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, 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, it
must be a sufficient reasoning of this decision. In order to have sufficient reasoning,
for any decision, for any company, for any problem, we have to have a useful tools
that helps us and give us the chance to take the appropriate decision together with the
most high elimination at the risk. Ticket fair level is a subject that the operators
always try to find where it is fair for the people and simultaneously profitable for the
company or at least not shortage. Lot’s of parameters have influence the level of
tickets fares. First of all the financial situation of the country and the amount of
salaries that there is in the society, secondly the level of services that the operator
want to provide to their customers, and finally the policy that the government want to
make.

Fixed trajectory systems are the backbone of the public transportation system of the
capital, where 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) Also the funds distribution is an essential problem of
managers and has to have with decision making while 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, they make accordingly surveys where the
key issues of data planning and analysis are the train service levels, analysis of
station congestion, planning of replacement bus services and analysis of ticketing
option.These are the reasons that make us to considered this current research, taking
also motivation from the researches that took place in Greece and abroad.

The aim of this paper 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 until political decisions such as unification of the

1
different transportation companies that administrate the transportation network of
Athens.

2
2. Methodology approach

2.1 Aim of research

The main purpose of this research presented in this paper 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 from this research 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 to increase the revenues of the company. Within the policy
it’s made the definition of the fares, and 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) Ticket value policy in Athens is a mixed 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 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[2].In Athens the
ticket fares level are connected with the cost pf the transportation services provided
in order to be achieved 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 Reduced 1/5hr Day Ticket 7-days Monthly Monthly Annual

reduced
METRO 0,80€ 0,40€ 1,00€ 3,00€ 10,00€ 38,00€ 19,00€ 380,00€
ISAP 0,70€ 0,35€ 1,00€ 3,00€ 10,00€ 38,00€ 19,00€ 380,00€
TRAM 0,60€ 0,30€ 1,00€ 3,00€ 10,00€ 38,00€ 19,00€ 380,00€
Table 1: Ticket prices of Athens public transport

The price of the ticket defined through the flat fare system. Flat fare system (FF) is a
simple division of the revenues by the expected passengers.

Expected Revenues
FF =
Expected Passengers

3
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 is approximately the 40% of the expenses.[4]

2.3 Ticket fares collection- Number of passengers

2.3.1 TRAM

According to the measures that take place in the tram stations on May 2005 the
estimation of passengers that traveled by the tram on a typical day is 41.000. The
expected revenues can be found by the above ratio

Expected Revenues
FF = ⇒ Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers ⇒
Expected Passengers
Expected Revenues = 0.60€ * 41000 = 24600€/day

But we have to accept that there is a 10% of the passengers that uses monthly cards.
The fares collection happens on the platforms of each station through the ticket
machines that sells the tickets and from the ticket offices that there are in some
stations. The ticket validation machines are on the platforms and in the trams and
there are inspectors that checks very often the passengers for the validated tickets and
the cards.

2.3.2 ISAP

The sub ground metro (line 1) using ticket machines on each station that sells tickets
and tickets offices also. There are ticket validation machines on each entrance of the
station. The pricing is multizone and you can also interchange with the same ticket
on lines 2-3 of METRO and there are inspectors that checks very often the
passengers for the validated tickets and the cards.
The estimation of the passengers that traveled through line 1 is 400.000 passengers
per day.
If we make the same calculation as we made before

Expected Revenues
FF = ⇒ Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers ⇒
Expected Passengers
Expected Revenues = 0.70€ * 400,000 = 280,000€/day

But we have to accept that there is a 10% of the passengers that uses monthly cards.
Unfortunately we don’t have the financial data in order to see what percentage of the
operational cost covered with this income.

4
2.3.3 METRO

Metro(line 2-3) using also ticket machines on each station of the network and tickets
offices. There are ticket validation machines on each entrance of the station and there
are inspectors that checks very often the passengers for the validated tickets and the
cards. The estimation of the passengers that traveling 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
FF = ⇒ Expected Revenues = FF * Expected Passengers ⇒
Expected Passengers
Expected Revenues = 0.80€ * 650,000 = 520,000€/day

But we have also to accept that there is a 10% of the passengers that uses monthly
cards.
Unfortunately we don’t have the financial data in order to see what percentage of the
operational cost covered with this income.

2.4 Knowledge from Great Britain

London Underground is the first underground in Europe and the biggest also. It’s
started it’s operation at 1889 and now days consist of 11 lines and 275 stations , total
track length of 408 km and daily passenger traffic 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, that 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 Child* Oyster card Oyster card child
Zone 1 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 1,50₤ 0,70₤
Zone1-2 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 2,00₤ 1,00₤
Zone1-3 or 1-4 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 2,50₤ 1,00₤
Zone1-4 or 1-6 4,00₤ 2,00₤ 3,50₤ 1,00₤
Table 2: London Tickets prices

All other times including public holidays

Adult Child* Oyster card Oyster card child
Zone 1 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 1,50₤ 0,70₤
Zone1-2 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 1,50₤ 0,70₤
Zone1-3 or 1-4 3,00₤ 1,50₤ 2,00₤ 1,00₤
Zone1-4 or 1-6 4,00₤ 2,00₤ 2,00₤ 1,00₤
Table 3: London Tickets prices

5
 Figure 1: London greater area map

In order to collect information about the current things that we also looking for there
are two main methods that London Underground(LU) used. 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 covers passengers
entering stations from street and also those joining from National rail and Docklands
light railway (DLR) services from behind the barrier at joint stations. The survey
asks the customer for the main interchange stations on their route as well as 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 sample
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]

6
2.5 Data collection methodology

Although there are 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)While few would argue that the emergence of
technology has allowed delivery systems for self-administered systems to expand.
Direct mail questionnaires, in comparison to other data collection methods, including
mail panels, have traditionally suffered from much higher no response rates.
Although telephone interviews is another way of research, but you are not sure if the
contacted person is in the sample that you are looking for. This is why, we prefer to
make personal interviews directly on the platforms and outside the stations, because
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 had 3 major components:

1) The person form

• The gender
• Their age
• Their monthly income
• Car Users or not

It is very important to categorize the passengers by gender and age, because it’s
different age generate different travel behavior. 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
• Subquestions 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 usages

7
 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 is 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 scanning 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 onto 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]

8
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 divided in four categories.
Centrals, regional, hubs, terminals. From each category we choose at least one
station for making our survey.

For the tram survey we choose Ag.Foteini and Evaggeliki Sxoli from the
municipality of Nea Smyrni, considered these stations part of residence areas
together with administration centers. For the same reason we choose Agg.Metaxa
from the municipality of Glyfada. As part of residence area together with
administration center we choose also L.Vouliagmenis with the onlu 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 make the selection of Metro stations. Monastiraki,
Syntagma and Omonoia are considered as central stations that 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 most 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

9
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 it’s 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.

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”
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

10
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 subground metro (Line 1),
metro(lines 2 and 3), tramway, 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 subground metro and the tramway.
Operational characteristics of the systems that are integrated namely, metro, tram,
isap, are presented next in table 4

Type Length(Km) Distance Stations Operation Frequency Ticket price

between time
adjacent
station
ISAP 26,5 563-2110 24 05:00-00:30 3’-15’ 0,80-0,40€
METRO 10,1 620-720 14 05:30-00:00 3’-5’ except 0,80-0,40€
Line 2 w/k
METRO 32,4 600-1100 11 05:30-00:00 3’-5’ except 0,80-0,40€
Line 3 except airport w/k except airport
destination
TRAM 25 400-500 49 M-F:05:30- 15’-40’ 0,60-0,40€
00:10
Weekends
24hr.

Table 4: Main characteristics of public transport

11
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 doesn’t 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

12
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 it’s operation. Athens tramway has 3 lines (SEF-Syntagma,
SEF-Glyfada, Glyfada-Syntagma). It’s 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)

Urban railway Piraeus-Kifissia most well known as “electrical railway”(ISAP) has a

long story of 135 years. It’s started it’s 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 it’s operation and at
1957 the system operated until Kiffisia with almost the today’s network. Today’s
network consist of 24 stations and total track length 26,5 km. The frequencies of

13
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

14
 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.

4.1 Tram survey results

Tables 5-6 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 Men Women

Percentage 55% 45%
Age 19-25 26-30 31-65 >65
Percentage 10% 47% 42% 1%
Car Users Yes No
Percentage 60% 40%
Type of ticket Single Reduced Day ticket Monthly Free Pass
card
Percentage 47% 14% 2% 36% 1%
Comfortable Quality Nice ride I don’t
Advantages trip services know
Percentage 57% 24% 17% 2%
Disadvantages It’s slow Too many Too many Small Noise/vibration Bad Advertisements on I don’t
stops traffic lights network reliability the vehicle know
Percentage 26% 20% 17% 7% 4% 3% 3% 20%
Table 5: Results Tramway survey

Work House Entertainment/Shopping Un.Work Education Socialised

Work 0% 38,3% 4,2% 0% 0% 0%
House 2,1% 0% 27% 1,4% 0% 2,1%
Shopping 0% 16,3% 2,1% 0% 0% 0%
Un.Work 0,7% 1,4% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education 0% 4,2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Socialised 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 6: 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 it’s 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 7-9, presented the answers of the
passengers to the 4 scenarios that increase the ticket prices giving alternative
solutions( 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%

15
 Scenario Ticket Definitely Yes Probably Probably No Definitely
price Yes No
Reduced time of travel 20% 0,70€ 2% 83% 13% 2%
Reduced time of travel 20% 0,80€ 2% 36% 58% 4%
Reduced time of travel 20% 1,00€ 2% 2% 44% 51%
Reduced time of travel 40% 0,70€ 13% 77% 4% 6%
Reduced time of travel 40% 0,80€ 5% 63% 29% 3%
Reduced time of travel 40% 1,00€ 4% 21% 46% 29%
Improve reliability of timetable 0,70€ 0% 22% 69% 9%
Improve reliability of timetable 0,80€ 0% 7% 78% 15%
Improve reliability of timetable 1,00€ 0% 2% 36% 62%
Reduced time of travel 20%- 0,70€ 1% 63% 32% 4%
Improve reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- 0,80€ 1% 17% 78% 4%
Improve reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- 1,00€ 1% 10% 32% 57%
Improve reliability of timetable
Table 7: 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 No Definitely Probably Probably Definitely

income Yes Yes No No
0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€
0-500€ 7 0% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 43% 73% 0% 14% 27% 100%
500-1000€ 111 1% 0% 0% 86% 31% 0% 12% 65% 45% 1% 4% 55%
1000-2000€ 20 10% 5% 0% 80% 65% 5% 0% 15% 60% 0% 0% 100%
Table 8: Results Part Tramway survey 1st scenario according monthly income

Trips/week No Definitely Probably Probably Definitely

or month Yes Yes No No
0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€ 0,70€ 0,80€ 1,00€
6-7 days 2 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 50%
4-5 days 71 3% 1% 0% 82% 40% 4% 15% 58% 45% 0% 1% 55%
1-3 days 39 0% 0% 0% 84% 39% 0% 12% 59% 49% 4% 2% 51%
1-5/month 26 4% 4% 4% 80% 23% 4% 11% 65% 39% 5% 8% 53%
Table 9: Results Part Tramway survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month

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 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

16
 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 15-16 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 Men Women

Percentage 53% 47%
Age 19-25 26-30 31-65 >65
Percentage 19% 45% 34% 2%
Car Users Yes No
Percentage 51% 49%
Type of ticket Single Reduced Day ticket Monthly card Free Pass
Percentage 58% 13% 1% 27% 1%
It’s fast Quality Comfortable I don’t know Reliability of
Advantages services trip services
Percentage 84% 10% 4% 2% 2%
Disadvantages Air-Condition Small Expensive Difficult Parking Toilets I don’t
Network ticket approach to the know
stations
Percentage 31% 26% 11% 10% 8% 8% 6%
Table 15: Results Metro survey

Work House Shopping Emerg.reason Education Visiting

Work 0% 38,3% 1,8% 0% 0% 0%
House 13,2% 0% 19% 0% 1% 2,7%
Shopping 0% 16% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Emerg.reason 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Education 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Visiting 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 16: Results Metro survey purpose of journey

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 18-19

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.
Therefore table 20 give us some more specific characteristics of the trip that

17
 passengers made such as the way of approaching and leaving the station and the
distance of walking if there is.
Scenario Ticket Definitely Yes Probably Probably No Definitely
price Yes No
Reduced time of travel 20% 0,90€ 6% 30% 64% 0%
Reduced time of travel 20% 1,00€ 1% 10% 83% 6%
Reduced time of travel 20% 1,20€ 0% 2% 18% 80%
Reduced time of travel 40% 0,90€ 6% 85% 9% 0%
Reduced time of travel 40% 1,00€ 4% 8% 85% 3%
Reduced time of travel 40% 1,20€ 0% 3% 17% 80%
Improve reliability of timetable 0,90€ 2% 8% 86% 4%
Improve reliability of timetable 1,00€ 2% 3% 91% 4%
Improve reliability of timetable 1,20€ 0% 0% 30% 70%
Reduced time of travel 20%- 0,90€ 2% 71% 22% 5%
Improve reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- 1,00€ 0% 15% 79% 6%
Improve reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- 1,20€ 0% 1% 13% 86%
Improve reliability of timetable
Table 17: Results Metro survey Scenarios

Monthly No Definitely Probably Probably Definitely

income Yes Yes No No
0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€
0-500€ 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
500-1000€ 83 6% 1% 0% 20% 8% 1% 71% 83% 19% 3% 8% 80%
1000-2000€ 25 8% 4% 0% 48% 20% 0% 44% 76% 28% 0% 0% 72%
Table 18: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according monthly income

Trips/week No Definitely Probably Probably Definitely

or month Yes Yes No No
0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 1,20€
6-7 days 18 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 77% 77% 22% 12% 12% 67%
4-5 days 72 0% 0% 0% 25% 1% 0% 73% 93% 8% 2% 6% 92%
1-3 days 12 0% 0% 0% 58% 16% 0% 33% 83% 8% 9% 1% 92%
1-5/month 7 0% 0% 0% 42% 42% 0% 57% 57% 42% 1% 1% 58%
Table 19: Results Metro survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month

Way of approaching the Walk Car Bus Line 1 Tram motorbike by someone
stations else
Percentage 73% 6% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3%
How far did you walk <100 101-300m 301-500m >500m
m
Percentage 0% 7% 73% 4%
Way of leaving the Walk Car Bus motorbike Tram by someone
stations else
Percentage 65% 5% 17% 4% 5% 4%
How far did you walk <100 101-300m 301-500m >500m
m
Percentage 0% 12% 85% 5%

Why did you prefer Traffic Parking Metro is

traveling by Metro jam problem more
instead of your car economic
instead of
using car
Percentage 35% 63% 2%
Table 20: Results Metro survey

18
 The origin-destination matrix, tables 21-22 giving us the busiest part of the network
while tables 23-24 segregate the network on the two lines. From Tables 21 – 24 on
the 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 Syntagma-
Katehaki.

There isn’t 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 26-27 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 isn’t air-
condition in the vehicles and also the stations are not clean. The main purpose of
travel is work-house(43%) and also house-entertainment(20%)

Sex Men Women

Percentage 55% 45%
Age 19-25 26-30 31-65 >65
Percentage 13% 43% 43% 1%
Car Users Yes No
Percentage 30% 70%
Type of ticket Single Reduced Day ticket Monthly card Free Pass
Percentage 67% 5% 0% 28% 0%
It’s fast Comfortable Reliability Convenience Quality I don’t
Advantages trip services know
Percentage 28% 16% 16% 14% 13% 13%
Disadvantages Air-Condition It’s not clean It’s not safe It’s slow Crowded Toilets Small I don’t know
network
Percentage 30% 23% 12% 7% 4% 3% 3% 18%
Table 26: Results line 1 survey

Work House Entertainment/Shopping Socialised

Work 0% 43,1% 2,2% 0%
House 13,6% 0% 20% 2,2%
Shopping 0% 15,9% 2,1% 0%
Socialised 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 27: Results Line 1 survey purpose of journey

19
 Table 28 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
more interesting because the half of the passengers are quite positive and the other
half is strongly positive.

Scenario Ticket price Definitely Yes Probably Probably No Definitely

Yes No
Reduced time of travel 20% 0,80€ 0% 98% 2% 0%
Reduced time of travel 20% 0,90€ 0% 82% 18% 0%
Reduced time of travel 20% 1,00€ 0% 5% 77% 18%
Reduced time of travel 40% 0,80€ 50% 50% 0% 0%
Reduced time of travel 40% 0,90€ 27% 70% 3% 0%
Reduced time of travel 40% 1,00€ 0% 61% 36% 3%
Improve reliability of timetable 0,80€ 0% 40% 60% 0%
Improve reliability of timetable 0,90€ 0% 12% 88% 0%
Improve reliability of timetable 1,00€ 0% 4% 46% 50%
Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve 0,80€ 1% 99% 0% 0%
reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve 0,90€ 0% 20% 80% 0%
reliability of timetable
Reduced time of travel 20%- Improve 1,00€ 0% 6% 22% 72%
reliability of timetable
Table 28: Results Line 1 survey Scenarios

In the further analysis we will see that there isn’t 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 No Definitely Probabl Probably Definitely

income Yes y Yes No No
0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€
0-500€ 0% 0% 0% 100% 66% 0% 0% 33% 66% 0% 1% 34%
500-1000€ 0% 0% 0% 100% 88% 3% 0% 12% 83% 0% 0% 14%
1000-2000€ 0% 0% 0% 100% 75% 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% 25%
Table 29: Results Tramway survey 1st scenario according monthly income

Trips/week or No Definitely Probably Probably Definitely

month Yes Yes No No
0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80€ 0,90€ 1,00€ 0,80 0,90€ 1,00€
€
6-7 days 2 0% 0% 0% 92% 92% 7% 7% 7% 85% 0% 1% 8%
4-5 days 71 0% 0% 0% 100% 78% 0% 0% 21% 78% 0% 1% 22%
1-3 days 39 0% 0% 0% 100% 83% 0% 0% 16% 83% 0% 1% 17%
1-5/month 26 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Table 30: Results Tramway survey 1st scenario according trips/week or month

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

20
considered the speed satisfied, but they are dissatisfied with the cleanness af the
stations and of the vehicles.
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 Metro Tram Subground Metro

transportation systems
Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

Ticket price 10,4% 33,7% 21,9% 2,6% 11,7% 20,2%

Time of travel 27,6% 4,4% 13,4% 40,4% 22,2% 8,4%
Frequency 13,7% 13,7% 7,8% 29,6% 25,5% 10,6%
Vehicle quality 10% 8,5% 23,4% 4,1% 5,5% 23,6%
Staff helpfulness 17,3% 16,4% 5,6% 13,9% 10,5% 13,3%
Station Quality 9,9% 10,0% 10,0% 5,6% 16,0% 5,8%
Comfortable trip 11% 13,3% 16,9% 3,7% 8,5% 18,2%
Table 30 : 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

21
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
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.

Sub ground metro passengers, they considered as biggest problem the bad situation
of the vehicles and also that there aren’t 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%.

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 passengers-
customers 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

22
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 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.

23
Appendix A: Tables

24
 17 31 7 13 10 24 8
1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2
2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 1 0 2 4 0 0
4 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
5 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 1 0 0 2 3 1 1
8 2 2 1 0 2 0 0
9 1 3 3 0 1 1 1
10 2 0 1 2 0 1 0
11 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
12 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
13 1 0 2 0 0 2 0
14 1 0 2 1 0 1 0
15 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
16 0 2 0 1 1 1 1
17 0 1 1 0 1 2 1
18 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
19 0 2 1 1 1 0 1
20 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
21 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
22 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
23 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
24 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
25 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
26 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
28 0 0 0 1 1 2 1
29 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
30 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
31 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
33 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Table 10: Origin –destination matrix, Tram survey-June 2006

25
 17 31 7 13 10 24 8
1 5 0 5 0 0 5 10
2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 10 5 0 10 20 0 0
4 5 5 0 0 5 5 0
5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5
6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 5 0 0 10 15 5 5
8 10 10 5 0 10 0 0
9 5 15 15 0 5 5 5
10 10 0 5 10 0 5 0
11 5 0 5 0 0 0 5
12 5 5 0 5 0 5 0
13 5 0 10 0 0 10 0
14 5 0 10 5 0 5 0
15 5 5 0 0 5 0 5
16 0 10 0 5 5 5 5
17 0 5 5 0 5 10 5
18 0 5 5 5 0 0 5
19 0 1 5 5 5 0 5
20 0 5 0 5 0 0 15
21 0 5 5 5 0 0 0
22 0 5 5 0 0 5 0
23 0 5 5 5 0 0 0
24 0 5 0 5 5 0 0
25 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
26 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
28 0 0 0 5 5 10 5
29 0 0 0 0 5 0 5
30 0 0 0 5 5 0 5
31 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
33 0 0 0 5 5 0 5

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

26
 17 31 7 13 10 24 8
1 30 33 74 8 412 55 166
2 6 22 36 3 16 5 28
3 93 96 172 17 476 61 162
4 3 3 9 0 10 6 2
5 18 78 17 12 202 11 317
6 0 2 1 1 6 1 1
7 46 48 0 5 68 1 68
8 18 26 39 19 704 76 0
9 6 2 64 0 9 1 32
10 60 21 127 14 0 138 963
11 18 74 5 17 156 3 24
12 1 6 36 1 39 2 196
13 7 14 1 0 14 1 38
14 6 6 4 4 254 35 319
15 14 2 15 9 8 10 15
16 6 1 17 0 24 1 1
17 0 2 45 12 61 7 22
18 2 18 80 8 25 4 23
19 4 1 88 14 61 25 66
20 6 5 4 1 97 12 4
21 10 46 30 14 54 32 176
22 0 2 24 1 7 1 6
23 6 24 31 1 17 2 3
24 1 26 17 0 65 0 25
25 1 77 3 8 18 11 66
26 4 3 22 1 24 1 11
27 1 4 123 9 2 6 28
28 19 83 22 5 82 7 106
29 8 74 60 3 104 16 142
30 15 32 21 3 57 1 31
31 1 0 50 18 329 8 199
32 4 8 26 1 6 17 5
33 4 32 21 3 45 14 31
418 1302 1284 212 3452 571 3276
Table 12: Origin –destination matrix for daily passenger.(Source Tram survey-March 2005)

27
 17 31 7 13 10 24 8
1 7,2 2,5 5,8 3,8 11,9 9,6 5,1
2 1,4 1,7 2,8 1,4 0,5 0,9 0,9
3 22,2 7,4 13,4 8,0 13,8 10,7 4,9
4 0,7 0,2 0,7 0,0 0,3 1,1 0,1
5 4,3 6,0 1,3 5,7 5,9 1,9 9,7
6 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,0
7 11,0 3,7 0,0 2,4 2,0 0,2 2,1
8 4,3 20,0 3,0 9,0 20,4 13,3 0,0
9 1,4 0,2 5,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 1,0
10 14,4 16,7 9,9 6,6 0,0 24,2 29,4
11 4,3 5,7 0,4 8,0 4,5 0,5 0,7
12 0,2 0,5 2,8 0,5 1,1 0,4 6,0
13 1,7 1,1 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,2 1,2
14 1,4 0,5 0,3 1,9 7,4 6,1 9,7
15 3,3 0,2 1,2 4,2 0,2 1,8 0,5
16 1,4 0,1 1,3 0,0 0,7 0,2 0,0
17 0,0 0,2 3,5 5,7 1,8 1,2 0,7
18 0,5 1,4 6,2 3,8 0,7 0,7 0,7
19 1,0 0,1 6,9 6,6 1,8 4,4 2,0
20 1,4 0,4 0,3 0,5 2,8 2,1 0,1
21 2,4 3,5 2,3 6,6 1,6 5,6 5,4
22 0,0 0,2 1,9 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,2
23 1,4 1,8 2,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,1
24 0,2 2,0 1,3 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,8
25 0,2 5,9 0,2 3,8 0,5 1,9 2,0
26 1,0 0,2 1,7 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,3
27 0,2 0,3 9,6 4,2 0,1 1,1 0,9
28 4,5 6,4 1,7 2,4 2,4 1,2 3,2
29 1,9 5,7 4,7 1,4 3,0 2,8 4,3
30 3,6 2,5 1,6 1,4 1,7 0,2 0,9
31 0,2 0,0 3,9 8,5 9,5 1,4 6,1
32 1,0 0,6 2,0 0,5 0,2 3,0 0,2
33 1,0 2,5 1,6 1,4 1,3 2,5 0,9
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 13: Origin –destination matrix, percentage allocation .(Source Tram survey-March 2005)

28
 Achilleos 1 Aigaiou 21
Faliro 2 Tzitzifies 22
Syntagma 3 Batis 23
Pikrodafni 4 L.Vouliagmenis 24
Ag.Paraskevi 5 M.Alexandrou 25
Elliniko 6 Trokantero 26
SEF 7 Pl.esperidon 27
Neos Kosmos 8 Panagitsa 28
Zefyros 9 Mousson 29
Ag.Foteini 10 Fix 30
Baknana 11 Ev.Sxoli 31
Amfitheas 12 Ag.Skepi 32
Kalamaki 13 Zappeio 33
Mideias 14
Kallithea 15
Moshato 16
Agg.Metaxa 17
Floisvos 18
Pl.Katraki 19
Kasomouli 20

Table 14: Code number of trams stops

29
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
19
1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 1
14
0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
22
0 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0
10
1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1
5
1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1
3
Table 20: Origin- destination trips Metro July 2006

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
3,8 3,8 1,9 1,9 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
19
1,9 3,8 0,0 0,0 1,9 1,9 1,9 0,0 1,9 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0
14
0,0 1,9 7,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,9 1,9 0,0 1,9 0,0
22
0,0 1,9 3,8 0,0 3,8 1,9 1,9 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,8 1,9
10
1,9 0,0 5,7 1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 1,9 1,9
5
1,9 1,9 0,0 3,8 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 1,9 1,9 1,9
3
Table 22: Origin- destination trips, percentage allocation Metro line 2

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
9,8 2,0 2,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
19
0,0 2,0 2,0 0,0 3,9 3,9 3,9 2,0
14
5,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 13,7 0,0 0,0
22
0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 9,8 2,0 0,0
10
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 5,9 3,9 2,0
5
0,0 2,0 2,0 0,0 2,0 3,9 0,0 2,0
3

Table 23: Origin- destination trips, percentage allocation Metro line 3

30
Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire

31
No: Station:
Sex: F: Female Surveyor:
M : Male
1. <18 y.o Position:
Age: 2. 19 – 25 y.o Time:
3. 26 – 30 y.o Day:
4. 31 – 65 y.o
5. > 65 y.o

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

32
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

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

6 – 7 days
4 – 5 days
1 – 3 days
33
 1 – 5 days per month
First day today
Other (…………………………………….)

9. Do you have the opportunity to drive a car ; Yes (1) No (2)

9.α. 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 min
20-30 min 20-30 min
30 – 45 min 30 – 45 min
45- 60 min 45- 60 min
Άλλο (…………………..……..) Άλλο (…………………..……..)

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 don’t drive/ I don’t 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€)
Network ticket (1.00€)
Reduced (0.45€)
Reduced network ticket (0.50€)
Monthly card
Annual card
Day ticket
Free pass
14. What is your monthly income approximately;
0 - 500 Ευro
34
 500 - 1000 Ευro
1000 - 2000 Ευro
2000 και άνω

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 Answer
Definitely Probably Probably Definitely I don’t
Yes (3) Yes (2) no (1) no know (4)
0,90
Scenario

-
//// 1€
1st

20%
1,20€

0,90
Scenario

-
////
2nd

1€
40%
1,20
Improve 0,90
Scenario 3rd

reliability of
1€
//// time table
and quality 0,90
of services
Improve 0,90
Scenario 4rth

- reliability of
20% time table 1€
and quality
1,20 €
of services

35