I arrived in Lisbon would be correct.
in before cities. for e.g. in New York, in Paris, in Oslo, etc.
But, if you're talking about the station, e.g. I arrived at Lisbon (Here, you're talking about the Lisbon station), you can use
He is in London. He arrived in London.
He is at the airport. He arrived at the airport.
He is at the station. He arrived at the station.
He is at the bus stop. He arrived at the bus stop.
He is in Japan. He arrived in Japan.
At is usually used with abstract words: He arrived at the right conclusion.
I arrived //
You're quite right: You arrive in a city, but at a place.
You normally use
at when the name represents a station, airport, port, head office of a company or a meeting place that is familiar to all speakers in the conversation, etc.
Yes, you are quite right. In English they say "arrive on the scene" as well as "arrive at the scene". They use both
at also for "the island". In the case of "the coast", they mostly say "arrived on the coast".
"Arrive over" is also possible in a context like "Lindbergh arrived over Paris at about 10 PM local time".