## 6 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**General Criteria**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Degree of fulfilment of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Evaluation According to**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Evaluation by Subcriteria**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **Subcriteria** & & & **General Criteria** & & **Evaluation by Subcriteria** \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Variant A** & **Variant B** & **Variant A** & **Variant B** & **Variant A** & **Variant B** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Availability of transport} & 33.33\% & 66.67\% & & & 4.12\% & 8.23\% \\  & 66.67\% & 33.33\% & & & 1.87\% & 0.94\% \\  & 33.33\% & 66.67\% & & & 6.09\% & 12.18\% \\  & 33.33\% & 66.67\% & & & 0.98\% & 1.96\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Quality of transport from the perspective of a passenger on board} & 87.50\% & 12.50\% & 77.79\% & 22.21\% & 10.55\% & 1.51\% \\  & 75.00\% & 25.00\% & & & 11.37\% & 3.79\% \\  & 90.00\% & 10.00\% & & & 5.27\% & 0.59\% \\  & 33.33\% & 66.67\% & & & 1.10\% & 2.19\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Public sector costs} & 10.00\% & 90.00\% & \multirow{4}{*}{16.67\%} & \multirow{4}{*}{83.33\%} & 0.76\% & 6.82\% \\  & 50.00\% & 50.00\% & & & 0.76\% & 0.76\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Impact of transport on the external environment} & 25.00\% & 75.00\% & & & 0.34\% & 1.02\% \\  & 75.00\% & 25.00\% & & & 9.11\% & 3.04\% \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & 75.00\% & 25.00\% & & & 3.51\% & 1.17\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Resulting evaluation of the overall usefulness of the variants} & 55.82\% & 44.18\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Resulting multicriteria evaluation of variants A and B (authors). variants can fully take into consideration the specifics of various regions and locations as well as various conventional or nonconventional transport service systems applicable to the service of any line or a complete set of transport routes. An important advantage of the AHP method is that it includes the entire process of multicriteria evaluation, i.e., both the weighting of the criteria and the determination of the overall usefulness of the variants. By means of the consistency index, the system can alert the user to contradictions (including the intensity of their severity) in the process of the relative evaluation of criteria weights. Therefore, it is possible to program an integral and internally coherent process of multicriteria analysis for transport service systems. The paired comparison of the significance of the criteria to determine their relative weights takes into consideration the current transport, socioeconomic, and natural specifics of the territory served by the proposed line, as well as its potential. Regional public passenger transport lines were designed in terms of routes, times, connections, and other relevant parameters. The main lines are train and bus lines (indicated as A), and the other lines are bus stops (indicated as B). A timetable on the Kosice-Presov-Lipany line was also proposed, while considering the current parameters of the infrastructure, the current time positions of the express trains on the Kosice-Zilina-Bratislava line in Kysak, and the needs of the local frequency of passengers. In terms of the availability of entry and exit points and the integration potential, variant B is slightly superior owing to the more convenient location of the bus stop compared to the railway station in Hanusovice and TopYou and the more convenient location of the bus station compared to the railway station in Strazske. In the case of option B, these points are both more accessible to the residents of the given cities, but they also enable an easier spatial connection with the connecting lines of public passenger transport, as well as with bicycle transport and individual automobile transport, i.e., easier integration of transport. Passenger safety, speed, and travel comfort are essential benefits of the rail transport variant for the line under consideration.