SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Innovations in Civil Engineering and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 1

Modelling Passenger Satisfaction in Light Rail Transit Using an Integrated TAN Bayes and PLS-SEM Approach

Huseyin Ayan(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA)0009-0006-2850-1714
Dilum Dissanayake(University of Birmingham)0000-0001-6166-5709
Margaret Bell(Newcastle University)0000-0001-8822-8437
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Valuable insights into factors affecting metro use provide transport planners and policymakers with scientific evidence to make informed decisions on improving the metro system's efficiency and effectiveness, enabling cost-effective investments to make LRT more attractive and increase patronage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Light rail transit (LRT) is seen as an environmentally friendly public transport alternative compared to other motorised modes due to reduced air pollution, lower energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using a combination of Tree Augmented Naïve (TAN) Bayes and Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) techniques, the interrelationships between statistically significant perception variables affecting regular users' metro use were identified.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Valuable insights into factors affecting metro use provide transport planners and policymakers with scientific evidence to make informed decisions on improving the metro system's efficiency and effectiveness, enabling cost-effective investments to make LRT more attractive and increase patronage.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Light Rail Transit Systems · Perception and attitudes · Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modelling

Abstract

Light rail transit (LRT) is seen as an environmentally friendly public transport alternative compared to other motorised modes due to reduced air pollution, lower energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. This study aims to investigate regular users' perception of LRT and whether socio-demographic variables influence its use. A questionnaire with attitudinal statements categorised into six main themes, namely service quality, network and infrastructure, accessibility, user benefits, sustainability aspects, and socio-demographics, was piloted and distributed using online channels across the Tyne and Wear Metro catchment area. Using a combination of Tree Augmented Naïve (TAN) Bayes and Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) techniques, the interrelationships between statistically significant perception variables affecting regular users' metro use were identified. The analysis emphasises the influential role of accessibility, direct benefits, policy implementation, reliability and availability, sustainability, and security and safety in enhancing user satisfaction. Notable interrelationships were also found, including positive associations between comfort-customer care and reliability-availability, and between safety-security and accessibility. Valuable insights into factors affecting metro use provide transport planners and policymakers with scientific evidence to make informed decisions on improving the metro system's efficiency and effectiveness, enabling cost-effective investments to make LRT more attractive and increase patronage.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ayan, H., Dissanayake, D., Bell, M. (2026). Modelling Passenger Satisfaction in Light Rail Transit Using an Integrated TAN Bayes and PLS-SEM Approach. Journal of Innovations in Civil Engineering and Technology, Volume: 8 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.60093/jiciviltech.1944098

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Arabikhan, F., Postorino, M. N., Dupont-Kieffer, A., & Gegov, A. (2016). Gender-based analysis of zones of tolerance for transit service quality considering intelligent transportation systems. Transportation Research Record, 2541(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.3141/2541-09
  2. Ayan, H., Bell, M., & Dissanayake, D. (2025). Investigating the factors that influence the ridership of light rail transit systems using thematic analysis of academic literature. Future Transportation, 5, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5010022
  3. BayesFusion. (2023). Tree augmented naive Bayes. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://support.bayesfusion.com/docs/GeNIe/structurelearning_tan.html
  4. Beirão, G., & Cabral, J. S. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14(6), 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009
  5. Chiou, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2012). Service quality effects on air passenger intentions: A service chain perspective. Transportmetrica, 8(6), 406–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/18128602.2010.548837
  6. Chou, J.-S., & Kim, C. (2009). A structural equation analysis of the QSL relationship with passenger riding experience on high speed rail: An empirical study of Taiwan and Korea. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 6945–6955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.056
  7. Chow, C., & Liu, C. (1968). Approximating discrete probability distributions with dependence trees. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 14(3), 462–467. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1968.1054142
  8. De Oña, J., & De Oña, R. (2015). Quality of service in public transport based on customer satisfaction surveys: A review and assessment of methodological approaches. Transportation Science, 49(3), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0544
  9. De Oña, J., De Oña, R., Diez-Mesa, F., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2016). A composite index for evaluating transit service quality across different user profiles. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.2.8
  10. Duarte, C. W., Klimentidis, Y. C., Harris, J. J., Cardel, M., & Fernández, J. R. (2011). A hybrid Bayesian Network/Structural Equation Modeling (BN/SEM) approach for detecting physiological networks for obesity-related genetic variants. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops (pp. 696–702). IEEE. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/BIBMW.2011.6112455
  11. Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2008). A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(5), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802364471
  12. Echaniz, E., dell'Olio, L., & Ibeas, Á. (2018). Modelling perceived quality for urban public transport systems using weighted variables and random parameters. Transport Policy, 67, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.05.006
  13. Friedman, N., Geiger, D., & Goldszmidt, M. (1997). Bayesian network classifiers. Machine Learning, 29, 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007465528199
  14. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
  15. Hapsari, R., Clemes, M. D., & Dean, D. (2017). The impact of service quality, customer engagement and selected marketing constructs on airline passenger loyalty. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-07-2016-0048
  16. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
  17. Ho, C.-I., & Lee, Y.-L. (2007). The development of an e-travel service quality scale. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1434–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.12.002
  18. Ibrahim, A. N. H., Borhan, M. N., Md. Yusoff, N. I., Ismail, A., Mat Yazid, M. R., Mhd Yunin, N. A., & Yukawa, S. (2021). Gender and age do matter: Exploring the effect of passengers' gender and age on the perception of light rail transit service quality in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sustainability, 13(2), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020990
  19. Ibrahim, A. N. H., Borhan, M. N., Osman, M. H., Mat Yazid, M. R., & Md. Rohani, M. (2022). The influence of service quality on user's perceived satisfaction with light rail transit service in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Mathematics, 10(13), 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10132213
  20. Ismail, R., Hafezi, M. H., Mohd Nor, R., & Ambak, K. (2012). Passengers preference and satisfaction of public transport in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(8), 410–416. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263932765_Passengers_Preference_and_Satisfaction_of_Public_Transport_in_Malaysia
  21. Kamaruddin, R., Osman, I., & Che Pei, C. A. C. (2012). Public transport services in Klang Valley: Customer expectations and its relationship using SEM. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.047
  22. Kuo, M.-S., & Liang, G.-S. (2011). Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1304–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.003
  23. Latif, K. F., & Marimon, F. (2019). Development and validation of servant leadership scale in Spanish higher education. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0004
  24. Majumdar, B. B., Dissanayake, D., Rajput, A. S., Saw, Y. Q., & Sahu, P. K. (2020). Prioritizing metro service quality attributes to enhance commuter experience: TOPSIS ranking and importance satisfaction analysis methods. Transportation Research Record, 2674(6), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120919711
  25. Mandhani, J., Nayak, J. K., & Parida, M. (2021). Establishing service quality interrelations for metro rail transit: Does gender really matter? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 97, 102888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102888
  26. McDonald, R. P. (1996). Path analysis with composite variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(2), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3102_5
  27. Rahman, F., Das, T., Hadiuzzaman, M., & Hossain, S. (2016). Perceived service quality of paratransit in developing countries: A structural equation approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 93, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.002
  28. Rasca, S., & Saeed, N. (2022). Exploring the factors influencing the use of public transport by commuters living in networks of small cities and towns. Travel Behaviour and Society, 28, 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.03.007
  29. Sarmiento, H. M. A. (2013). Environmental sustainability of light rail transit in urban areas (Doctoral thesis). The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13093/etd:1652
  30. Shonk, D. J., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). Service quality, satisfaction, and intent to return in event sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management, 22(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.5.587
  31. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
  32. Trentini, F., Malgaroli, M., Camerini, A. L., Di Serio, C., & Schulz, P. (2015). Multivariate determinants of self-management in health care: Assessing Health Empowerment Model by comparison between structural equation and graphical models approaches. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.2427/11126
  33. Van Griethuijsen, R. A., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., Den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., Savran Gencer, A., & BouJaoude, S. (2015). Global patterns in students' views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45, 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6
  34. Weinstein, A. (2000). Customer satisfaction among transit riders: How customers rank the relative importance of various service attributes. Transportation Research Record, 1735(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.3141/1735-15
  35. Wu, W. W. (2010). Linking Bayesian networks and PLS path modeling for causal analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.021
  36. Yilmaz, V., & Ari, E. (2017). The effects of service quality, image, and customer satisfaction on customer complaints and loyalty in high-speed rail service in Turkey: A proposal of the structural equation model. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 13(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2016.1209255
  37. Zheng, F., & Webb, G. I. (2010). Tree augmented naive Bayes. In C. Sammut & G. I. Webb (Eds.), Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_850