sustainability

Article
Passengers’ Perception of Satisfaction and Its Relationship with
Travel Experience Attributes: Results from an Australian Survey
Jie Yang 1 , Nirajan Shiwakoti 1, * and Richard Tay 2

1 School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Australia

2 School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Rail, one of the most sustainable modes of transport, is vital in carrying mass passengers
in many urban cities. Passengers’ satisfaction with railway services is mostly discussed in the
context of service quality in the literature. However, limited studies have considered other attributes
that may influence passengers’ satisfaction, such as their travel experience and issues encountered.
This study aims to systematically model passengers’ satisfaction and its relationship with travel
experience attributes. This paper makes a theoretical contribution by proposing a conceptual model
that evaluates the overall satisfaction of passengers through four attribute groups, including traveller
attributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes. The model is tested with the
429 valid responses collected from a passenger survey targeting Metro train users in Melbourne,
Australia. Result shows that the best-fitted model is produced only when all attribute groups are
considered together, for which 60% of the variation in overall satisfaction is accountable. It is found
that all attribute groups have at least one variable included in the final model, and the service attribute
group has the greatest influence. The best model has nine significant variables, with eight having
positive associations to the overall satisfaction and one variable (GroupTravel) having a negative
association. This finding suggests that consideration of other attributes is also important besides the
service attributes, and hence advances our scientific understanding of train passengers’ satisfaction
with train services. The public transport sector and the operators can use this knowledge to improve
service and increase passenger satisfaction.

Citation: Yang, J.; Shiwakoti, N.; Tay,

Keywords: sustainable transport; customer satisfaction; passenger survey; public transport; ser-
R. Passengers’ Perception of
vice quality
Satisfaction and Its Relationship with
Travel Experience Attributes: Results
from an Australian Survey.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15086645 1. Introduction
In many modern cities, a great deal of effort has been made to develop and improve
Academic Editor: Marilisa Botte
the public transport services so that it can better cope with the increasing travel demand
Received: 31 January 2023 and enhance livability. In Australia, the fast-growing population in major cities has brought
Revised: 4 April 2023 many new challenges to public transport operations. Melbourne city offers the public
Accepted: 13 April 2023 various modes of public transport such as Metro trains, trams, and buses. The metropolitan
Published: 14 April 2023 rail network offers an environment-friendly way to move people with excellent effectiveness
and efficiency. According to the patronage data, Melbourne Metro has a significantly higher
customer base compared to other forms of public transportation, such as trams and buses [1].
As the service operator, Metro Trains Melbourne (Metro for short) is responsible for rail
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
network operations in Melbourne. The network covers 998 kilometres of track, 15 lines,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and 222 stations, with over 220 trains servicing 450,000 commuters daily [2]. Providing a
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
good service level and maintaining a high passenger satisfaction rate is the key to attracting
conditions of the Creative Commons
new train users while retaining the existing ones. Public Transport Victoria (PTV for short)
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
is committed to delivering quality customer service and helping to improve the travel
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ experience [3].
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086645 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 2 of 18

Customer feedback and satisfaction are taken seriously in any organisation that pro-
vides product or service to the public. In the context of public transport, satisfaction is a
common measure to evaluate the degree to which a passenger is satisfied with the transport
services. It has become increasingly important to understand and measure passenger satis-
faction. By understanding what factors contribute to passenger satisfaction, train service
providers can focus on improving their services, keeping existing users, and attracting
new users.
Researchers have made a great deal of effort to identify the factors influencing passen-
ger satisfaction. Some literature has explored how service quality affects satisfaction [4–13],
while other studies have also examined the impact of demographic variables such as gen-
der and age group [6,7,14]. However, there may be additional factors that contribute to
passenger satisfaction yet to be identified. One such factor is the nature of the trips, which
can affect the travel experience and, in turn, influence satisfaction. This includes factors
such as travel time, waiting time, travel in group, and carrying items onboard. Additionally,
travellers may encounter different issues while travelling by train and may have different
expectations, which can also affect the level of satisfaction. Therefore, there is a need to
include an “other attributes” group to capture this additional information.
In short, existing literature has mainly explored the relationship between passengers’
satisfaction with service attributes. Few studies have considered specific trip attributes that
may influence passengers’ satisfaction, such as their trip characteristics, common issues
encountered, and main expectations. To the best of our knowledge, no previous research
has systematically developed and tested a conceptual model for passenger satisfaction by
considering traveller attributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes (e.g.,
passengers’ issues and expectations). This study explores this important knowledge gap
by systematically modelling train passengers’ satisfaction and its relationship with travel
experience attributes. Specifically, this study develops and tests a conceptual model that
evaluates the overall satisfaction of passengers through four attribute groups, including
traveller attributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes (e.g., issues and
passengers’ expectations).

2. Literature Review
The level of services that the train operator aims to provide to the public could directly
or indirectly influence every train user’s satisfaction. According to Beirão and Cabral [15],
to increase the use of public transport, service should be designed and performed to suit
the level of service required by the customers.

2.1. Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality

This section discusses various literature related to customer satisfaction and service
quality in the context of public transportation. According to Peterson and Wilson [16],
customer satisfaction is one of the most widely studied concepts in marketing. In the field
of public transportation, customer satisfaction is defined as “the overall level of attainment”
of a passengers’ expectations [6]. Service quality can be measured with different indicators
and described in different aspects. Friman and Fellesson studied the relationship between
overall satisfaction and three service performance measures, including frequency, seat,
and travel time [17]. More factors has been examined in recent studies. Service quality is
measured by 19 variables, including information provision, network coverage, ticketing,
service frequency, dealing with complaints, facility and vehicle cleanliness, vehicle safety,
safety at terminal and stop, onboard information, and more [18].
Improvements in service quality can make public transport services more attractive,
thus leading to increased patronage. Many studies support that there is a strong link
between service quality and customer satisfaction [9,18]. It is worth pointing out that
the actual service attributes may not always be reflected objectively in the mind of the
customers. We need to understand how the service aspects are seen from the perspective
of the train passengers. To measure the perceptions of service quality, a SERVQUAL
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 3 of 18

model was developed by Parasuraman using a multiple-item scale for measuring [19]. This
SERVQUAL model soon became widely accepted and adopted in research in many fields,
including public transport. For instance, the SERVQUAL model was adapted to the public
transport field to assess the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction
with bus services in Canada [10].

2.2. Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Measures

In general, customers rate their satisfaction on qualitative scales. The largest published
rail passenger satisfaction survey is the National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), which is
conducted twice a year in the UK [11]. It uses six levels, including very pleased, pleased,
mediocre, unpleased, very unpleased, and unknown, to evaluate customer satisfaction.
The survey questionnaire examines passengers’ opinions about different aspects of rail
trips, such as safety, punctuality/reliability, level of crowding, value for money, etc.
While investigating public transport satisfaction in Australia, it is found that the satis-
faction measurements are not consistently used by the major metropolitan rail operators
across the nation. In Western Australia, the overall satisfaction with the train service is
measured through a five-point scale [20]. Another indicator used to measure customer
experience is the Net Promoter Score (NPS). This method involves a single question asking
the survey participants to rate the likelihood of recommending a service or product on
a scale of ten. Participants who rate 0–6, 7 & 8, and 9 & 10 are classified as detractors,
passives, and promoters, respectively. The NPS index is derived by subtracting the percent-
age of detractors from the percentage of promoters [21]. In New South Wales, the overall
satisfaction with the train service is measured through a seven-point scale [22]. In Victoria,
the overall satisfaction with metropolitan train services is measured by the customer sat-
isfaction index, which is the percentage of satisfied customers. Prior to 2009, satisfaction
was rated on a six-point scale. Since April 2009, satisfaction has been rated on a scale of ten.
Key service aspects/indicators include staff service, information, service delivery, value for
money, authorised officers, stations/stops, comfort, safety, Myki ticketing, and likelihood
to recommend [23].

2.3. Customer Satisfaction Models

One of the common methods to model customer satisfaction is through regression. As
seen in many literatures, multinomial regression is widely used to examine the relationship
between service attributes and customer satisfaction [24–28]. In recent years, a case study
about bus service satisfaction in Madrid also used multiple regression to reveal the impor-
tance of service attributes [8]. In another study conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia, public
transport passengers’ satisfaction was modelled by the multiple regression method. Out of
the four factors tested, it was found that image, perceived value, and perceived usefulness
are significant, but perceived ease of use is not significant to the satisfaction [29].
Another commonly used method to model customer satisfaction is ordinal logistic
regression. This method has been applied in many industries [30–32] as well as in the field of
public transport [5,8,33,34]. Multinomial logit modelling is another common method [4,35].
Factor analysis, path-based model, and structural equation model (SEM) were also used to
identify factors and analyse the causal relationship between satisfaction and factors [36–39].
In recent years, new approaches have been introduced to study passenger satisfaction.
Based on a case study conducted in Queensland, Australia, rail users’ satisfaction was
modelled using Bayesian Network [40]. Although the application of this method in assess-
ing passenger satisfaction is novel, the model structure seems rather complex. Another
study investigated the public transport services in the Swedish city of Karlstad. This study
applied the fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method. The authors
claimed that travel satisfaction is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon where
satisfaction with multiple service quality attributes interplay and jointly contribute to high
overall travel satisfaction [41].
 Another study investigated the public transport services in the Swedish city of Karlstad.
This study applied the fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method. The
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 authors claimed that travel satisfaction is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon 4 of 18
where satisfaction with multiple service quality attributes interplay and jointly contribute
to high overall travel satisfaction [41].
In summary,there
In summary, thereare
aremany
manymodelling
modellingapproaches
approachesthat
that can
can bebe used
used toto study
study passen-
passenger
ger satisfaction. Some might be relatively new and advanced but are often limited
satisfaction. Some might be relatively new and advanced but are often limited to a specific to a
specific
case or data set. Among all the methods we examined, linear regression seems to betoa
case or data set. Among all the methods we examined, linear regression seems
be a simple
simple yet powerful
yet powerful way way of modelling
of modelling customer
customer satisfaction.
satisfaction.

3. Methodology
One of the main objectives of this research is to reveal the relationship between train
passengers’ overall satisfaction and the attributes of interest.
interest. A clear understanding of
passengers’ travel behavior, needs, and expectations helps
helps address
address the
the research
research objectives.
objectives.
The research framework and hypotheses
hypotheses are proposed at the beginning
beginning ofof this
this section,
section,
followed by a detailed discussion of data collection and analysis
analysis methods.
methods.

3.1. Research
3.1. Research Framework
Framework andand Hypotheses
Hypotheses
The literature
The literature shows
shows that
that there
there are
are various
various ways
ways ofof grouping
grouping variables
variables and
and attributes
attributes
when studying customer satisfaction. To streamline the process, the overall
when studying customer satisfaction. To streamline the process, the overall conceptual conceptual
framework of
framework of this
this study
studyisispresented
presentedininFigure
Figure1.1.Four
Four attributes,
attributes, including
including traveller
traveller at-
tributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes, are proposed in theincon-
attributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes, are proposed the
conceptual
ceptual framework.
framework.

Figure 1. Research conceptual framework.

Figure 1. Research conceptual framework.

Traveller attributes, such as age and gender, are used in this study to capture the
travellers’ tastes and preferences, which are expected to have a significant influence on
satisfaction. In the literature, traveller attributes are either used as segmentation or listed
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 5 of 18

as main attributes influencing satisfaction [8,42–44]. As such, three items, namely, gender,
age group, and regular or non-regular traveller, are included under “traveller attributes”.
Likewise, trip attributes, such as travel time and waiting time, are expected to have a
significant negative influence on travellers’ satisfaction. Therefore, five items under “trip
attributes” are hypothesised to have an influence on passengers’ satisfaction, as shown in
Figure 1.
Service attributes, such as train frequency and punctuality, are expected to have a
significant positive influence on satisfaction. As seen in the literature, service attributes are
included in many satisfaction models [6,7,11,13,14]. As such, six attributes that are common
in the literature are proposed under “service attributes”. Finally, it is hypothesised that
other attributes, such as delays and expectations about train services, may also influence
passengers’ satisfaction; hence, four items under “other attributes” are considered in the
conceptual framework.
The fundamental assumption is that there is a linear relationship between overall
satisfaction and all the attributes. Each of the attribute groups contributes to satisfaction to
a certain extent. Under these four attribute groups, a total of 19 variables are tested. Among
all the 19 listed variables, some may make a positive contribution and some may make a
negative contribution. The contribution can be large, medium, or small. If negligible, it will
not be included in the final model.

3.2. Survey and Data Collection

One of the most common methods of understanding customer satisfaction is through
questionnaire surveys. An online survey was used to collect the relative information to
address the research objectives. This survey was approved by RMIT University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee in early 2021 (Reference: 2021-23822-13326). The following
sections of the survey are relevant to this paper:
• A section about passengers’ characteristics and their travel patterns.
• A section with hypothetical statements to capture issues and expectations about
train travel.
• A section about overall satisfaction and service ratings.
The market research firm, Qualtrics, was engaged to conduct the survey online. The
service provider invited its users aged 18+ and based in Melbourne to fill out the survey.
A filter question was used to ensure that only those who have used the Melbourne Metro
train services in the recent two years can proceed with the survey. Our recruitment strategy
aimed to have similar gender representation to Census data, which was validated after data
collection. A soft launch in February 2021 tested the survey. With minor updates, the full-
scale survey was then conducted in March 2021. At the end, a total of 431 responses were
received. After removing two outlier cases where gender is unspecified, 429 valid samples
are kept for analysis. This sample size is more than enough based on the following guidance.
The Krejcie and Morgan table [45] is well acceptable for sample size determination. As
general guidance, a sample size of 384 is recommended for a population of 1 million and
above, allowing a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

3.3. Questions and Measurements

Multiple-choice questions were used in the section to reveal the passenger and trip
characteristics. Survey participants needed to select the gender, age group, and frequency
of travel that best describes them. In the data analysis, male was selected as the gender
reference group. The answer to the age group question was transformed into two binary
variables, YoungAdult and SeniorAdult. YoungAdult = 1 if the age group was reported
as “18–29”; otherwise, 0. SeniorAdult = 1 if the age group was reported as “60 and over”;
otherwise, 0. The frequency of travel question was later used to classify the user into
regular traveller vs. non-regular traveller. If the travel frequency was reported as “1–4 days
per week” or “5 days per week or more”, then RegTraveller = 1; otherwise, 0. In other
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 6 of 18

words, people who travel less frequently than once per week are defined as non-regular
train users.
Information on five trip characteristics was collected. The survey participants needed
to select the options that best describe a typical one-way trip. To understand the influence
of long journey time and waiting time on service satisfaction, two binary variables were
created accordingly. LongTravelTime = 1 if the average travel time was reported as longer
than 45 min; otherwise, 0. LongWaitingTime = 1 if the average waiting time was reported
as longer than 15 min; otherwise, 0. Other than trip time questions, participants were also
asked “How often do you travel with friends/family”; “How often do you carry backpacks
or bags of similar size onboard”; “How often do you carry large items such as bicycle,
luggage, pram, shopping trolley, etc. onboard”. The responses to these three items were
recorded using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = “never” to 5 = “always”. To understand
the influence of travel in a group and travel with items on service satisfaction, three binary
variables were created. GroupTravel = 0 if the frequency of travel in group was reported as
never or rarely; otherwise, 1. TravelSmallItem = 0 if the frequency of travel with small item
was reported as never or rarely; otherwise, 1. TravelLargeItem = 0 if the frequency of travel
with a large item was reported as never or rarely; otherwise, 1.
Overall satisfaction of the train service and service ratings of different aspects were
also captured in this study. For the overall satisfaction, participants were asked “Overall,
in a scale from 0–10, how satisfied are you with the Melbourne Metro Train services”.
For the service ratings, participants were asked to rate the train services for six different
aspects, including “crowd level in the carriage”, “personal safety”, “real-time information”,
“punctuality”, “service frequency”, and “management and response to disruption”. The
rating scores were recorded using a 5-point scale (1–5), where a larger value indicates a
higher rating.
Issues and expectations about train travel were captured in this study using several
questions. Statements of similar nature were grouped together to address different issues
or expectations. Issues with delays were reflected by two statements: one captured the
issue with delay due to crowded platform; the other one captured the issue with delay due
to crowded carriage. Issues with peak-hour travel were reflected by two statements: issue
with peak-hour seat availability and issue with passenger load over-capacity. Participants’
responses were recorded using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to
5 = “strongly agree”. The average score of the items that were related to each of the two is-
sues were computed to represent each issue, with a higher score indicating that participants
experienced greater issues.
Similarly, hypothetical statements about expectations were evaluated using a 5-point
scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”. Expectation about real-time
information was reflected by two statements: “use real-time car occupancy data to facilitate
boarding”, and “make real-time crowding information available to improve comfort”.
Expectation about carriage re-configuration was reflected by three statements: “having
wider aisle to encourage passengers to move further into the carriage”, “clearing up more
space near the train door to help the passengers move quickly in/out”, and “removing
some seats to improve space and capacity in the carriage”. Again, the average scores were
computed to represent each expectation, with a higher score indicating that participants
had a greater expectation.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data collected from the survey were processed in IBM SPSS Statistics 27. A
reliability check was performed on the Likert Scale questions. Cronbach’s Alpha value,
0.70, is widely considered as acceptable [46]. Our result shows the Cronbach’s Alpha value
is 0.861, which indicates a high level of internal consistency for the service rating scale in
our study. The standard deviation values of the aggregated variables are also calculated
and presented in the result section.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 7 of 18

A number of statistical techniques were used to understand and analyse the data. To
address objective 1, descriptive statistics were used to examine the demographic profile of
customers. To address objective 2, descriptive statistics were used to explain the overall
satisfaction score and service ratings. To address objective 3, descriptive statistics were
used to reveal the level of issue and expectations about train travel. To address objective
4, regression analysis was performed to explore the impact of these attributes on overall
customer satisfaction and to test the proposed research hypothesis.
Considering that the dependent variable, customer overall satisfaction, is rated be-
tween 1 to 10 in this study, it can reasonably be treated as a continuous measure; thus,
multiple regression method is chosen. As mentioned earlier in Section 3.1, independent
variables were studied and grouped as traveller-related attributes, trip-related attributes,
service-related attributes, and other attributes. Some of the individual variables were in
binary form, whereas some were in scale. The key assumptions of linear regression are
checked and discussed in the result section below.

4. Results and Discussion

The results are presented and discussed in four parts. Firstly, the demographic profile
of respondents and the characteristics of their train travel are presented. Secondly, overall
satisfaction results and six aspects of service ratings are presented. Thirdly, the issues
and expectations about train travel are examined. Fourthly, the relationship between
overall customer satisfaction about Melbourne Metro train services and the attributes is
analysed. Lastly, we provide some discussion about the key findings from this study and
the comparison of our findings with prior research on passenger satisfaction.

4.1. Personal Characteristics and Travel Characteristics

To effectively test the proposed conceptual framework, it is important to have a
comprehensive understanding of both the personal characteristics of travellers and their
trip characteristics. Detailed descriptive statistics about the respondents’ profile and their
trips are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics about travellers and trips.

Items Category Frequency (%)

Male 176 41.0
Gender
Female 253 59.0
18–29 108 25.2
30–44 191 44.5
Age Group
45–59 74 17.2
60 and over 56 13.1
Occasionally 112 26.1
less than once a week 65 15.2
Travel Frequency
1–4 days per week 139 32.4
5 days per week or
113 26.3
more
less than 15 min 18 4.2
15–30 min 162 37.8
Travel Time
30–45 min 172 40.1
more than 45 min 77 17.9
less than 5 min 48 11.2
5–10 min 261 60.8
Waiting Time
10–15 min 101 23.5
more than 15 min 19 4.4
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 8 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Items Category Frequency (%)

Never 36 8.4
Rarely 95 22.1
Travel in Group Sometimes 167 38.9
Often 102 23.8
Always 29 6.8
Never 41 9.6
Rarely 68 15.9
Carry Small Item Sometimes 139 32.4
Often 111 25.9
Always 70 16.3
Never 172 40.1
Rarely 135 31.5
Carry Large Item Sometimes 66 15.4
Often 43 10.0
Always 13 3.0

Our survey sample’s gender and age group distribution were compared to the 2021
Census data [47]. It was found that there is no statistically significant difference in gender
distribution between the two data sources (χ2 = 1.29, df = 1, p = 0.26). Moreover, there is no
statistically significant difference in age group distribution between the two data sources
(χ2 = 3.8, df = 3, p = 0.28).
In terms of travel frequency, it is found that 58.7% of the respondents are regular train
users who use the train more than one day per week. Trip characteristics are reflected by
questions such as average onboard journey time, average platform waiting time, frequency
of travel in a group such as friends or family, frequency of travel with small items carried
onboard such as backpacks, and frequency of travel with large items carried onboard such
as bicycles. The result shows that a typical one-way trip is commonly reported between 15
and 45 min (total 77.9%). The average waiting time on the platform is commonly reported
as 5–15 min (84.3%).
The frequency of travelling with friends/family or with small/large items is also
examined. The results show that it is common for the passengers to travel in groups (69.5%
reported sometimes and more often). Travelling with small items is even more commonly
reported (74.6% reported sometimes and more often), while travelling with large items is
not as common (28.4% reported sometimes and more often).

4.2. Service Ratings and Overall Satisfaction

As shown in Figure 2a, the overall satisfaction scores are distributed in a bell-shaped
curve centered around 7 and 8. The average satisfaction score is 7.04, with 1.87 standard
deviation. The median satisfaction score is 7 and the mode is 8. The result shows that 82.5%
of the respondents scored 6 and above, indicating that Melbourne train users are fairly
satisfied with the overall service. The overall satisfaction score may seem quite encouraging,
but when the score is translated into Net Promoter Score (NPS), it reveals more insights.
According to the concept of NPS [21], people who score 0 to 6 are the unhappy customers
that belong to the “Detractor” group; people who score 7 or 8 are in the “Passive” group;
people who score 9 or 10 are in the “Promoter” group. The difference of the percentage
value between the “Promoter” and the “Detractor” is the NPS. The higher the positive
NPS, the better the service is perceived by the users. As seen in Figure 2b, our results
show that there are 20.0% promoters, 47.1% passives, and 32.9% detractors. Therefore, we
work out a negative 13 NPS for Melbourne Metro services, which indicates some room
for improvement.
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 15,15,
2023, x FOR
6645 PEER REVIEW 9 18
9 of of 18

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.(a)
(a)Overall
Overallsatisfaction
satisfaction distribution; (b)NPS
distribution; (b) NPSgroups.
groups.

Servicequality
Service qualityisis important
important to public
public transport
transportorganisations
organisationsasasit it is is
closely linked
closely linked
with passenger satisfaction.
with passenger satisfaction. Ratings Ratings on different service aspects were then
different service aspects were then examined examined to to
betterunderstand
better understandthe thecustomers’
customers’needsneedsandandtoto developtargeted
develop targetedstrategies
strategiestoto improveser-
improve
service.
vice. Detailed
Detailed descriptive
descriptive statistics
statistics about
about thethe service
service attribute
attribute ratings
ratings areare presentedininTa-
presented
Table
ble 2. As
2. As cancanbe be seen,
seen, thetherating
ratingscore
scorefor
for most
most ofof the
the aspects
aspectsisisoverover3, 3,
which
which implies
implies
general satisfaction. The highest average rating of 3.57 goes to “Service frequency”. The
general satisfaction. The highest average rating of 3.57 goes to “Service frequency”. The
second highest rating of 3.46 goes to “Personal safety”. This is followed by “Punctuality” at
second highest rating of 3.46 goes to “Personal safety”. This is followed by “Punctuality”
3.44, “Real-time information” at 3.43, and “Management & response to disruption” at 3.39.
at 3.44, “Real-time information” at 3.43, and “Management & response to disruption” at
“Crowd level in the carriage” is the only aspect that is rated below 3 and has the lowest
3.39. “Crowd
average ratinglevel in the
of 2.98, whichcarriage” is the onlydifferent
is not statistically aspect that
to 3; tis(428)
rated=−below
0.454,3p and has the
= 0.65.
lowest average rating of 2.98, which is not statistically different to 3; t (428) = −0.454, p =
0.65.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics about six service aspects.

Service about
Table 2. Descriptive statistics Attributes
six service aspects. Mean SD
Service aspect 1—Crowd level in carriage 2.98 1.06
Service
Service aspect Attributes
2—Personal safety Mean
3.46 1.07 SD
Service
Serviceaspect
aspect3—Real-time
1—Crowdinformation
level in carriage 3.43
2.98 1.04 1.06
Service aspect 4—Punctuality 3.44 0.96
Service aspect 2—Personal safety 3.46 1.07
Service aspect 5—Service frequency 3.57 0.98
Service aspect
Service aspect 6—Management 3—Real-time information
and response to disruption 3.43
3.39 1.07 1.04
Service aspect 4—Punctuality 3.44 0.96
Service aspect 5—Service
4.3. Other Issues and Expectations frequency 3.57 0.98
Service aspect
Apart from6—Management andtrip
traveller attributes, response to disruption
attributes, 3.39 four other
and service attributes, 1.07at-
tributes were also studied to uncover the issues and expectations reported by the respon-
4.3. Other
dents, Issues
and andthus
these Expectations
provide critical knowledge about customers’ satisfaction from a
different
Apartangle. The individual
from traveller itemstrip
attributes, listed under different
attributes, variables
and service are collapsed
attributes, intoat-
four other
integrated measures by taking the average scores. The details are presented
tributes were also studied to uncover the issues and expectations reported by the respond- in Table 3.
From the result, we can tell that the issue with peak-hour travel has a higher mean
ents, and these thus provide critical knowledge about customers’ satisfaction from a dif-
score than the issue with delays, indicating that there are more issues experienced during
ferent angle. The individual items listed under different variables are collapsed into inte-
the peak hour (either having difficulty of finding a seat or suffering from over-capacity)
grated measures by taking the average scores. The details are presented in Table 3.
compared to general delays. Apart from the issues reported, we can also learn from the
From the result,
expectations. we can
According tell that the
to Churchill and issue with peak-hour
Surprenant, travelreflect
expectations has aanticipated
higher mean
score than the issue with delays, indicating that there are more issues experienced
performance [48]. The result shows that passengers’ expectation of real-time information during
is
the peak hour (either having difficulty of finding a seat or suffering from
higher compared to carriage re-configuration. Among the proposed solutions for carriage over-capacity)
compared to general
reconfiguration, delays.
clearing moreApart
space from
nearthetheissues
train reported,
door is morewe popular
can also compared
learn fromtothe
expectations.
removing some According to Churchill
seats in the carriage. Itand Surprenantto
is important , expectations reflect anticipated
understand passengers’ needs and per-
formance [48].soThe
expectations thatresult shows
design that can
solutions passengers’ expectation
be developed of real-time
or considered that areinformation
tailored to is
their needs.
higher compared to carriage re-configuration. Among the proposed solutions for carriage
reconfiguration, clearing more space near the train door is more popular compared to re-
moving some seats in the carriage. It is important to understand passengers’ needs and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 10 of 18

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics about other attributes.

Variables Mean SD Items Mean SD

Delay due to the crowded platform 2.61 0.97
O1—IssueDelays 2.57 0.91
Delay due to the crowded carriage 2.52 1.05
Peak-hour seat availability 3.56 1.15
O2—IssuePeakHr 3.55 0.87
Peak-hour passenger load 3.54 1.06
Real-time car occupancy 4.00 0.80
O3—ExpectRTInfo 3.96 0.68
Real-time crowding info 3.91 0.88
Wider aisle 3.89 0.86
O4—ExpectCarRe-config 3.75 0.67 More space near train door 3.93 0.84
Remove some seats 3.45 1.04

4.4. Relationship between the Overall Satisfaction and Attributes

According to our conceptual framework described in Section 2, several regression
analyses were conducted to reveal the relationship between customer satisfaction with Mel-
bourne train travel and the four groups of attributes. Models with different combinations
of variables were tested. The details are presented in Table 4 below. The main assumptions
about linear regression are checked and discussed together with the result.

Table 4. Regression model comparison.

Models Regression ANOVA

No
IV Tested Significant IV R Square Adj. R Square F Sig.
1 P1-P4 Constant *, P2 *, P4 * 0.04 0.03 4.92 <0.001
2 T1-T5 Constant *, T5 * 0.03 0.02 2.42 0.031
3 S1-S6 Constant *, S2–S6 * 0.58 0.58 98.11 <0.001
4 O1-O4 Constant *, O1–O3 *, O4 ** 0.19 0.18 25.45 <0.001
5 All P3 *, T3 *, O3 *, S1–S6 * 0.60 0.59 69.66 <0.001
* Significant at 95% confidence interval; ** Significant at 90% confidence interval.

Models 1–4 tested the variables grouped by different attributes. Checking the R square
and Adjusted R square values, we can clearly see that, when using traveller-related or trip-
related attributes as predictors, these models do not fit the data well enough. In model 1,
only 4% of the variation in customer satisfaction is accountable. Model 2 has even lower R
square and adjusted R square values. Model 3, with six independent variables, provides a
much better fit to the data, where 58% of the variation in customer satisfaction is explained
by the service attributes. Using other attributes in Model 4 results in 19% of variation
being accountable.
The comparison of Models 1–4 shows that service attributes contribute the most,
followed by other attributes, traveller attributes, and trip attributes. The prediction power
from the strongest to the weakest is ranked as: Model 3 (using service attributes), Model 4
(using other attributes), Model 1 (using traveller attributes), and Model 2 (using trip
attributes). We can also see that all four models passed the F test, indicating that these
models are significantly improved compared to an intercept-only model. This result
provides empirical support to the proposed conceptual framework. It seems that traveller
attributes, trip attributes, service attributes, and other attributes are the right attribute
groups to include.
When testing all nineteen independent variables together, we followed the standard
regression approach in SPSS and performed the regression using three different methods,
including forward selection, backward elimination, and stepwise method [49,50]. We set
the rule for variable selection as using the probability of F at 0.05 for entry and 0.10 for
removal. As a result, the final model using the backward elimination method produced
the best overall fit among all the models tested. The best-fitted model, Model 5, has nine
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 11 of 18

significant independent variables. The overall regression model was statistically significant
(R2 = 0.60, F (9, 419) = 69.66, p < 0.001).
In order to understand the direction and extent of influence on overall satisfaction, the
coefficients of the variables were checked. The details are presented in Table 5. When using
the traveller attributes in Model 1, the t-test result shows that Male and SeniorAdult do not
significantly predict overall satisfaction. On the contrary, YoungAdult and RegTraveller do
make a significant prediction. YoungAdult is negatively correlated to overall satisfaction
(β = −0.497, p = 0.021), while RegTraveller is positively correlated (β = 0.597, p = 0.002).
People who are less than 30 years old tend to rate their overall satisfaction lower than those
who are 30 and above. Regular travellers who use train services at least once a week tend
to rate overall satisfaction higher. This finding is consistent with a study conducted in
Sweden, which suggests that more frequent PT users are significantly more satisfied [8].

Table 5. Coefficients comparison.

Models Outputs
No
Variables Coef. t Sig. VIF
(Constant) 6.693 35.415 <0.001
P1 Male 0.169 0.910 0.363 1.060
1 P2 YoungAdult −0.497 −2.311 0.021 1.110
P3 SeniorAdult 0.414 1.432 0.153 1.205
P4 RegTraveller 0.597 3.084 0.002 1.153
(Constant) 6.675 31.181 <0.001
T1 LongTravelTime −0.010 −0.043 0.966 1.055
T2 LongWaitingTime 0.085 0.190 0.850 1.049
2
T3 GroupTravel 0.280 1.401 0.162 1.058
T4 CarrySmallItem 0.010 0.045 0.964 1.086
T5 CarryLargeItem 0.574 2.776 0.006 1.086
(Constant) 0.860 3.235 0.001
S1 SvcRatingCrowd 0.115 1.476 0.141 1.965
S2 SvcRatingSafety 0.291 3.942 <0.001 1.785
3 S3 SvcRatingRTInfo 0.356 4.684 <0.001 1.815
S4 SvcRatingPunctuality 0.507 5.865 <0.001 2.002
S5 SvcRatingFrequency 0.303 3.697 <0.001 1.871
S6 SvcRatingMgmtResp 0.233 3.059 0.002 1.917
(Constant) 8.733 13.015 <0.001
O1 IssueDelay −0.224 −2.503 0.013 1.012
4 O2 IssuePeakHr −0.908 −9.558 <0.001 1.033
O3 ExpectRTInfo 0.325 2.549 0.011 1.141
O4 ExpectCarReconfig 0.218 1.691 0.092 1.120
(Constant) 0.101 0.252 0.801
P3 SeniorAdult 0.494 2.85 0.005 1.021
T3 GroupTravel −0.261 -1.992 0.047 1.088
O3 ExpectRTInfo 0.189 2.175 0.030 1.053
S1 SvcRatingCrowd 0.162 2.082 0.038 2.044
5
S2 SvcRatingSafety 0.271 3.701 <0.001 1.817
S3 SvcRatingRTInfo 0.370 4.939 <0.001 1.823
S4 SvcRatingPunctuality 0.475 5.572 <0.001 2.020
S5 SvcRatingFrequency 0.286 3.544 <0.001 1.885
S6 SvcRatingMgmtResp 0.283 3.710 <0.001 1.984

When using the trip attributes in Model 2, only one variable, CarryLargeItem, is found
to be significant (β = 0.574, p = 0.006). Interestingly, people who are more likely to carry
large items onboard tend to give higher satisfaction scores. As a matter of fact, it is less
common to see people bringing large items (such as bicycles, trolleys, or prams) onboard
during peak hours. Perhaps those who need to take large items onboard would deliberately
choose to travel during the off-peak period, thus having a higher satisfaction. Further
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 12 of 18

investigations are required to fully explain the phenomenon. Other variables, including
LongTravelTime, LongWaitingTime, GroupTravel, and CarrySmallItem, were tested to be
insignificant to the overall satisfaction.
When using the service attributes in Model 3, five out of six service aspects were proven
significant. Safety rating (β = 0.291, p < 0.001), Real-time Information rating (β = 0.356,
p < 0.001), Punctuality rating (β = 0. 507, p < 0.001), Frequency rating (β = 0. 303, p < 0.001),
Management and Response rating (β = 0. 233, p = 0.002) all positively associated with the
overall satisfaction. There is only one variable in this group that tested insignificant, which
is SvcRatingCrowd (β = 0. 115, p = 0.141). As pointed out by Börjesson and Rubensson [5],
only when crowding levels are high does crowding become critical to satisfaction. As a
matter of fact, the SvcRatingCrowd variable could have become significant if the confi-
dence level was lowered to 85%. In short, Punctuality has the highest weighting among
all service aspects, followed by Real-time Information, Frequency, Safety, Management,
and then Crowd Level in Carriage. The finding is similar to a study about bus service
satisfaction, where punctuality, frequency, and driving security were identified as the top
three most important attributes [7]. Our finding is also consistent with the NRPS survey
result conducted in the UK, which found that punctuality remains the biggest influencing
factor on satisfaction [11].
Model 4 tested the other attributes. Three variables: IssueDelay, IssuePeakHr, and
ExpectRTInfo, were found to be significant at a 95% confidence interval. One variable,
ExpectCarReconfig, was found significant at a 90% confidence interval. Two issue-related
variables, Issue with delays (β = −0.224, p = 0.013), and Issue with peak-hour travel
(β = −0.908, p < 0.001), were negatively associated with overall satisfaction. Judging by
the magnitude of the beta values, we can tell that IssuePeakHr weighs more in explaining
overall satisfaction. As one of the questions used to calculate IssuePeakHr is about seat
availability during peak hours, this finding can be supported by another study conducted
in the Netherlands, which found that having a seat on the train is essential to the overall
experience [51]. Apart from these two issue-related variables, two expectation-related
variables were found to be positively associated with overall satisfaction: expectation about
real-time Information (β = 0.325, p = 0.011) and expectation about carriage re-configuration
(β = 0.218, p = 0.092). The sign of these beta values makes good sense. People who
experience more issues, either with delay or with peak-hour travel, will be more likely to
score lower on satisfaction. On the other hand, a higher expectation score shows a positive
attitude towards potential changes and improvement. Thus, having higher expectations
about real-time information or carriage configuration will be more likely to result in a
higher satisfaction score. In general, with more issues reported, lower overall satisfaction is
expected. With higher expectations identified, higher satisfaction is expected.
The final model, Model 5, has nine significant independent variables: one from the
traveller attribute group, one from the trip attribute group, one from the other attribute
group, and six from the service attribute group. There is only one variable, GroupTravel
(β = −0.261, p = 0.047), which presents a negative coefficient. It seems that people who
are more likely to travel with friends/family (i.e., in a group) tend to rate lower overall
satisfaction. On the contrary, reflected by the positive coefficients, the other eight variables
positively contribute to overall satisfaction. Judging by the variable SeniorAdult (β = 0. 494,
p = 0.005), senior people who are 60 years old and above tend to score higher in overall
satisfaction. This finding is consistent with what was found in Model 1, that young people
tend to rate satisfaction lower. However, this result conflicts with the findings from a
survey that examines passengers’ rating of NSW train service quality. Thevathasan and
Balachandran cited Douglas Economics (2006)’s work claiming that older respondents who
aged 60 plus tended to rate lower about the overall service [52]. They also pointed out that
there was little difference in overall rail service ratings by different gender. This finding is
consistent with our result. Both Model 1 and Model 5 confirm that gender variable Male is
insignificant to our satisfaction model.
 chandran cited Douglas Economics (2006)’s work claiming that older respondents who
aged 60 plus tended to rate lower about the overall service [52]. They also pointed out tha
there was little difference in overall rail service ratings by different gender. This finding
is consistent with our result. Both Model 1 and Model 5 confirm that gender variable Male
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645
is insignificant to our satisfaction model. 13 of 18
While examining the influence from other attributes in Model 5, ExpectRTInfo (β =
0.189, p = 0.030) shows that people who have a higher expectation about real-time car oc
cupancy
Whileand crowding
examining information,
the influence by average,
from other attributes ingive
Model slightly higher satisfaction
5, ExpectRTInfo (β = 0.189, scores
With regards to the service attributes, all six service rating
p = 0.030) shows that people who have a higher expectation about real-time car occupancyvariables are found to be posi
tively
and associated
crowding with overall
information, satisfaction.
by average, Thishigher
give slightly is consistent
satisfactionwith the findings
scores. With regards from Mode
3. the
to Theservice
coefficients of the
attributes, service
all six serviceaspects demonstrate
rating variables are foundsimilar
to beorder of importance.
positively associated Punc
with overall
tuality againsatisfaction.
has the This is consistent
highest weighting, with the findingsby
followed from Model 3. Information,
Real-time The coefficientsand Fre
of the service aspects demonstrate similar order of
quency. Surprisingly, Management took over the next place, leaving Safetyimportance. Punctuality again nowhas falling
the highest
behind weighting,
a little followed
bit. Again, by Real-time
the smallest Information,
weighting goes to andtheFrequency.
Crowd level Surprisingly,
in the carriage.
Management took over the next place, leaving Safety now falling behind a little bit. Again,
To check one of the key assumptions about linear regression, multicollinearity, we
the smallest weighting goes to the Crowd level in the carriage.
deployed
To check theone common methods
of the key include
assumptions examining
about the correlation
linear regression, matrix between
multicollinearity, we pre
dictor variables and calculating variance inflation factors
deployed the common methods include examining the correlation matrix between pre- (VIFs). The correlation analysis
resultvariables
dictor shows that andthe correlation
calculating coefficients
variance inflationbetween the predictor
factors (VIFs). variables
The correlation all fall below
analysis
0.7. Ashows
result commonlythat theacceptable
correlation rule is thatbetween
coefficients multicollinearity
the predictor may become
variables all afall
problem
below where
0.7. A commonly
correlations are acceptable
greater than rule0.8
is that
[53].multicollinearity
According to this, may become a problemcheck
our correlation whereraises no
correlations are greater than 0.8Apart
concern of multicollinearity. [53]. According to this, our correlation
from the correlation test, VIF was check
also raises no
calculated and
concern of multicollinearity. Apart from the correlation test, VIF
checked. VIF less than 4 is commonly accepted [54]. As can be seen in Table 5, the VIF was also calculated and
checked. VIF less than 4 is commonly accepted [54]. As can be seen in Table 5, the VIF
values in our models are all well below the threshold, which also confirms that there is no
values in our models are all well below the threshold, which also confirms that there is no
violation of multi-collinearity assumption. It is worth noting that other key assumptions
violation of multi-collinearity assumption. It is worth noting that other key assumptions
about linearregression
about linear regressionwere werealsoalsochecked.
checked.The Thedetails
detailsareare presented
presented in in Figure
Figure 3. 3.
TheThe resul
showsshows
result that that
the P-P plotplot
the P-P generally
generallylines
linesupup along
along aa45-degree
45-degree line,
line, indicating
indicating that that
the the as
sumption about
assumption about the normality
normalityofoferrors errors is satisfied.
is satisfied.

(a) (b)
Figure3.3.(a)
Figure (a)Residual
Residual Histogram;
Histogram; (b) P-P
(b) P-P plot.plot.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5. Discussion and Conclusions
This study systematically modelled passengers’ satisfaction and its relationship with
travelThis study attributes
experience systematically modelled
by surveying passengers’
Melbourne’s satisfaction
Metro train users.and its relationship
In the following with
travel experience
sub-sections, attributes
theoretical by surveying
contributions Melbourne’s
from this Metro train
study are discussed, users.
followed In the following
by practical
sub-sections, theoretical contributions from
implications, limitations, and future prospects. this study are discussed, followed by practica
implications, limitations, and future prospects.
5.1. Discussion
The result of the study supports the proposed hypotheses and confirms that there is a
linear relationship between overall passengers’ satisfaction and travel experience attributes.
The assumptions of linear regression were validated, and five significant models were
presented, each incorporating different combinations of variables. The key findings from
these models are summarised and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 14 of 18

Model 1 tested the “traveller attributes” group. One key finding is that males tend
to rate slightly higher overall satisfaction. However, the association between gender and
overall satisfaction is not statistically significant. This result largely aligns with previous
studies [42,43]. An inconsistent finding in the airline satisfaction study [44] is not surprising,
as the nature of the transport mode is different for rail. The result confirms a significant
association between age group variables and overall satisfaction. It is found that young
adults have a negative influence, while senior adults have a positive influence. This result
largely aligns with previous studies [8,14,42,43]. An inconsistent finding is found in the
airline satisfaction study [44]. It is also found that regular travellers tend to rate overall
satisfaction higher. This finding is consistent with existing literature [8].
Model 2 tested the “trip attributes” group. It was found that LongTravelTime and
LongWaitingTime are both insignificant to overall satisfaction. This finding is new and
different to an earlier study on passengers’ satisfaction with Dublin Bus [4]. We believe
our result is not random, judging by the high p values. It simply reflects the Melbourne
metro train users’ perceptions. The other key finding is that passengers who are more
likely to travel in a group tend to rate lower overall satisfaction. This is an original
discovery, as this variable was not tested in any existing passenger satisfaction model.
One possible explanation is that passengers travelling in a group may encounter more
difficulties finding suitable seating or space to stay together. Another finding is that
CarrySmallItem is insignificant to overall satisfaction, while CarryLargeItem is significant.
The result shows passengers who are more likely to carry large items onboard tend to give
higher satisfaction scores. This is an original discovery, as this variable was not tested in
any existing passenger satisfaction model. This result is not surprising, as carrying a small
item onboard is generally easier and may not have as significant an impact on the travel
experience compared to carrying a large item.
Model 3 tested the “service attributes” group. One of the key findings is that all service
rating variables are positively associated with overall satisfaction. This finding is highly
consistent with existing literature [10,12,37,38]. It is also found that the top three service
aspects in terms of the degree of the association are Punctuality, Real-time Information,
and Frequency. In general, our results largely align with previous studies. Two attributes
(punctuality and frequency) out of the top three aspects are commonly listed as the most
important service attributes in the existing literature [6,7,11,13,14].
Model 4 tested the “other attributes” group. It was found that passengers who
experienced more issues, either with delay or with peak-hour travel, will be more likely
to score lower on satisfaction. This is an original discovery, as these variables were not
tested in any existing passenger satisfaction model. The results appear to be logical and
in line with our expectations. This finding can be supported by [43], where complaints
were found to be negatively correlated to satisfaction. Another key finding shows that
passengers with higher expectations about real-time information or carriage configuration
will be more likely to rate a higher satisfaction score. Our results largely align with previous
studies. This finding adds to the existing knowledge, where the authors suggested that the
research could be enriched by identifying a range of other issues and factors influencing
the expectations [9].
By comparing four individual models, we can conclude that Model 3 (using service
attributes) has the best overall goodness of fit, followed by Model 4 (using other attributes),
Model 1 (using traveller attributes), and Model 2 (using trip attributes). It is found that,
when all the attribute groups are working together, the best model is produced, where
60% of the variation in overall satisfaction is accountable in Model 5. At least one variable
from each attribute group is presented in the final model. All six variables from the service
attribute group are significant. Among the nine variables that were significant, eight
variables (including SeniorAdult, ExpectRTInfo, and six servicing rating variables) are
positively associated with overall satisfaction, while only one variable (GroupTravel) is
negatively associated with overall satisfaction.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 15 of 18

This study uses a comprehensive approach to examine train passengers’ satisfac-

tion, incorporating four groups of attributes. Hidden factors that are often omitted in
previous research are reflected in the “other attributes” group. For example, the “other
attributes” group can capture passengers’ perceptions about common travel issues such as
crowded platform/carriages and difficulties experienced during peak hours. Moreover,
the “other attributes” group can capture passengers’ expectations on train and platform
design features. In short, having the “other attributes” group enables us to identify the
key issues and primary expectations, making it possible to use this knowledge to improve
overall satisfaction.
This paper makes a theoretical contribution by structuring the framework, where not
only traveller attributes, trip attributes, and service attributes are accountable, but also
other attributes are captured in the overall satisfaction model. With “issues” and “expec-
tations” grouped under other attributes, customer satisfaction can be further explained
from a different angle. The proposed tree-structure framework makes adding or removing
branches easier and flexible. Four groups of attributes can work together to produce a
better-fitted model. Alternatively, groups of attributes can be used separately. The result
shows that, in the absence of any other groups of attributes, the rest can still produce a
significant model and explain a certain amount of variation in overall satisfaction.

5.2. Practical Implications

One of the practical implications of this research is to reveal which aspect of service
quality is most valuable to the passengers. Evidence shows that Punctuality is the most
influential one among all service aspects, then, in sequence, Real-time Information, Fre-
quency, Management, Safety, and finally, Crowd Level in Carriage. Interestingly, Safety
has a slightly higher weighting than Management when we tested the model with service
attributes only. By considering passengers’ issues and expectations, it will further increase
the passengers’ satisfaction. The operator and public sector can use this knowledge to
improve the level of service, thus increasing overall customer satisfaction. According to the
weightings, Punctuality, Real-time Information, and Frequency should receive relatively
higher priority. On the other hand, taking into the existing service rating into consideration,
aspects with average lower ratings might have larger room for improvement. In that case,
train operators should pay more attention to improving the dissatisfaction associated with
Carriage Crowd Level, Safety, and Management.

5.3. Limitations and Future Prospects

Despite the new findings, there are some limitations in this study. Some potential sig-
nificant variables might have been left out due to the scope of the research. There is a scope
to conduct a thorough investigation on a wider range of attributes. For example, the future
models could test more social economic factors such as income, education, employment,
etc. It can also test more trip attributes such as time of day travelled, distance travelled,
trip purpose, etc. More service attributes such as pricing/ticketing, comfort, accessibility,
and reliability can also be tested if data become available. Likewise, perceptions of passen-
gers with different mobility needs (e.g., wheelchairs, crutches, visual impairments) can be
considered in the future. In doing so, new significant attributes might be discovered and
added to the model to enrich the research.
The data from this study was limited to Melbourne, Australia. In the future, a similar
survey can be conducted in different Australian states or other countries to gain insight
into geographical bias. Likewise, the survey and the approach used in this study may be
adopted in the future to gain insight into passengers’ satisfaction regarding other public
transport modes, such as trams and buses.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 16 of 18

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Y., N.S. and R.T.; methodology, J.Y.; software, J.Y.; formal
analysis, J.Y.; investigation, J.Y.; data curation, J.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Y.; writing—
review and editing, J.Y., N.S. and R.T.; supervision, N.S. and R.T.; funding acquisition, N.S. and R.T.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received financial support for the PhD stipend of the first co-author (Jie
Yang) from the Rail Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (funded jointly by participating
rail organisations and the Australian Federal Government’s Business Cooperative Research Centres
Program) through Project R3.7.13—Optimizing railway carriage design for improved dispersion,
capacity and safety.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The online questionnaire survey in this study was approved
by RMIT University’s Human Research Ethics Committee on 13 January 2021 (Reference: 2021-23822-
13326).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is unavailable due to ethics application restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Victoria Department of Transport—Patronage. Available online: https://dtp.vic.gov.au/about/data-and-research/patronage/
(accessed on 7 March 2023).
2. Who We Are | Metro Trains. Available online: https://www.metrotrains.com.au/who-we-are/ (accessed on 5 January 2023).
3. Feedback and Complaints—Public Transport Victoria. Available online: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/customer-service/
feedback-and-complaints/ (accessed on 7 January 2023).
4. Cantwell, M.; Caulfield, B.; O’mahony, M. Examining the Factors that Impact Public Transport Commuting Satisfaction. J. Public
Transp. 2009, 12, 1–21. [CrossRef]
5. Börjesson, M.; Rubensson, I. Satisfaction with crowding and other attributes in public transport. Transp. Policy 2019, 79, 213–222.
[CrossRef]
6. Tyrinopoulos, Y.; Antoniou, C. Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 260–272.
[CrossRef]
7. Guirao, B.; García-Pastor, A.; López-Lambas, M.E. The importance of service quality attributes in public transportation: Narrowing
the gap between scientific research and practitioners’ needs. Transp. Policy 2016, 49, 68–77. [CrossRef]
8. Abenoza, R.F.; Cats, O.; Susilo, Y.O. Travel satisfaction with public transport: Determinants, user classes, regional disparities and
their evolution. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 95, 64–84. [CrossRef]
9. Brito, C.; Fonseca, F.; Pinto, S. Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Public Transports. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2010, 4, 125–130.
10. Amponsah, C.T.; Adams, S. Service quality and customer satisfaction in public transport operations. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag.
2016, 25, 531–549. [CrossRef]
11. National Rail Passenger Survey—NRPS—Spring 2020—Main Report and Other Documents—Transport Focus. Available online:
https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/publication/national-rail-passenger-survey-nrps-spring-2020-main-report/ (accessed on 2
January 2023).
12. Islam. Measuring Customer’s Satisfaction on Bus Transportation. Am. J. Econ. Bus. Adm. 2014, 6, 34–41.
13. Zefreh, M.M.; Hussain, B.; Sipos, T. In-depth analysis and model development of passenger satisfaction with public transportation.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 3064–3073. [CrossRef]
14. Mouwen, A. Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 78, 1–20.
[CrossRef]
15. Beirão, G.; Cabral, J.S. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transp. Policy 2007,
14, 478–489. [CrossRef]
16. Peterson, R.A.; Wilson, W.R. Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact and artifact. J. Acad. Mark Sci. 1992, 20, 61–71. [CrossRef]
17. Friman, M.; Fellesson, M. Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public Transportation: The Quality Paradox. J. Public
Transp. 2009, 12, 57–69. [CrossRef]
18. Lai, W.T.; Chen, C.F. Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers-The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction
and involvement. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 318–325. [CrossRef]
19. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.; Berry, L. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40.
20. Passenger Surveys. Available online: https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/about/Surveys-Statistics/passenger-surveys (accessed
on 22 December 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 17 of 18

21. Reichheld, F. The one number you need to grow. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2004, 82, 133.
22. Customer Satisfaction Index. 2022. Available online: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/reports-and-
publications/customer-satisfaction-index (accessed on 2 January 2023).
23. Track Record—Quarterly Track Record. Available online: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/data-and-reporting/track-record/
(accessed on 2 January 2023).
24. Danaher, P.J.; Gallagher, R.W. Telecom New Zealand. Business 1997, 31, 122–133.
25. Janković, S.R.; Marković, M.G.; Brand, A. Relationship between attribute and overall customer satisfaction: A case study of online
banking services. Zb Veleučilišta U Rijeci 2014, 2, 1–12.
26. Ha, H.; Janda, S. An empirical test of a proposed customer satisfaction model in e-services. J. Serv. Mark. 2008, 22, 399–408.
[CrossRef]
27. Mumtaz, H.; Islam, A.; Ariffin, K.H.K.; Karim, A. Customers Satisfaction on Online Shopping in Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Manag.
2011, 6, 162–169. [CrossRef]
28. Singh, J.; Kaur, G. Customer satisfaction and universal banks: An empirical study. Int. J. Commer. Manag. 2011, 21, 327–348.
[CrossRef]
29. Sumaedi, S.; Bakti, I.G.M.Y.; Rakhmawati, T.; Astrini, N.J.; Widianti, T.; Yarmen, M. Factors influencing public transport passengers’
satisfaction: A new model. Manag. Environ. Qual. An. Int. J. 2016, 27, 585–597. [CrossRef]
30. Shiwakoti, N.; Jiang, H.; Nguyen, A.D. Passengers’ perception of safety and its relationship with demographics, service quality,
satisfaction and loyalty in airlines sector—A case study of Vietnam to Australia route. Transp Policy 2022, 124, 194–202. [CrossRef]
31. Lundahl, N.; Vegholm, F.; Silver, L. Technical and functional determinants of customer satisfaction in the bank-SME relationship.
Manag. Serv. Qual. 2009, 19, 581–594. [CrossRef]
32. Eygu, H.; Gulluce, A.C. Determination of Customer Satisfaction in Conservative Concept Hotels by Ordinal Logistic Regression
Analysis. J. Financ. Risk Manag. 2017, 6, 269–284. [CrossRef]
33. Mokonyama, M.; Venter, C. Incorporation of customer satisfaction in public transport contracts—A preliminary analysis. Res.
Transp. Econ. 2013, 39, 58–66. [CrossRef]
34. Monsuur, F.; Enoch, M.; Quddus, M.; Meek, S. Modelling the impact of rail delays on passenger satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 2021, 152, 19–35. [CrossRef]
35. Shiwakoti, N.; Stasinopoulos, P.; Vincec, P.; Qian, W.; Hafsar, R. Exploring how perceptive differences impact the current public
transport usage and support for future public transport extension and usage: A case study of Melbourne’s tramline extension.
Transp. Policy 2019, 84, 12–23. [CrossRef]
36. Laura, E.; Gabriella, M. Service Quality Attributes Affecting Customer Satisfaction for Bus Transit. J. Public Transp. 2007, 10,
21–34.
37. Zhang, C.; Liu, Y.; Lu, W.; Xiao, G. Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese
public transport service. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 120, 149–164. [CrossRef]
38. Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Borhan, M.N.; Yazid, M.R.M.; Rahmat, R.A.; 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
2021, 9, 1954. [CrossRef]
39. Li, L.; Gao, T.; Yu, L.; Zhang, Y. Applying an integrated approach to metro station satisfaction evaluation: A case study in
Shanghai, China. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 11, 780–789. [CrossRef]
40. Chakraborty, S.; Mengersen, K.; Fidge, C.; Ma, L.; Lassen, D. A Bayesian Network-based customer satisfaction model: A tool for
management decisions in railway transport. Decis. Anal. 2016, 3, 4. [CrossRef]
41. Sukhov, A.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M.; Fujii, S. Assessing travel satisfaction in public transport: A configurational
approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 93, 102732. [CrossRef]
42. Jiang, H.; Zhang, Y. An investigation of service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in China’s airline market. J. Air Transp.
Manag. 2016, 57, 80–88. [CrossRef]
43. Oyewole, P. Consumer’s socio-demographic characteristics and satisfaction with services in the airline industry. Serv. Mark. Q.
2001, 23, 61–80. [CrossRef]
44. Clemes, M.D.; Gan, C.; Kao, T.H.; Choong, M. An empirical analysis of customer satisfaction in international air travel. Innov.
Mark. 2008, 4. Available online: https://www.businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/
article/assets/2229/IM_en_2008_2_Clemes.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2023).
45. Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [CrossRef]
46. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2006.
47. Search Census Data. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/search-by-area (accessed on 22
December 2022).
48. Churchill, G.A., Jr.; Surprenant, C. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 491–504.
[CrossRef]
49. Draper, N.R.; Smith, H. Applied Regression Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998.
50. Leech, N.L.; Barrett, K.C.; Morgan, G.A. IBM SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645 18 of 18

51. Van Hagen, M.; Bron, P. Enhancing the Experience of the Train Journey: Changing the Focus from Satisfaction to Emotional
Experience of Customers. Transp. Res. Procedia. 2014, 1, 253–263. [CrossRef]
52. Thevathasan, A.; Balachandran, B. Customers perceptions of metropolitan train services in Melbourne. In Proceedings of the 30th
Australasian Transport Research Forum, Melbourne, Austrilia, 25–27 September 2007; pp. 1–15.
53. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2013.
54. O’brien, R.M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673–690. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.