## 7 Discussion and Conclusions  
Passengers usually make a decision to travel by a particular mode of transport by evaluating the criteria describing it, whose weights reflecting their significance seem to be different to them. The selection of a particular (alternative) mode of transport is based on the significances (subjective weights) of the considered criteria, which can be determined by using expert evaluation methods. The average value of the estimates given by a considerable number of passengers (respondents) in ranking the criteria can be used as a result, presenting public opinion about a particular transport mode chosen for a particular route if their opinions (judgments) are considered. In the present work, the reasons behind the passengers' choice to travel by train rather than by bus were identified by considering fifteen sub-criteria. The significances of these sub-criteria for choosing travel by train were evaluated by 52 respondents (passengers on the Vilnius-Moscow-Vilnius train) against a 15 rank scale. The subjective total normalized weights of sub-criteria based on the new ARTIW-L and ARTIW-N methods allowed the authors to rank them by order of priority (preference). A functional or close and strong correlation between the means of the sub-criteria ranks and the normalized weights of the sub-criteria calculated from them indicated that the ARTIW-L and ARTIW-N methods were satisfactory to assess the significance of the sub-criteria. The mean of the sub-criteria weights calculated by these two methods was taken as the final significance of the sub-criteria. The sub-criteria determining the passengers' choice of traveling by train rather than by bus (as an alternative mode of transport) included ride comfort (the availability of berths in passenger cars for sleeping and relaxation) (0.0939), the selected time of travel (0.0896) and a negligible effect of weather conditions on it (0.0764). The sub-criteria describing rail transport as safer than road transport, as well as such advantages as a smaller number of stops and delays on the way (0.0760), the availability of WCs and places for smoking (0.0699), a lower probability that passengers would disturb each other (0.0682), and simpler border control (0.0679) were less important for passengers. However, even less important for them were sub-criteria describing the priority given to rail vehicles when crossing motor roads (0.0667) and freedom of movement (0.0647), the availability of a dining car (0.0607) and unpleasant slight rocking and vibration (0.0603). The least important sub-criteria for passengers included the possibility to order food or newspapers and magazines to the compartment (0.0520), lower environmental pollution by rail transport (0.0445), and sometimes cheaper railway tickets (0.0332). The ratio of the largest total weight of sub-criteria (0.0939) to their smallest total weight (0.0332), which was equal to 3.36, showed that the significance of particular sub-criteria was different for passengers choosing a particular mode of transport. The fifteen considered sub-criteria were divided into three groups using the inverse hierarchy for assessment main criteria importance (IHAMCI) method suggested by the second author. The normalized overall weights for these groups (criteria) were calculated. The overall weight of two sub-criteria describing safety and environmental protection was equal to 0.3077, while the overall weight of five sub-criteria forming the 'economy' group was 0.3492, and the overall weight of eight sub-criteria referring to ride comfort was the largest, at 0.3431. The overall weights of the key criteria of any sub-criteria group were calculated using a new IHAMCI method, which allowed assessment of different numbers of sub-criteria in a key criterion. The minimum number of experts or respondents to be consulted in order to obtain reliable results was calculated using the sample size principle.