Post on 06-Feb-2016
description
transcript
BEST Survey 2009City report: Stockholm
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport
BEST 2009
2
Content
1) About the survey
2) How to read the graphs
3) Results Best performing city/region per index
Results per index and city/region in 2009, 2008 and 2007
Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2009
Overall citizen satisfaction 2005 – 2009
Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2009 with:
Traffic supply
Reliability
Information
Staff behaviour
Security and safety
Comfort
Perception of social image 2005 - 2009
Perception of value for money 2005 - 2009
Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2009
4) Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency
BEST 2009
3
About the survey
The following cities participated in the BEST 2009 survey:
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki (with additional questions)
Copenhagen
Vienna (with additional question)
Geneva
For all cities 1000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 300 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2009. All interviews have been done by telephone.
The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2009 was conducted between March 2nd and March 15th 2009.
Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area.
The questionnaire used in the survey is an updated version of the 2007/8questionnaire. In 2009, two new questions have been added (‘If the use of private cars in _________________ (city/region) became more expensive due to increase in toll fares or other taxes, and the extra income was used to improve public transport, would you consider this to be a: _____ ‘ and ‘We would like you to think of the travels you regularly perform in _________________ (city/region). Which modes of transport do you normally use on these travels?’
BEST 2009
4
Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey
Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport
PT modes most often used (NEW 2007)
Main occupation
Loyalty
8. Value for money
7. Social image
Satisfaction
1. Traffic Supply2. Reliability3. Information4. Staff behaviour5. Personal security/safety6. Comfort
Sex
Age
Post code (geography)
Ridership
BEST 2009
5
Response rates
Calculation of response rate Response rate:
Response rate = 100 x Number of completes(1000) = %
Total valid sample* *Total sample minus invalid
numbers such as number not in use/not in target group
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Copenhagen 38 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 53 % 39 % 40 % 32 % 37%
Geneva 50 % 47 % 50 % 49 % 47 % 56 % 43 % 40%
Helsinki 41 % 49 % 45 % 47 % 40 % 37 % 32 % 26 % 30%
Oslo 37 % 44 % 48 % 45 % 40 % 39 % 28 % 27 % 28%
Stockholm 50 % 64 % 56 % 60 % 56 % 50 % 64 % 51 % 62%
Vienna 39 % 57 % 58 % 61 % 58 % 58 % 54 % 46 % 43%
BEST 2009
6
Mobile interviews and sampling Sampling procedures varies from country to country.
In Norway, Denmark and Finland samples are drawn from databases covering both mobile and fixed line telephones.
In Sweden, Austria and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed line telephones.
By mistake information was provided last year that the Swedish sample covered both mobile and fixed lines. The Swedish sample has been drawn from a database covering fixed lines for all years from 2007. Wheter mobile sample was included before 2007 has not been determined.
In all instances it is estimated that approximatelly 85-95% of the adult population in all included countries can be reached by telephone.
The primary sampling unit varies across countries (see table on right hand side).
The secondary sampling unit for fixed line phone numbers are the person in the household who last had a birthday. For mobile telephone numbers the secondary sampling unit are the individuals uses the particular mobile phone.
There are no single, clear answer to what the best sampling method and procedure is. In case of the BEST survey there is little reason to believe that there should be a strong correlation between attitudes towards the public transport system and telephone usage, fixed line or mobile.
From Norway and other countries we know that there is a relatively strong correlation between age and mobile subscription. The younger people are the more likely they are to be using mobile telephones. In the BEST survey the completed data are weighted with respect to age, and hence adjusted for this possible skewness.
City% mobile
interviews 2008% mobile
interviews 2009
Stockholm 2,5%* 2,3%*
Oslo 40% 39%
Helsinki 82% 96%
Copenhagen 25% 35%
Vienna 7% 9%
Geneva 0% 0%
* If mobile callback requested by respondent only
CitySample base and primary sampling unit
% mobile in sample 2009
StockholmFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
0%
OsloFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
40%
HelsinkiFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit, priority to mobile telephone numbers
89%
CopenhagenFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
21%
ViennaFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
0%
GenevaFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
0%
BEST 2009
7
How to read the graphs
Time series
4449 47
51
58 58
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
CITIZEN SATISFACTION
<TOTAL BASE: NNN>
The graphs show the proportion of the respondents who agrees (partially agrees or fully agrees) to the different statements in blue columns. The red columns shows the proportion who disagrees (hardly agrees or not agree at all) to the statements.
Respondents with a neutral position are not displayed in the graphs.
The graphs also include results from previous surveys, shown in the table to the right as the proportion of the respondents who agrees to the statement in question.
BEST 2006
10 Citizens Satisfaction Survey 2006
BEST Survey 2007Citizen satisfaction
80
79
76
73
67
66
58
-5
-3
-3
-6
-10
-10
-11
Vienna
Helsinki
Prague
Berlin
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all<TOTAL BASE: NNN>
5852585658
4751585866
6764666567
..637373
..80.76
8078768179
7875757480
20032004200520062007
Development per index in the different cities are also shown as time lines.
All graphs are standard PowerPoint-graphs where different categories can be hidden and value labels displayed at ones own preference.
Results 2009Stockholm
BEST 2009
9
Stockholm Indices 2009
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
76 64 67 65 66
63 59 58 57 62
50 41 36 38 48
52 48 49 51 51
58 54 55 59 63
70 64 65 63 65
59 56 55 53 55
86 80 80 81 78
36 26 46 40 29
63 56 61 57 57
Stockholm 2009
Quality dimensions
BEST 2009
11
Stockholm Traffic supply
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
63 59 58 57 62
60 54 53 50 57
57 50 56 53 58
82 79 76 74 80
39 36 35 34 37
86 86 85 84 87
72 66 65 63 69
46 43 39 40 45
56 52 50 54 54
BEST 2009
12
Stockholm Information
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
52 48 49 51 51
79 78 79 76 75
27 21 24 25 24
47 42 40 - -
BEST 2009
13
Stockholm Staff behaviour
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
58 54 55 59 63
59 54 55 58 62
57 53 55 60 65
BEST 2009
14
Stockholm Security and safety
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
70 64 65 63 65
59 48 54 49 51
72 65 64 63 64
80 78 76 77 80
BEST 2009
15
Stockholm Comfort
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
59 56 55 53 55
63 59 56 56 58
63 59 62 62 62
63 57 52 49 53
39 37 34 32 34
67 67 68 65 69
BEST 2009
16
Stockholm Social Image
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
86 80 80 81 78
76 65 64 70 61
87 83 81 81 78
94 91 92 91 92
BEST 2009
17
Stockholm Value for money
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
36 26 46 40 29
41 29 49 42 32
32 23 44 38 25
Impact on satisfaction
Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction
BEST 2009
How is the most important areas for improvements determined? Traffic supply
PT is good for school_work trips PT is good for leisure trips PT is good for trips in the city centre PT is good for trips outside the city centre Nearest stop is close to where I live Travel time on PT is reasonable Waiting time is short at transfers I am satisfied with the number of departures
Reliability Capability to run on schedule
Information It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip Information is good when traffic problems occur Information is good in stops and terminals
Staff behaviour Staff answers my questions correctly Staff behaves nicely and correctly
Security and safety I feel secure at stations and bus stops I feel secure on board busses and trains I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT
Comfort PT travel is comfortable Transfers are easy Busses and trains are modern Busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when travel with PT
Social image More people will travel with PT in the future PT is good for the environment PT is beneficial to society
Value for money PT gives good value for money PT fares are reasonable
Loyalty I gladly recommend PT travel
The highlighted indicators (indicators in bold) have been used to determine the impact they have on citizens over all satisfaction.
The selected indicators have been chosen as they are independent of each other and describes different phenomenon. I.e. ‘Travel time’ is not included as this element is a function of and covered through ‘Nearest stop is close to where I live’, ‘Number of departures’ and Waiting time is short at transfers’.
As such the indicators included are thought to be the ones who are possible to influence and describes the most concrete properties of the public transport system.
Price has not been included in this analysis, as the perception of price most often is a function of the percertion of other properties.
A stepwise regression method has been used in the analysis.
On the following slide the five indicators with strongest significant impact on satisfaction are listed in ranked order for all participating cities in 2009.
How is the most important areas for improvements determined?
Overall satisfaction
with PT
19
BEST 2009
20
Impact on satisfaction - Stockholm
2008 20092007
When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each year is of prime interest.
Comparison of the estimated effects across years must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.
Stockholm 2009
Appendix
Stockholm 2009
Citizen satisfaction in subgroups
BEST 2009
23
Stockholm CITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Traffic supply in subgroups
BEST 2009
25
Stockholm Traffic supply - Subgroups
BEST 2009
26
Stockholm Good for work/school trips - Subgroups
BEST 2009
27
Stockholm PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups
BEST 2009
28
Stockholm PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups
BEST 2009
29
Stockholm PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups
BEST 2009
30
Stockholm Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups
BEST 2009
31
Stockholm Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups
BEST 2009
32
Stockholm I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups
BEST 2009
33
Stockholm Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Reliability in subgroups
BEST 2009
35
Stockholm Reliability - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Information in subgroups
BEST 2009
37
Stockholm Information - Subgroups
BEST 2009
38
Stockholm It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups
BEST 2009
39
Stockholm Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups
BEST 2009
40
Stockholm Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Staff behaviour in subgroups
BEST 2009
42
Stockholm Staff behaviour - Subgroups
BEST 2009
43
Stockholm Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups
BEST 2009
44
Stockholm Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Security and safety in subgroups
BEST 2009
46
Stockholm Security and safety - Subgroups
BEST 2009
47
Stockholm I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups
BEST 2009
48
Stockholm I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups
BEST 2009
49
Stockholm I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Comfort in subgroups
BEST 2009
51
Stockholm Comfort - Subgroups
BEST 2009
52
Stockholm PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups
BEST 2009
53
Stockholm Transfers are easy - Subgroups
BEST 2009
54
Stockholm Busses and trains are modern - Subgroups
BEST 2009
55
Stockholm Busses and trains are clean - Subgroups
BEST 2009
56
Stockholm I normally get a seat when travel with PT - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Social image in subgroups
BEST 2009
58
Stockholm Social image - Subgroups
BEST 2009
59
Stockholm More people will travel with PT in the future - Subgroups
BEST 2009
60
Stockholm PT is good for the environment - Breakdown
BEST 2009
61
Stockholm PT is beneficial to society - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Value for money in subgroups
BEST 2009
63
Stockholm Value for money - Subgroups
BEST 2009
64
Stockholm PT gives good value for money - Subgroups
BEST 2009
65
Stockholm PT fares are reasonable - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Loyalty in subgroups
BEST 2009
67
Stockholm Loyalty - Subgroups
Stockholm 2009
Background information
BEST 2009
69
Public transport travel frequency – Stockholm 2009
BEST 2009
70
Life situation – Stockholm 2009
For more information and other reports see our web site http://best2005.net or https://report.scandinfo.se/best/