T E CH NO L O G ICA L E DU CA T IO N I NS T IT U T E

OF

P IR A EU S

DETERMINATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION UPGRADING PARAMETERS IN URBAN NETWORKS ON THE BASIS OF THE OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

ALEXIOS KAZILAS

Msc Management in Construction

THESIS

T E CH NO L O G ICA L E DU CA T IO N I NS T IT U T E

OF

P IR A EU S

DETERMINATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION UPGRADING PARAMETERS IN URBAN NETWORKS ON THE BASIS OF THE OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Dissertation submitted as part requirement for the degree of Master of Management in Construction

By

ALEXIOS KAZILAS

SUPERVISOR

Dr. Dimitris Dimitriou

TEI PIRAEUS-KINGSTON UNIVERSITY DEPERTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 2006

T E CH NO L O G ICA L E DU CA T IO N I NS T IT U T E
Contents

OF

P IR A EU S

1. 2. 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6 2.7 3. 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.

Introduction......1 Methodology.............3 Aim of research......3 Ticket Fares policy.............3 Ticket categories........3 Ticket Fares collection- Number of passengers.............4 Tram...4 Sub ground Metro.....4 Metro..................5 Knowledge from Great Britain...............5 Data collection methodology......7 Questionnaire Form....7 Data collection....8 Questionnaire scanning, editing and survey pack preparation....8 Sampling size......8 Survey station sample.....9 Survey issues........11 Survey study area...11 Public transportation characteristics..11 Metro..12 Tram...13 Sub ground metro...13 Results...15 Tram survey results....15 Metro survey results...17 Sub ground metro survey results(line 1)........19 Quality characteristics of public transportation modes..20 Conclusions...22

Appendix A: Tables...24 Appendix B: Tables...31

T E CH NO L O G ICA L E DU CA T IO N I NS T IT U T E
List of tables
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9:

OF

P IR A EU S

Ticket prices of Athens public transport.......3 London ticket prices..5 London ticket prices..5 Survey station sample9 Main characteristics of public transportation.......11 Results tramway results15 Results tramway survey purpose of journey.15 Results tramway survey scenarios....16 Results part tramway survey 1st scenario according monthly income...16 Table 10: Results part tramway survey 1st scenario according trips/weeks or month.......16 Table 16: Results Metro survey....17 Table 17: Results Metro survey purpose of journey.....17 Table 18: Results Metro survey scenario......18 Table 19: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according monthly income.....18 Table 20: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month..18 Table 21: Results Metro survey........18 Table 22: Results line1 survey..19 Table 23: Results line 1 survey purpose of journey..19 Table 29: Results line 1 survey scenarios.20 Table 30: Results line 1 survey 1st scenario according monthly income20 Table31: Results line survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month..20 Table 32: Positive/ Negative opinion for the characteristics of Public transportation systems...21

1. Introduction
General managerial problem of the most companies is to define the number of sales of a product and also to define the demands of their customers. The same problem we have to face here, as we talk for Transportation Company, in order to take the decisions of changing the policy on ticketing or to put more trains in the time schedule. Therefore, we have to make a survey because we have to have a justification and reasoning for supporting our decisions. Decision making and a fair ticket fare level are two main problems that operators always try to solve and find ways in order to face them with success. Decision making is problem, because when a manager has to take a decision about a subject, there must be sufficient reasoning behind this decision. In order to have sufficient reasoning, we have to have useful tools that helps us and give us the chance to take the appropriate decision together with the most high elimination at the risk. Fair ticket level is a subject that the operators always try to find where it is fair for the people and simultaneously profitable for the company . Lots of parameters influence the level of tickets fares. First of all the financial situation of the country and the amount of salaries level, secondly the level of services that the operator want to provide to their customers, and thirdly the policy that the government want to pass. Fixed trajectory systems are the backbone of the public transportation system of the city. They have high capacity and they served areas with high demanding of transportation.(Dimitriou, et all,2005) Ticket fare level has an important role in the funds distribution in a public transportation system, because expressing the targets of the operator or the government that administrate the public transportation system. (Karlaftis, et all,2004). Different modes of urban transportation in large cities need to be coordinated and integrated in order to promote a successful urban public transportation system. Intermodal integration of alternative public transit systems can be successfully achieved when there is ease to transfer, compatibility in scheduling, carefully designed and located transfer facilities, and a fair and convenient fare structure system.(Darcin Akin, 2005) In Great Britain, and especially in London, at London Underground, the administration have make accordingly surveys where the key issues of data planning and analysis are the train service levels, level of station congestion, the replacement of bus services and analysis of ticketing options .These are the reasons that make us considered this current research, taking motivation from researches that took place in Greece and abroad. The aim of this study is to describe the survey methodology together with the research in different ticket fare level in public transportation systems in Athens based on the opinion of the users. According to the results and the conclusions that we will extract we will take the appropriate decisions for all the issues that we have to face, from the timetable of the system, ticket fare level, to political decisions such to unification of

the different transportation companies that administrate the transportation network of Athens.

2. Methodology approach 2.1 Aim of research

The main purpose of this research has been to record and operation performance by the passengers view that used fixed trajectory systems[1], furthermore from this quantification we want to develop an origin-destination matrix about the ridership on the central stations of network. Also, we will make a research on ticket fare level, through scenarios that we upgrade operational parameters and fare level.

2.2 Ticket fares policy

There are several ticket value strategies that depends on the targets set by the administration of the transportation systems. These targets can be the improvement of the social services or the increase of the revenues of the company. Within the policy its made the definition of the prices of the tickets. Diachronically the ticket value policy give the possibility of measure and count the performance of the system. (incomes, traffic, passengers) 2.2.1 Ticket categories Ticket value policy in Athens is a mixture of unified and multizone pricing and is based on flat fare system. There is one ticket for lines 1,2 and 3 and there is multizone pricing for line 1 and tram. There are two different categories of tickets. The normal singled ticket and the reduced price ticket for special categories of the population such as students, pupils, and the members of many children families. There are 2 types of monthly cards. The small card for buses and electrical buses and the big card for all the transportation systems. In the prices below, we except the line 3 part to the airport. [2].In Athens the ticket fares level are connected with the cost of the transportation services provided in order to achieve the investment targets of AMEL. Therefore, the introducing of variety of tickets and cards and the policy of no free interchanges between different transportation modes(busses to Metro) are the basic elements.[3] Table 1 shows all the ticket prices for the public transportation modes
Single METRO ISAP TRAM 0,80 0,70 0,60 Reduced 0,40 0,35 0,30 1/5hr Day Ticket 7-days Monthly Monthly reduced 19,00 19,00 19,00 Annual 380,00 380,00 380,00

1,00 3,00 10,00 38,00 1,00 3,00 10,00 38,00 1,00 3,00 10,00 38,00 Table 1: Ticket prices of Athens public transport

The price of the ticket define through Flat fare system (FF) simple division of the revenues by the expected passengers.

FF =

Expected Revenues Expected Passengers

The amount of the expected revenues depends on the percentage of the expenses that the administration want to cover from the tickets. It can be 50% of the operational cost or more or less. For example in Tallinn the capital of Estonia, on 2000 the expenditures was 428 million koronas and the income from the tickets was 173 million koronas. This amounts approximately to 40% of the expenses, and explain the price of the ticket there.[4]

2.3 Ticket fares collection- Number of passengers

2.3.1 TRAM According to public studies that took place in the tram stations in May 2005 the estimation of the number passengers that traveled by tram on a typical day was 41.000. The expected revenue can be found by the above ratio FF = Expected Revenues Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers Expected Passengers Expected Revenues = 0.60 * 41000 = 24600/day

But we have to assume that there is a 10% of the passengers that uses monthly cards. The fares collection takes place on the platforms of each station located the ticket machines that sells the tickets and from the ticket offices located in some stations. The ticket validation machines are on the platforms and inside the trams .There are inspectors who checks very often the passengers for the validated tickets and the cards. 2.3.2 ISAP

The sub ground metro (line 1) uses ticket machines on each station that sell tickets alongside tickets offices . There are ticket validation machines at the entrance of each station. The pricing is multizone. Is also possible interchange with the same ticket on lines 2-3 of METRO. There are inspectors who checks very often the passengers for the validated tickets and the cards. The estimation of the number of the passengers that commuted using line 1 is 400.000 passengers per day. If we make the same calculation as we made before we obtain FF = Expected Revenues Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers Expected Passengers Expected Revenues = 0.70 * 400,000 = 280,000/day

Unfortunately we dont have the financial data in order to see what percentage of the operational cost covered with this income.

2.3.3

METRO

Metro(line 2-3) is also using ticket machines on each station of the network and ticket offices. There are ticket validation machines at the entrance of each station and there are inspectors that checks very often the passengers for the validated tickets and the cards. The estimation of the passengers commuting by metro is 650.000 per day. With the ticket validation machines is a way in order to count down how many passengers traveled by metro. If we make the same calculation as we made before Expected Revenues Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers Expected Passengers Expected Revenues = 0.80 * 650,000 = 520,000/day

FF =

2.4 Knowledge from Great Britain

The London Underground is the oldest underground system in Europe and also the biggest. Its started operating in 1889 and now days consists of 11 lines and 275 stations ,the total track length of 408 km and daily passenger traffic amounts 2,6 million. The greater London Area devided in 6 zones the pricing is multizone. Here we have to mention that LU had introduced the smart oyster card. It is a magnetic card like credit card that the passengers can use it instead of tickets and they receive discounts in the price of the ticket as you can see in the following tables 2-3.
Mondays-Fridays from 07:00-19:00 Adult Zone 1 Zone1-2 Zone1-3 or 1-4 Zone1-4 or 1-6 3,00 3,00 3,00 4,00 Child* 1,50 1,50 1,50 Oyster card 1,50 2,00 2,50 Oyster card child 0,70 1,00 1,00 1,00

2,00 3,50 Table 2: London Tickets prices

All other times including public holidays Adult Zone 1 Zone1-2 Zone1-3 or 1-4 Zone1-4 or 1-6 3,00 3,00 3,00 4,00 Child* 1,50 1,50 1,50 Oyster card 1,50 1,50 2,00 Oyster card child 0,70 0,70 1,00 1,00

2,00 2,00 Table 3: London Tickets prices

Figure 1: London greater area map

The LU authorities methodology of collecting data about the provided service primarily consists of two ways.. Firstly a face to face survey at stations. This is called the rolling origin and destination survey. It is carried out annually covering about 10% of the network. The survey interviews passengers that entering stations from the street and also those joining from National rail and the Docklands light railway (DLR) services from behind the barrier at joint stations. The interviewer asks the customer for the main interchange stations on their route as well as personal data ( age, sex, type of ticket and journey purpose). Also around 40% of passengers entering the underground system are a form to complete and return by post. About 25-30 % of these are received back giving an overall coverage of 10% of passengers. The results are scaled up to the network flows taken from the annual entry and exit figures. Counts are also made using information collected from the ticket gates. Data files are downloaded to provide numbers by quarter of an hour for each day of each station. The ticket gates can also breakdown the information into ticket types and times of manual gates opened and shut. If one or more gates are turned off the quarter hour is flagged and an estimate is used for that 15 minutes based on previous unaffected days. The same is true if a manual gate is open for more then three minutes in any 15. If a manual gate is open for less that three minutes an adjustment is made to estimate the number of people who would have passed through the gate in that time. Some stations of course are not gated, for some others the gate data is erratic or unreliable, for both these groups the gate data is supplemented an Autumn each year by manual counts.[10]

2.5 Data collection methodology

Although there is a variety of data collection methods available to researchers for the acquisition of primary data, self-administrated questionnaires remain among the most popular methods(Hair et al, 2003). Direct mail questionnaires, in comparison to other data collection methods, including mail panels, have traditionally suffered from much less no response rates. Telephone interviews is another way of research, but you are not sure if the contacted person is in the targeted sample that you are looking for. For these reasons, we prefer to make personal interviews directly on the platforms and outside the stations. We are going directly to the people that using public transportation systems and also there is bigger possibility to eliminate mistakes. [5]. The questionnaire that was used in the customer opinion contains 3 parts. We have used indirectly close type questionnaires with questions and answers with x box choosing in order to be accomplished easily and quick. 2.5.1 Questionnaire form The questionnaires consists of 3 major components: 1) The person data gender age monthly income Car Users or not It is very important to categorize the passengers by gender and age, because different ages generates different travel behaviors. Also according to their monthly income, there is different confrontation to the ticket fares scenarios about increasing the price of ticket and reduce the time of travel. 2) The travel pattern In this form included the station pages. Each stop page asked questions about: Where is the station of origin Purpose of travel Way of approaching and leaving the station Sub questions about the way of approaching and leaving the stations such as 1) Where did you park your car? 2) Which is the distance of walking 3) Possible interchange from other transportation mode

Questions of frequency and usage

1) How many days/week using the transportation mode( Metro,Tram,Isap) 2) Type of ticket that used for their trip 3) Questions about advantages and disadvantages about the transportation modes 3) The scenarios type In this form are listed the 4 scenarios of increasing the ticket price of each transportation mode giving 4 alternative barters for the increase of the price of the ticket for 10 or 20 or 30 cents. 20% reduce of travel time 40% reduce of travel time Improve reliability and quality of services 20% reduce of travel time and improve reliability and quality of services.

The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. 2.5.2 Data collection

The interviews were conducted on the platforms of the stops (Tram), at the origin of their trip and outside of the stations(Metro), at the destination of their trip. The duration of each interview was approximately 3-4 minutes. The survey took place from the 2nd of June until the 6th of July, on weekdays and time between 16:00- 20:00 2.5.3 Questionnaire scanning, editing and survey pack preparation

The questionnaires from the survey on this process, get through checking and also remedied any problems identified during the process( missing answers, multiple answers, deceptive answers). Then the survey pack preparation process included the entering of the data to spreadsheets and then using them for the analysis.[6]

2.6 Sampling size

Sampling is always dependent on research targets, the cost constraints and the number of the available interviewers. For a survey such the one under discussion statistical representative ness and adequacy are associated with spatial distribution of the population and with a minimum sample. However, as the survey was not a full survey for study process, but was rather focusing on the methodology, a manageable sample of up to 350 passengers was considered to be satisfactory.[7]

2.7 Survey station sample

Land uses around the stations and stops are having very important role on the decision of choice of which station should be included in the survey. One approach of the impacts of land use, became with the investigation of four basic categories[8] Densely populated area of housing Densely populated area of occupation Accessibility Stripe of urban development These basic categories had some characteristics. The characteristics that we can segregate are the followings: Residence areas: In these areas the land usage had only houses and block of flats Residence areas together with administration centers: In these areas there are houses together with ministries, internal revenue services, banks, shopping centers etc. Administration centers: In these areas, there are only ministries, internal revenues services, banks, shopping centers, hospitals, cinemas, universities, etc.[9]

According to the previous characteristics the stations can be divided in to four categories. Centrals, regional, hubs and terminals. From each category we choose at least one station for conducting survey. For the tram survey we chose Ag.Foteini and Evaggeliki Sxoli from the municipality of Nea Smyrni, these stations are considered part of residence areas together with administration centers. For the same reason we chose Agg.Metaxa from the municipality of Glyfada. As part of residence area together with administration center we also chose L.Vouliagmenis with the only difference compare with the previous stations that is very close to the center of Athens. SEF was selected as a terminal station and also as an interchange station between tram and line 1. Neos Kosmos located in a residence area but is also very important station because it is interchange station with line 2 of Metro. Finally we choose Kalamaki as a station that located in the coastal part of Athens, and the period that the survey took place a lot of people go in this area for entertainment reasons. With the same way of thinking we made the selection of Metro stations. Monastiraki, Syntagma and Omonoia are considered as central stations that are located in the center of Athens. Also Monastiraki and Omonoia are interchange stations between line 1 and line 3 and line 2 equivalent. In Monastiraki and Omonoia took place the survey for line 1 also. Syntagma is one of the busiest stations of the network and it is also interchange between line 2 and line 3. Attiki is a station that located in a residence area but, first of all is interchange station between line 2 and line 1, therefore there is interchange there with buses for all the west suburban of Athens, and this is the reason that the survey

took place there as for line 1 as for metro as well. Neos Kosmos, as we said before located in a residence area but is also very important station because it is interchange station with tram. Katehaki selected for regional station because its served hospitals and universities apart from the residence area that it is located. Therefore, in this station our job was easier because this station have only one exit. Finally as a terminal station for line 1 we choose Piraeus because it is located to the port of Greece and this time of period is very busy station, among that it is the only fixed trajectory system station that served Piraeus.
Station Agia Foteini Evaggeliki Sxoli Agg.Metaxa L.Vouliagmenis SEF Neos Kosmos Kalamaki Omonoia Monastiraki Syntagma Attiki Katehaki Piraeus Transportation mode Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram Tram/Metro Tram Metro/Sub ground Metro Metro/Sub ground Metro Metro Metro/ Sub ground Metro Metro Sub ground Metro Location Nea Smyrni Nea Smyrni Glyfada Athens Piraeus Athens Alimos Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Piraeus Interchang e Category Central Central Central Central Terminal Central/Hub Regional Central/hub Central/Terminal/Hub Central/Terminal Central/hub Regional Terminal

Line 1 Line 2 Line 1 Line 1 Line 3 Line 1

Table 4: Survey station sample

References
1: Dimitriou D., Kepaptsoglou K., Giannoulis N., Karlavtis M. Evaluation of the quality transportation services for the urban railway network(Metro and Tram) in Athens, 2nd International conference of Railway development, Athens, 2005 2: M. Karlautis, I. Gollias and E. Samprakos Issues for total structure of the ticket value policy of urban transportation, 2nd International conference on transportation research in Greece, Athens, 2004 3: E.Samprakos,E.Ramfou, Critical presentation of ticket fare system in public transportation, 3rd International conference on transportation research in Greece, Thessaloniki, 2006 4: : www.rec.org /Case study-Tallinn 5: K.Braunsberg, R.Gates, D.J. Ortinan. Prospective respondent integrity behavior in replying to direct mail questionnaires: a contributor in overestimating nonresponse rate, Journal of business research, 2003 6: M.B.Davis, A.J.Richardson. Before and after household travel surveys for travel behaviour change project evaluation, TRB annual meeting, 2006 7: Dr.M.Morfoulaki, P.Papaioannou, Measuring customer satisfaction index,the survey of Thessaloniki-Greece, TRB annual meeting, 2006 8: Zaharaki E, Pitsiava-Latinopoulou M. Land Uses and transportation: Historical development, trends and perspectives of research. Consideration of behavior

10

2nd International conference on transportation research in Greece, Athens 2004 9: Aravantinos Ath. Poleodomikos sxediasmos, pages 147-148, Ekdoseis Symmetria, Athens 1997 10: : www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/facts.asp

11

3. Survey issues 3.1 Survey study area

The study area includes the center of Athens and the urban areas of it, around the center. Athens situated in the region of Sterea Hellas in the center part of Greece covering 3.808 Km2. It is the biggest city of Greece with a population approximately of 3.000.000 inhabitants, and total trips made by all means of transport during a typical day amounted to 8.000.000. The circular plane of Athens, that makes it so special, is the fact that had access to the sea on the south, while another special feature is that it is surrounded by mountains (parnitha, ymittos) for this means that the atmosphere pollutions has no way of escaping. Another characteristic of Athens is that the center of Athens centralized all the administration center( ministries, banks, universities, shopping centers, etc) but the suburban areas of the center are not only residence areas, but there are densely populated areas of occupation together with residence areas. Glyfada for example on the south of Athens is one area like that, while Halandri on the north of Athens is one like that as well. The center of Athens, surrounding from a lot of smaller administration centers, that generated trips from and to these areas.

3.2 Public transportation characteristics

The under study public transportation modes are the sub ground metro (Line 1), metro(lines 2 and 3), tramway. Together with suburban rail, buses and trolley electrical buses are the existence public transportation systems that comprise the Athens transportation network. In this thesis we will examine the sub ground metro and the tramway. Operational characteristics of the systems that are integrated namely, metro, tram, line 1, are presented next in table 5
Type Length(Km) Distance between adjacent station
563-2110 620-720 600-1100 except airport 400-500

Stations

Operation time
05:00-00:30 05:30-00:00 05:30-00:00 M-F:05:3000:10 Weekends 24hr.

Frequency

Ticket price

ISAP METRO Line 2 METRO Line 3 TRAM

26,5 10,1 32,4 25

24 14 11 49

3-15 3-5 except w/k 3-5 except w/k 15-40

0,80-0,40 0,80-0,40 0,80-0,40 except airport destination 0,60-0,40

Table 5: Main characteristics of public transport

12

3.2.1 Metro Athens Metro (Lines 2,3) is the biggest infrastructure transportation project that executed the last years in Athens. It is the faster public transportation mode compare with the existance, it is the most reliable and it is the backbone of the whole transportation system of Attica region. It is consist of 11 stations in line 3 and 14 station in line 2. The total track length is 42,5 km including the Athens International Airport destination. The construction started at June of 1993 and on January of 2000 started the operation of Athens Metro of lines 2 and 3 in 14 stations (Syntagma-Ethniki Amyna line 3, Syntagma-Sepolia line 2). On November of 2000 five more stations began to operate in line 2(Syntagma-Dafni) and on April of 2003 started the operation of Monastiraki station in line 3. Now days the 2 lines of Athens Metro transfers about 650.000 passengers per day. The frequencies of trains are 3 minutes at the peak time and 5-10 minutes the other hours. The project of Athens Metro doesnt stop here. The extensions that already been auctioned are Dafni-Elliniko, Monastiraki-Aigaleo and Ag.Antonios-Anthoupoli. These three extensions will have 13 stations and total track length 13,8 km. It is estimated to be executed in 2008-2009, and it is believed that will transfer 300.000 passengers per day.[1]

Figure 2: Athens Metro Map

13

3.2.2

Tram

Athens tramway has a long story behind, but here we will mention the modern history of it. When Athens took the Olympic games of 2004 it was needed a transportation system that will cover the seaside part of Athens and also the new sport facilities that would be there during the Olympic games.(Elliniko, Ag.Kosmas,Faliro). The construction of Athens tramway started started at 2002 and on July 2004 started its operation. Athens tramway has 3 lines (SEF-Syntagma, SEF-Glyfada, GlyfadaSyntagma). Its consist of 49 stops and total track length of 26Km. The frequency is about 5-10 minutes and it is estimated that transfers about 40.000 passengers per day. At the beginning of 2007 it will start the construction of the extensions to Voula and Piraeus.[2]

Figure 3: Athens Tram-way map [3]

3.2.3

Subground metro (Line 1)

14

Urban railway Piraeus-Kifissia most well known as electrical railway(ISAP) has a long story of 135 years. Its started its operation on 27th of February of 1869 between Piraeus-Thissio. On 1904 the system electrified and the Omonoia station started operated. On 1948 Victoria and Attiki station started its operation and at 1957 the system operated until Kiffisia with almost the todays network. Todays network consist of 24 stations and total track length 26,5 km. The frequencies of trains are 4 minutes at the peak time and 5-10 minutes the other hours. With the interchanges hubs at Attiki, Omonoia and Monastiraki, ISAP is one of the main feedback transportation system of Athens METRO. It is estimated that ISAP transfers about 450.000 passengers per day. ISAP had important role during the Olympic games of 2004 because it was served Olympic stadium, SEF and Karaiskaki stadium.[3]

References
1: www.ametro.gr/main/project/top.gr.htm 2: www.isap.gr/istoriko.asp 3: www.tramsa.gr/html/gr/diadromes.php

15

4. Results
In this chapter we investigate the passengers opinion for the scenarios of the ticket prices, and also the general characteristics of them, of their travel behavior. Therefore, there are the results of origin-destination trips, that we will try to find out the busiest part of the central stations, together with quality characteristics of the transportation nodes according to their opinion.

4.1 Tram survey results

Tables 6-7 presented the first part of questionnaire results. There are the personal characteristics of the passengers (age, gender), the travel behavior (type of ticket, purpose of the trip) and their personal opinion about tram (advantages-disadvantages).
Sex Percentage Age Percentage Car Users Percentage Type of ticket Percentage Advantages Percentage Disadvantages Percentage Men 55% 19-25 10% Yes 60% Single 47% Comfortable trip 57% Its slow 26% Women 45% 26-30 47% No 40% Reduced 14% Quality services 24% Too many stops 20%

31-65 42%

>65 1%

Monthly Free Pass card 2% 36% 1% Nice ride I dont know 17% 2% Too many Small Noise/vibration traffic lights network 17% 7% 4% Table 6: Results Tramway survey

Day ticket

Bad reliability 3%

Advertisements on the vehicle 3%

I dont know 20%

Work House Shopping Un.Work Education Socialised

Work 0% 2,1% 0% 0,7% 0% 0%

House 38,3% 0% 16,3% 1,4% 4,2% 0%

Entertainment/Shopping 4,2% 27% 2,1% 0% 0% 0%

Un.Work 0% 1,4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Education 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Socialised 0% 2,1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 7: Results Tramway survey purpose of journey

From the previous tables we can say that the most of the passengers used single ticket (47%), while the advantages of tram are the comfortable trip and the quality of services, on the other hand the disadvantages of tram are that its slow (26%) and having too many stops. Finally the purpose of trip that the most of passengers using tram is the Work-Home destination (38,3%) The second part of questionnaire results, tables 8-10, presented the answers of the passengers to the 4 scenarios that increase the ticket prices giving alternative solutions(

16

reduce time of travel etc). The main trends of their answer is that, they are quite positive (probably yes) to pay 10 cents more to the ticket (0,70) in order to be the time of travel reduced from 20%-40%
Scenario Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Ticket price 0,70 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 Definitely Yes 2% 2% 2% 13% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Probably Yes 83% 36% 2% 77% 63% 21% 22% 7% 2% 63% 17% 10% Probably No 13% 58% 44% 4% 29% 46% 69% 78% 36% 32% 78% 32% Definitely No 2% 4% 51% 6% 3% 29% 9% 15% 62% 4% 4% 57%

Table 8: Results Tramway survey Scenarios

A further analysis into the answers of the first scenario according to the monthly income and the trip/week that passengers made, giving us that the passengers with income 500-1000 Euro, are quite positive to pay 10 cents more in order to reduse the time of travel for 20% while the passengers that having income 1000-2000 euro are strong positive (definitely yes) to this scenario either to pay 20 cents more (0,80) in order to save time. In addition the most frequent users (4-5 days/week) are quite positive to pay 10 cents more instead of the less frequent users(1-3 days/week).
Monthly income 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 No 0,70 0% 1% 10% Definitely Probably Probably Yes Yes No 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 43% 73% 0% 0% 0% 86% 31% 0% 12% 65% 45% 5% 0% 80% 65% 5% 0% 15% 60% Table 9: Results Part Tramway survey 1st scenario according monthly income Definitely Probably Probably Yes Yes No 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0,70 0,80 1,00 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 50% 50% 1% 0% 82% 40% 4% 15% 58% 45% 0% 0% 84% 39% 0% 12% 59% 49% 4% 4% 80% 23% 4% 11% 65% 39% Table 10: Results Part Tramway survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month Definitely No 0,80 27% 4% 0%

7 111 20

0,70 14% 1% 0%

1,00 100% 55% 100%

Trips/week or month 6-7 days 4-5 days 1-3 days 1-5/month

No 0,70 0% 3% 0% 4%

2 71 39 26

0,70 0% 0% 4% 5%

Definitely No 0,80 0% 1% 2% 8%

1,00 50% 55% 51% 53%

Tables 10-14 giving us the origin-destination matrix of the passengers. Tables 10-11 giving the results of the survey that we made on June 2006. According to this table we can say that the busiest part of the network is Ag.Foteini-Syntagma, Ev.sxoli-Zefyros and Ag.Foteini-N.Kosmos. The survey that took place on March 2005 from tram s.a. giving different results. The busiest part of the network according to this survey is Neos Kosmos-Ag.Foteini and Ag.Foteini-Syntagma. For the second origin-destination

17

trip (Ag.Foteini-Syntagma) the 2 surveys agreed but there are differences to the other parts. This, happens because our survey took place on summer 2006 (June) while the other survey took place on March 2005. Therefore the sampling size is tottaly different, the one that we made for this current study is 160 passengers while tram s.a survey sampling size was 10.000. For convenience, Tables 10 14 are given in Appendix A because of their large size.

4.2 Metro survey results

Tables 16-17 presented the first part of the questionnaire results as before. The advantage of Metro according to the passengers is that it is faster compare with the other transportation mode, while a disadvantage is the absent of air-condition in the station. The main purpose of travel of the passengers is Work-Home (38,3%)
Sex Percentage Age Percentage Car Users Percentage Type of ticket Percentage Advantages Percentage Disadvantages Percentage Men 53% 19-25 19% Yes 51% Single 58% Its fast 84% Air-Condition 31% Women 47% 26-30 45% No 49% Reduced 13% Quality services 10% Small Network 26%

31-65 34%

>65 2%

2% Difficult approach to the stations 11% 10% Table 16: Results Metro survey

Day ticket 1% Comfortable trip 4% Expensive ticket

Monthly card 27% I dont know

Free Pass 1% Reliability of services 2% Parking 8%

Toilets 8%

I dont know 6%

Work House Shopping Emerg.reason Education Visiting

Work 0% 13,2% 0% 0% 2% 0%

House Shopping Emerg.reason 38,3% 1,8% 0% 0% 19% 0% 16% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table 17: Results Metro survey purpose of journey

Education 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Visiting 0% 2,7% 0% 0% 0% 0%

The second part of the survey giving us the answers of the passengers to the 4 scenarios. The main trends on these scenarios are that the passengers are quite negative(probably no) to pay 10 or 20 cents more in order to reduce time of travel for 20%, but when they have to choose between 10 cents increase of price of ticket and 40% reduce of travel time are quite positive (probably yes for 85%). Further analysis to the answers of the first scenario according to the monthly income and the frequency of using Metro giving us the results of tables 19-20 Here, we can say that passengers with monthly income 500-1000 Euro are quite negative to pay more(10 cents) in order to be their travel time reduced 20%,in addition with the passengers that have monthly income 1000-2000 Euro that they are quite positive to this increase. Also, more often users(4-5 days/week) are negative to this scenario, while the less often users(1-3 days/week) are positive to this scenario.

18

Therefore table 20 give us some more specific characteristics of the trip that passengers made such as the way of approaching and leaving the station and the distance of walking if there is.
Scenario Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%Improve reliability of timetable Monthly income 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 Trips/week or month 6-7 days 4-5 days 1-3 days 1-5/month No 0,90 0% 6% 8% Definitely Yes 1,00 0% 1% 4% Definitely Yes 1,00 0% 0% 0% 0% Walk 73% <100m 0% Walk 65% <100m 0% Traffi c jam Ticket price 0,90 1,00 1,20 0,90 1,00 1,20 0,90 1,00 1,20 0,90 1,00 1,20 Definitely Yes 6% 1% 0% 6% 4% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% Probably Yes 30% 10% 2% 85% 8% 3% 8% 3% 0% 71% 15% 1% Probably No 64% 83% 18% 9% 85% 17% 86% 91% 30% 22% 79% 13% Definitely No 0% 6% 80% 0% 3% 80% 4% 4% 70% 5% 6% 86%

Table 18: Results Metro survey Scenarios

1 83 25 No

1,20 0% 0% 0%

0,90 0% 20% 48%

Probably Yes 1,00 0% 8% 20% Probably Yes 1,00 11% 1% 16% 42% Bus 7% 301-500m 73% Bus 17% 301-500m 85% Metro is more economic instead of using car 2%

1,20 0% 1% 0%

0,90 100% 71% 44%

Probably No 1,00 0% 83% 76% Probably No 1,00 77% 93% 83% 57% Tram 4%

1,20 0% 19% 28%

0,90 0% 3% 0%

Definitely No 1,00 100% 8% 0% Definitely No 1,00 12% 6% 1% 1% by someone else 3%

1,20 100% 80% 72%

Table 19: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according monthly income

18 72 12 7

0,90 0% 0% 0% 0%

1,20 0% 0% 0% 0%

0,90 11% 25% 58% 42% Car

1,20 11% 0% 0% 0%

0,90 77% 73% 33% 57%

1,20 22% 8% 8% 42% motorbike 4%

0,90 12% 2% 9% 1%

1,20 67% 92% 92% 58%

Table 20: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month

Way of approaching the stations Percentage How far did you walk Percentage Way of leaving the stations Percentage How far did you walk Percentage Why did you prefer traveling by Metro instead of your car Percentage

Line 1 4% >500m 4% motorbike 4% >500m 5%

6% 101-300m 7% Car 5% 101-300m 12% Parking problem

Tram 5%

by someone else 4%

35%

63%

Table 21: Results Metro survey

The origin-destination matrix, tables 22-23 giving us the busiest part of the network while tables 24-25 segregate the network on the two lines. From Tables 22 25 on the

19

Appendix A, it is shown that the busiest part of the network is the ones between Omonoia-Katehaki and Monastiraki-Syntagma. Generally, line 2 have more passengers compare to line 3(table 24). More specific, in line 2 the busiest part of the network is this between Omonoia-Neos Kosmos, while in line 3 is SyntagmaKatehaki. There isnt any Metro survey for origin-destination trips in order to have a comparisons, but we are strongly cautious about the origin-destination results, because we have a small size of 130 passengers, and therefore the time that survey took place was 16:00-20:00 and usually this time of the day, the most of people returns from work to home, so they return from centrals stations to regional stations.

4.3 Sub ground metro survey results (Line 1)

Tables 27-28 indicate the first part of the questionnaire results that includes the personal opinion of the passengers and the purpose of travel. According to them the advantage of Isap, is that is fast while the disadvantage is that there isnt air-condition in the vehicles and also the stations are not clean. The main purpose of travel is workhouse(43%) and also house-entertainment(20%)
Sex Percentage Age Percentage Car Users Percentage Type of ticket Percentage Advantages Percentage Disadvantages Percentage Men 55% 19-25 13% Yes 30% Single 67% Its fast 28% Air-Condition 30% Women 45% 26-30 43% No 70% Reduced 5% Comfortable trip 16% Its not clean 23%

31-65 43%

>65 1%

Day ticket 0% Reliability

Monthly card 28% Convenience

16% 14% Its not safe Its slow 12% 7% Table 27: Results line 1 survey

Free Pass 0% Quality services 13% Crowded 4%

I dont know 13% Toilets 3%

Small network 3%

I dont know 18%

Work House Shopping Socialised

Work 0% 13,6% 0% 0%

House 43,1% 0% 15,9% 0%

Entertainment/Shopping 2,2% 20% 2,1% 0%

Socialised 0% 2,2% 0% 0%

Table 28: Results Line 1 survey purpose of journey

Table 29 depicts the 4 scenarios, and here is very interesting to see that the most of the passengers are quite positive in the increase of 10 or 20 cents of the ticket price in order the time of travel to be reduced for 20%. For the second scenario the answer is

20

more interesting because the half of the passengers are quite positive and the other half is strongly positive.
Scenario Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 20% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Reduced time of travel 40% Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve reliability of timetable Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve reliability of timetable Ticket price 0,80 0,90 1,00 0,80 0,90 1,00 0,80 0,90 1,00 0,80 0,90 1,00 Definitely Yes 0% 0% 0% 50% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Probably Yes 98% 82% 5% 50% 70% 61% 40% 12% 4% 99% 20% 6% Probably No 2% 18% 77% 0% 3% 36% 60% 88% 46% 0% 80% 22% Definitely No 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 72%

Table 29: Results Line 1 survey Scenarios

In the further analysis we will see that there isnt any difference between the passengers with income 500-1000 Euro and income 1000-2000 Euro. The same is for the often users and the less often users.
Monthly income 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 No 0,80 0% 0% 0% Definitely Probabl Probably Yes y Yes No 0,90 1,00 0,80 0,90 1,00 0,80 0,90 0% 0% 100% 66% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 100% 88% 3% 0% 12% 0% 0% 100% 75% 0% 0% 25% Table 30: Results Tramway survey 1st scenario according monthly income Definitely Yes 0,90 0% 0% 0% 0% Probably Yes 0,90 Probably No 0,90 Definitely No 0,90 1% 0% 0%

1,00 66% 83% 75%

0,80 0% 0% 0%

1,00 34% 14% 25%

Trips/week or month

No 0,80

1,00

0,80

1,00

0,80

1,00

6-7 days 4-5 days 1-3 days 1-5/month

2 71 39 26

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% Table 31: Results

92% 92% 7% 7% 7% 85% 100% 78% 0% 0% 21% 78% 100% 83% 0% 0% 16% 83% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% Tramway survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month

0,80 0% 0% 0% 0%

Definitely No 0,90 1% 1% 1% 0%

1,00 8% 22% 17% 0%

4.4 Quality characteristics of public transportation modes

Through the answers of the passengers for the advantages and disadvantages of each transportation mode, we can see how did they thing the quality characteristics of them. Tram passengers considered as bigger advantage the comfortable trip and the quality of services that provide to them, but they are disappointed from the speed of tram and from the fact that the network has too many stops. Metro passengers are satisfied with the speed of Metro but they are not satisfied with the absent of air-condition on the stations and the size of the network. Finally sub ground metro users considered the speed satisfied, but they are dissatisfied with the cleanness af the stations and of the vehicles.

21

Another survey that took place on May 2005(Dimitriou et, all, 2005) based on quality characteristics, with different approach. This survey gives the opportunity to passengers to give a mark to the quality characteristics based on positive-negative opinion of the passengers. According to this survey, negative opinion for metro, the passenger had for the ticket price, and for the uncomfortable trip due to congestion in the vehicles. On the other hand positive opinion is having for the speed of the vehicle, for staff helpfulness and for the quality of vehicles. Sub ground metro passengers considered as positive the speed and the frequency of the timetable but they are strongly negative about the vehicles the staff helpfulness and the price of the ticket. Therefore, they are positive about the quality of the station after the refurbishment that happened 2 years ago. Tram passengers, are negative with the time of travel and from the staff helpfulness, but they considered as positive the low ticket price, the good situation vehicles and the comfortable trip that they have. The results of this survey follows in the next table.
Characteristics of transportation systems Positive Metro Negative Positive Tram Negative Subground Metro Positive Negative 20,2% 8,4% 10,6% 23,6% 13,3% 5,8% 18,2%

Ticket price 10,4% 33,7% 21,9% 2,6% 11,7% Time of travel 27,6% 4,4% 13,4% 40,4% 22,2% Frequency 13,7% 13,7% 7,8% 29,6% 25,5% Vehicle quality 10% 8,5% 23,4% 4,1% 5,5% Staff helpfulness 17,3% 16,4% 5,6% 13,9% 10,5% Station Quality 9,9% 10,0% 10,0% 5,6% 16,0% Comfortable trip 11% 13,3% 16,9% 3,7% 8,5% Table 31 : Positive/Negative opinion for the characteristics of public transportation systems[1]

References
1: Dimitriou D., Kepaptsoglou K., Giannoulis N., Karlavtis M. Evaluation of the quality transportation services for the urban railway network(Metro and Tram) in Athens, 2nd International conference of Railway development, Athens, 2005

5. Conclusions
The outcome of this research has been mainly the development of a methodology for estimating the passengers on the network and also to see the reactions of the passengers in a possible change of the ticket prices giving them operational parametrs solutions such as reduction of travel time or improve reliability. From the opinion of the passengers we can say that tram passengers believe that this public transportation mode is low speed and this is the biggest disadvantage. On the other hand they enjoy the quality of services, that are the good situation of the

22

vehicles, the clean vehicles and the good view that tram alignment provide to the passengers, especially in the coastal part of the lines. According to their opinion that tram is low speed they are quite positive to pay 10 or 20 cents more in order to be a reduction on the travel time for 20%-40%. Metro passengers, in a quite high percentage(84%) they believe that metro is faster compare to the others transportation modes, but they believe also that the network is small and the ticket is expensive. The last opinion of the passengers maybe give the explanation why metro passengers are quite negative in any increase of the ticket and provide them with reduction of the travel time for 20%, because in any case they believe that metro is fast enough. This percentage is changing when the reduction of time travel is 40% but only for 10 cents more. A further analysis on the Metro survey about approaching and leaving the stations shows that 73% of the passengers approach the stations on foot, 7% transferred from busses while 8% transferred from the interchange stations of Tram and sub ground metro. So, we can understand that 15% of the passengers made combined trips using 2 or more different transportation nodes. 10% approach the stations by car or motorbike. This is the reason of the high demand of parking spaces close to the stations. From the passengers that approach the stations on foot the 75% walk a distance about 301-500 m. On the way of leaving the station 65% are leaving the station on foot. 85% of these walk 301-500m. 17% leave the station by bus while 10% use cars and motorbikes. This is the same percentage as approaching the stations by private vehicles. The car ownership of people using Metro is 51%. On the question why they prefer traveling by Metro instead of their car, 63% prefer Metro because of the parking problem on the final destination(specially in the center of Athens), and 35% prefer Metro because of the traffic jam. Sub ground metro passengers, they considered as biggest problem the bad situation of the vehicles and also that there arent clean. On the other hand they are satisfied with the speed of the vehicle. However they are strong positive to pay 10 or 20 cents more in order to be a reduction on the travel time for 20%. Comparing the results of the three transportation nodes( metro, tram and sub ground metro) we can see that, according to the opinion of the passengers, metro is the fastest transportation node. Tram is the first on passenger satisfaction on the quality of service provide to them, also tram is first on the category of comfortable trip compare to metro and sub ground metro. Sub ground metro have better reliability on service compare to tram but no better than metro. The biggest disadvantage of metro is the absence of aircondition in the vehicles and in stations, the same disadvantage appears on the sub ground metro. Tram is the slowest transportation node compare to metro and sub ground metro. The small network is disadvantage for both Tram and Metro. The absence of parking and toilets are two main disadvantages for both tram and metro. According to the survey, sub ground passengers express their concernes about cleanness on vehicle and on platforms, while security levels is also a point of concern. Finally metro is considered as an expensive transportation node compare with tram and sub ground metro. 58% metro passengers use single ticket while 27% possess monthly

23

cards and 13% make use of reduced ticket( students, etc). Tram passengers using monthly cards reach 36% while single ticket is used by the 47% of the passengers and reduced ticket by the 14%. On the sub ground metro the percentage of the single ticket users reach 67% while monthly cards holders are 28%. We have to conclude that passengers are quite positive to pay 10 cents or 20 cents more to the price of the ticket in order to have faster trips. In the existing transportation network of Athens the ticket fare level must be rely on the travel time, the quality of services and the reliability of the public transportation modes. Therefore one important element that can be extracted from this survey is that the monthly income influence the desire of the passengers to accept further increases to the ticket prices. The passengers with monthly income 1000-2000 are more positive to changes to the ticket fare levels, instead of the passengers with lower monthly income that they are defensive to this perspective. Finally, the results of this research can be a useful tool on the decision making for the future, on the public transportation policy. What is important for the passengerscustomers of the public transportation modes are the total time of their trip, and this include not only metro or tram but all the transportation network together with buses and trolley electrical buses and that means better and more interchanges between the transportation modes. Therefore the reliability on the timetable is also very important together with the good appearance of the stations and of the vehicles. These are things that in the future must be studied again in order to see the level of development on these things. All these, are parameters that influence the operation of the public transportation modes and these things changes from period to period, from summer to winter and vice versa. The survey presented in this study can be applied in every transportation network( busses, national rail, etc) in order to produce the data needed for successful decision making. Also we can focus on different passenger categories like students or older people or passengers segregate by male-females, in order to see the influence from different travel behavior from different categories of passengers. OASA will make a similar survey in every transportation node in Athens, in larger scale of course and also they will make survey on streets and in houses. The methodology that will applicant is similar of what we did in this survey. The creation of database with all these problems and opinions and the level that can be influenced from any development in one of these parameters is a necessary tool for the future in decision making and also will help the administration (operator, government) to save money and time when they try to find out where they will make investments in the public transportation.

24

Appendix A: Tables

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

17 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

31 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0

7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 2 2

13 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1

10 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

24 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1

8 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

26

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

Table 11: Origin destination matrix, Tram survey-June 2006

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

17 5 15 10 5 5 5 5 10 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 10 15 0 0 5 0 0 5 10 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 15 5 5 0 10 10 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5

10 0 0 20 5 0 0 15 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 5

24 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 10 5 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 10 0 0 5 5 0

8 10 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5

27

Table 12: Origin destination matrix, percentage allocation Tram survey-June 2006

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

17 30 6 93 3 18 0 46 18 6 60 18 1 7 6 14 6 0

31 33 22 96 3 78 2 48 26 2 21 74 6 14 6 2 1 2

7 74 36 172 9 17 1 0 39 64 127 5 36 1 4 15 17 45

13 8 3 17 0 12 1 5 19 0 14 17 1 0 4 9 0 12

10 412 16 476 10 202 6 68 704 9 0 156 39 14 254 8 24 61

24 55 5 61 6 11 1 1 76 1 138 3 2 1 35 10 1 7

8 166 28 162 2 317 1 68 0 32 963 24 196 38 319 15 1 22

28

2 18 80 8 25 4 23 4 1 88 14 61 25 66 6 5 4 1 97 12 4 10 46 30 14 54 32 176 0 2 24 1 7 1 6 6 24 31 1 17 2 3 1 26 17 0 65 0 25 1 77 3 8 18 11 66 4 3 22 1 24 1 11 1 4 123 9 2 6 28 19 83 22 5 82 7 106 8 74 60 3 104 16 142 15 32 21 3 57 1 31 1 0 50 18 329 8 199 4 8 26 1 6 17 5 4 32 21 3 45 14 31 418 1302 1284 212 3452 571 3276 Table 13: Origin destination matrix for daily passenger.(Source Tram survey-March 2005)

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

17 7,2 1,4 22,2 0,7 4,3 0,0 11,0 4,3 1,4 14,4 4,3 0,2 1,7 1,4 3,3 1,4 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,4 2,4

31 2,5 1,7 7,4 0,2 6,0 0,2 3,7 20,0 0,2 16,7 5,7 0,5 1,1 0,5 0,2 0,1 0,2 1,4 0,1 0,4 3,5

7 5,8 2,8 13,4 0,7 1,3 0,1 0,0 3,0 5,0 9,9 0,4 2,8 0,1 0,3 1,2 1,3 3,5 6,2 6,9 0,3 2,3

13 3,8 1,4 8,0 0,0 5,7 0,5 2,4 9,0 0,0 6,6 8,0 0,5 0,0 1,9 4,2 0,0 5,7 3,8 6,6 0,5 6,6

10 11,9 0,5 13,8 0,3 5,9 0,2 2,0 20,4 0,3 0,0 4,5 1,1 0,4 7,4 0,2 0,7 1,8 0,7 1,8 2,8 1,6

24 9,6 0,9 10,7 1,1 1,9 0,2 0,2 13,3 0,2 24,2 0,5 0,4 0,2 6,1 1,8 0,2 1,2 0,7 4,4 2,1 5,6

8 5,1 0,9 4,9 0,1 9,7 0,0 2,1 0,0 1,0 29,4 0,7 6,0 1,2 9,7 0,5 0,0 0,7 0,7 2,0 0,1 5,4

29

0,0 0,2 1,9 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,2 1,4 1,8 2,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,1 0,2 2,0 1,3 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,8 0,2 5,9 0,2 3,8 0,5 1,9 2,0 1,0 0,2 1,7 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 9,6 4,2 0,1 1,1 0,9 4,5 6,4 1,7 2,4 2,4 1,2 3,2 1,9 5,7 4,7 1,4 3,0 2,8 4,3 3,6 2,5 1,6 1,4 1,7 0,2 0,9 0,2 0,0 3,9 8,5 9,5 1,4 6,1 1,0 0,6 2,0 0,5 0,2 3,0 0,2 1,0 2,5 1,6 1,4 1,3 2,5 0,9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 14: Origin destination matrix, percentage allocation .(Source Tram survey-March 2005)

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Achilleos Faliro Syntagma Pikrodafni Ag.Paraskevi Elliniko SEF Neos Kosmos Zefyros Ag.Foteini Baknana Amfitheas Kalamaki Mideias Kallithea Moshato Agg.Metaxa Floisvos Pl.Katraki Kasomouli

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Aigaiou Tzitzifies Batis L.Vouliagmenis M.Alexandrou Trokantero Pl.esperidon Panagitsa Mousson Fix Ev.Sxoli Ag.Skepi Zappeio

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Table 15: Code number of trams stops

30

1 19 14 22 10 5 3 2 1 0 0 1 1

2 2 2 1 1 0 1

3 1 0 4 2 3 0

4 1 0 0 0 1 2

5 1 1 0 2 0 1

6 0 1 0 1 0 1

7 0 1 0 1 1 0

8 0 0 0 1 0 0

9 0 1 1 0 0 1

10 0 1 1 0 1 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 1

12 0 0 1 2 1 1

13 0 0 0 1 1 1

14 5 0 3 0 0 0

15 1 1 0 0 0 1

16 1 1 0 1 0 1

17 1 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 2 0 0 1 1

19 0 2 7 5 3 2

20 0 2 0 1 2 1

21 0 1 0 0 1 1

Table 22: Origin- destination trips Metro July 2006 1 19 14 22 10 5 3 0,3 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 1,0 2 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 3 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,0 4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,5 5 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,2 6 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 7 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 9 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 10 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 11 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 12 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,2 0,2 13 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,3 14 0,6 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 15 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 16 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 17 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 18 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,3 19 0,0 0,1 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 20 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 21 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1

Table 23: Origin-destination matrix, percentage allocation, Metro July 2006 1 19 3,8 2 3,8 3 1,9 4 1,9 5 1,9 6 0,0 7 0,0 8 0,0 9 0,0 10 0,0 11 0,0 12 0,0 13 0,0

31

14 22 10 5 3

1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9 1,9

3,8 1,9 1,9 0,0 1,9

0,0 7,5 3,8 5,7 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 1,9 3,8

1,9 0,0 3,8 0,0 0,0

1,9 0,0 1,9 0,0 1,9

1,9 0,0 1,9 1,9 0,0

0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0

1,9 1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9

1,9 1,9 0,0 1,9 0,0

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,9

0,0 1,9 3,8 1,9 1,9

0,0 0,0 1,9 1,9 1,9

Table 24: Origin- destination trips, percentage allocation Metro line 2

14 19 14 22 10 5 3 9,8 0,0 5,9 0,0 0,0 0,0

15 2,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0

16 2,0 2,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 2,0

17 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

18 0,0 3,9 0,0 0,0 2,0 2,0

19 0,0 3,9 13,7 9,8 5,9 3,9

20 0,0 3,9 0,0 2,0 3,9 0,0

21 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 2,0

Table 25: Origin- destination trips, percentage allocation Metro line 3

Ag.Dimitrios Dafni Omonoia Ag.Antonios N.Kosmos Ag.Ioannis Sepolia Akropoli Fix Attiki St.Larissis Panepistimio Metaxourgeio Monastiraki D.Plakentias Meg.Mousikis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Halandri Ethn.Amyna Syntagma Evagelismos Ampelokipoi Katehaki

17 18 19 20 21 22

16 Table 26: Code number of metro stations

32

Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire

33

34

No: Sex:

Age:

F: Female M : Male 1. <18 y.o 2. 19 25 y.o 3. 26 30 y.o 4. 31 65 y.o 5. > 65 y.o

Station: Surveyor: Position: Time: Day:

1. METRO station of origin is: ____________________________

METRO station destination is: ____________________________

2. Which is the area that you approaching the station;

Area: ___________________________________________________________________________

3. From where do you come from to the METRO station;

House Work Unexpected work Entertainment School/University Doctor/ Hospital Visiting/ Social obligations Other (.)

4. How did you come to the METRO station;

On foot By car By bus By trolley By ISAP By Tram By suburban railway By motorbike By someone else By ... (report exactly) 4.a. If you walk in order to approach the station, how many meters do you walk; 100 meters or less 101 - 300 meters 301 - 500 meters 500 meters or more 4.b. If you come by car, where did you park and how long is the distance?; Distance: ________ m Parking private Parking METRO On the road parking Other (.)

4.c. If you come by bus or by trolley which number did you get; Bus: _____________________________ Trolley: ________________________________

4.d. If you come by Isap-tram-suburban where did you get the train and where did you change:
Isap Tram Suburban Starting station Interchange

35

5. What is the purpose of your travel?;

House Work Unexpected work Entertainment School/University Doctor/ Hospital Visiting/ Social obligations Other (.)

6. Which is the area that you approaching the station;

Area: ___________________________________________________________________________

7. How willl you go from METRO station to your final destination?;

On foot By car By bus By trolley By ISAP By Tram By suburban railway By motorbike By someone else By ... (report exactly) 7.a. . If you walk in order to leave the station, how many meters will you walk; 100 meters or less 101 - 300 meters 301 - 500 meters 500 meters or more 7.b. If you leave by car, where did you park and how long is the distance?; Distance: ________ m Parking private Parking METRO On the road parking Other (.)

7.c. If you leave by bus or by trolley which number did you get; Bus: _____________________________ Trolley: ________________________________

7.d. If you come by Isap-tram-suburban where did you get the train and where did you change:
Isap Tram Suburban Starting station Interchange

36

8. How many days do you travel with METRO per week;

6 7 days 4 5 days 1 3 days 1 5 days per month First day today Other (.)

9. Do you have the opportunity to drive a car ; Yes (1)

No (2)

9.. How much time do you estimate that you make driving your car in order to go to your destination; By car By Metro 20 min 20-30 min 30 45 min 45- 60 min (....) 20 min 20-30 min 30 45 min 45- 60 min (....)

10. What is the most important reason that you use METRO despite that you have car;
METRO is cheaper compare with car METRO is faster No parking facilities I dont drive/ I dont have car Other (....)

11. What is the biggest advantage of METRO compare with other transportation systems:
METRO is faster METRO is comfortable Reliability of the time table Service quality Other (.)

12. What is the biggest problem that you face in METRO when you traveling with it;
Network deficiency Difficult accessibility to the station Operation time Securiry Toilets Cleanliness Air condition Other (.)

13. What type of the ticket do you use;

Single (0.80)

37

14. What is your monthly income approximately;

Network ticket (1.00) Reduced (0.45) Reduced network ticket (0.50) Monthly card Annual card Day ticket Free pass 0 - 500 ro 500 - 1000 ro 1000 - 2000 ro 2000

15. The increase of the fares for 10 cents did it make you to change the frequency of traveling with public transportation? Reduced same Increase

16. If the speed and the quality of services improve and the fares increase will your frequency of traveling increase;
Time Quality Fares Definitely Yes (3) Scenario 2nd Scenario 1st 0,90 20% //// 1 1,20 0,90 40% //// 1 1,20 Improve Scenario 3rd reliability of //// time table and quality of services Improve 20% reliability of time table and quality of services 0,90 1 0,90 0,90 1 1,20 Probably Yes (2) Answer Probably no (1) Definitely no I dont know (4)

Scenario 4rth

38