus timetable optimization model in response to the diverse and uncertain requirements of passengers for travel comfort. Electron Res Arch, 2023, 31(4): 2315-2336

[29] Guan DY, Wu XF, Wang K, Zhao J. Vehicle dispatch and route optimization algorithm for demand-responsive transit. Processes, 2022

[30] Khemiri R, Naija M, Exposito E. Dispatching and rebalancing for ride-sharing autonomous mobility-on-demand systems based on a fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Soft Comput, 2023, 27(4): 2041-2069

[31] Zhang Y, Yan H, Luo Y, Zhang S, Zhu L, Tang Y. Simulation-based optimization of timetables coordination in an urban rail transit network. Simul Model Pract Theory, 2024, 130: 102857

[32] Borhan MN, Ibrahim ANH, Aziz A, Yazid MRM. The relationship between the demographic, personal, and social factors of Malaysian motorcyclists and risk taking behavior at signalized intersections. Accid Anal Prev, 2018, 121: 94-100

[33] Mesbah M, Sahraei M, Soltanpour A, Habibian M. Perceived service quality based on passenger and trip characteristics: a structural equation modeling approach. J Rail Transp Plan Manag, 2022

[34] Ingvardson JB, Nielsen OA. The relationship between norms, satisfaction and public transport use: a comparison across six European cities using structural equation modelling. Transp Res Part A-Policy Pract, 2019, 126: 37-57

[35] Tanwar R, Agarwal PK. 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 Syst Appl, 2024

[36] Monsuur F, Enoch M, Quddus M, Meek S. Investigating the role of preference variation in the perceptions of railway passengers in Great Britain. Transportation, 2025, 52(4): 1221-1247

[37] Ibrahim ANH, Borhan MN, Yusoff NIM, Ismail A, Yazid MRM, Yunin NAM, et al.. Gender and age do matter: Exploring the effect of passengers’ gender and age on the perception of light rail transit service quality in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2021, 13(2): 1-18

[38] Joseph FHJ, William CB, Barry JB, Rolph EA. Multivariate data analysis, 2014Seventh edition, Pearson New International EditionPearson Education Limited

[39] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res, 1981, 18(1): 39-50

[40] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory, 1967McGraw-Hill

[41] Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res, 1992, 21(2): 230-258

[42] MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods, 1996, 1(2): 130-149

Funding

Department of Education of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region(2025KY1212)

Science and Technology Department of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region(Guike AA21077011)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)

Just Accepted

This article has successfully passed peer review and final editorial review, and will soon enter typesetting, proofreading and other publishing processes. The currently displayed version is the accepted final manuscript. The officially published version will be updated with format, DOI and citation information upon launch. We recommend that you pay attention to subsequent journal notifications and preferentially cite the officially published version. Thank you for your support and cooperation.