7/30/2019 00395

1/16

1

EXPLORING CUSTOMER LOYALTY AS A TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURE

by

Peter J. Foote, Senior Transit Research Analyst, Corresponding Author

Market Research Department, Chicago Transit Authority

120 N. Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 733-7000 x 6840

PFoote@TransitChicago.com

Darwin G. Stuart, Manager

Market Research Department, Chicago Transit Authority

120 N. Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 733-7000 x 6848

Dstuart@TransitChicago.Com

Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, President

Northwest Research Group, Seattle/Boise

225 N 9th

Street, Suite 200

Boise, ID 83702

(208) 364-0171

Byalch@NWRG.com

Abstract

CTA conducted its third biennual random-digit-dial telephone survey of Customer Satisfaction in December, 1999.

Between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant increase in the number of riders with positive attitudes towards the

CTA, measured in a number of different ways. Moreover, this continued the upward trend noted between 1995 and

1997. Specific areas of improved customer satisfaction are reviewed, with an emphasis on a three-part index of

customer loyalty. This loyalty index could be a useful summary measure of public transits ability to attractadditional choice riders. CTA was, in fact, able to do the latter, as a part of 1997-9 ridership growth that paralleled

customer satisfaction and loyalty increases. Investigation of the three basic dimensions of improved customer

loyalty to CTA (overall satisfaction, likelihood of continued riding, likelihood of recommending to others) isdescribed. Customer assessment of bus service performance, according to 44 specific aspects of service quality, and

rail service performance, according to 52 specific aspects of service quality, is also summarized.

Keywords: Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality, Performance Measures, Loyalty, Transit, Bus, Rail, Chicago.

7/30/2019 00395

2/16

2

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to make urban transit service more customer-driven have grown in recent years, in part because it is

increasingly realized that customer satisfaction is a very real challenge. This challenge is most evident, of course, in

drawing choice riders away from the private automobile. While progress has been made in researching, via

customer satisfaction surveys, very specific customer-defined measures of service quality---such as on-timeperformance, waiting time, operator courtesy, or smoothness of ride---there may also be a useful role for the concept

ofcustomer loyalty, as a transit performance measure.

In general, as is well known in the consumer marketing literature, in relation to highly competitive brand name

competition, for typical consumer goods---electronics, clothing, frozen foods---customer loyalty is a very fragileconcept. It has been found that only the most satisfied customers remain truly loyal, and that those who are not

highly pleased are very susceptible to switching among different brands. Because growth in transit ridership in theUnited States is very much tied to increasing the number of so-called choice riders---who otherwise can and do

use the private automobile---loyalty to transit could perhaps be seen as a similarly fragile concept. To put it simply:

what does it take for choice transit riders to become very satisfied with public transit?

Customer satisfaction and loyalty are the sine-que-non, the essential ingredients, for achieving growth in urban

transit use. Without them, growth is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In keeping with this, CTA Customer

Satisfaction Surveys were conducted in the Fall of 1995, 1997 and 1999 (1, 2). All respondents were at least 16years old, and rode CTA at least once in the week before the survey. After verifying the respondents home zip code

and CTA use, respondents were asked to evaluate either CTA bus or rail service, but not both.

The survey measures overall perceptions of CTA management style, performance in customer-defined aspects of

CTA service quality (44 bus, 52 rail attributes), and overall satisfaction and loyalty.

The 1999 survey was conducted in October and November, with 2,464 CTA riders interviewed, split equally

between bus and rail.

Survey sampling was also allocated, on a target quota basis, among seven different geographic areas, so that

results for these sub-areas could also be compared. In general, these geographic stratifications are an improvement

over earlier versions of the survey, and a number of other methodological improvements were also made. The

overall content of the three surveys is, however, consistent, so that continuity in trending customer satisfaction overtime is maintained.

Purposes of this survey program include:

Identify market segments that are most likely to be affected by service quality improvements.

Determine critical performance attributes that result in customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Assess the performance of the agency.

Identify actions that will lead to increased satisfaction and loyalty.

CTA MARKET SHIFTS

As a result of CTA initiatives and policy actions, especially regarding fares policy, significant changes werefound between 1997 and 1999 in CTAs household travel market share, customer travel frequencies, and the share of

customers choosing to ride CTA (1).

Rider Household Share Growth

In 1999, a significant increase in the number of households with at least one person who rode CTA in the

prior week was observed, compared to 1997.

7/30/2019 00395

3/16

3

The percent of households with at least one such CTA rider increased from 25% to 31%, which translates

from about 327,000 households in 1997 to 406,000 households in 1999.

Although many of the households comprising this net increase include new riders with relatively infrequentCTA riding frequencies, this broadening of CTAs household market base has contributed to the turnaround 5.5%

increase in ridership (as measured by daily boardings) experienced since 1997 (+9.0% rail, +3.8% bus).

More Riders, Riding CTA Slightly Less

While the great proportion of rides carried daily by CTA represent trips made by frequent riders (those who

ride 5 or more days per week), this type of rider now represents a lower proportion of all riders.

That is, because the number of persons riding infrequently (1-4 days per week) has increased dramatically,

from 37% in 1995 to 49% in 1999, CTA now has a much broader market base, among a larger number of

households.

In general, frequent riders make about 70-75% of all rides carried on an average weekday, while infrequent

riders make the remaining 25-30%.

Choice Markets Expansion

There has been a significant increase in the proportion of riders choosing to ride the CTA, over some other

mode, for at least some trips (see Figure 1). Notably, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of riders

who own a car but prefer using transit.

In 1997 nearly two out of five CTA riders owned a car but chose to use the CTA for at least some trips.

This figure increased to 47% in 1999. Moreover, 13% of CTA riders have made a choice not to own a car, because

they prefer using public transportation.

Therefore, the majority (60%) of CTA riders should be considered choice riders---that is, they have theoption to use or not to use the CTA.

This increase in the number of choice riders is consistent with the increase in the proportion of households

with riders, as well as the change in the mix of riders, with a higher proportion of less frequent riders.

SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY MEASURES

A primary purpose of this research was to develop an index of customer loyalty that could be measured over

time (3). While complex measures of customer loyalty can be developed (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) using methods such asconjoint analysis, these approaches are impractical and costly for purposes of an ongoing study of customersatisfaction. Recent research has shown that simple composite indices can still provide a useful measure for

decision-making (10, 11, 12, 13). Moreover, keeping the analysis simple allows for replication of the measure overtime, as well as its use in other studies.

After evaluating CTAs performance on individual bus and rail service attributes, three questions were asked of

all survey respondents, to measure overall satisfaction and loyalty: 1) How satisfied are you overall with CTA(bus/rail) service?, 2) How likely are you to continue riding CTA (bus/rail) service?, and 3) How willing are

you to recommend CTA (bus/rail) service to a friend, family or co-worker? These three questions, worth 5 points

each, form the basis for CTAs customer loyalty index (10).

The possible range of scores, therefore, is from 3 to 15a perfect score. In 1995, a target zone for thiscustomer loyalty index was set at between fourteen and fifteen. While this may seem to be an unrealistically high

7/30/2019 00395

4/16

4

figure, a lower score than fourteen means that the rider gave the CTA a rating of four or less on at least two items, orthat the rider gave the CTA a score of three or less on at least one item. As other consumer marketing references

(14, 15, 16) suggest, only a truly satisfied customer can be considered a truly loyal customer, and one that offers

transit agencies the greatest promise of enhanced ridership and farebox revenues.

Significant improvements were found on all 3 overall satisfaction and loyalty measures.

Overall Satisfaction With CTA

As summarized in Figure 2, the share of CTA customers either satisfied or very satisfied has grown

from 73% to 80%.

More than 1/3 of CTA riders indicate that they are very satisfied with CTA bus/rail service, while another

46% indicated that they are somewhat satisfied.

The proportion very satisfied has increased significantly since 1995, from about 1/5 of all CTA riders to

more than 1/3.

Likelihood of Continued Ridership

Consistent with these increasing satisfaction levels, a growing proportion of survey respondents alsoindicate high likelihood of continued ridership of CTA (see Figure 3).

The share who definitely will or probably will continue riding CTA has increased significantly since 1997,

from 76% to 86%.

The proportion of respondents indicating that they definitely will continue riding CTA has grown from

44% in 1995 to 59% in 1999.

Likelihood of Recommending CTA

Since 1995 the share who definitely or probably would recommend CTA to a friend, family member or co-

worker has grown from 73% to 83% (see Figure 4).

In 1995, less than one out of three (32%) riders said they would be very likely to recommend riding theCTA. This figure increased to 1 out of 2 (50%) riders in 1999.

Gains in recommendation rates were achieved among both bus riders---from 30% to 47% definitely wouldrecommend--- and train riders---from 34% to 54% definitely would recommend.

Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty

Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide the basis for deriving a customer loyalty index, as summarized in Figure 5.

In general, this index is based upon achieving the very highest rating score---very satisfied, definitely willcontinue riding, or definitely will recommend---for 2 out of these 3 measures. With a score of5 associated with

this highest rating, for any one of these measures, the target zone in Figure 5 represents either three fives or two

fives and a four.

Consistent with the increases in overall satisfaction, continued ridership, and recommendation rates, the

average customer loyalty index (average combined score) increased significantly; from 11.7 in 1997 to 12.6 (out offifteen) in 1999.

7/30/2019 00395

5/16

5

In 1995, only 27% of all riders had a loyalty index within the target zone---that is, between 14 and 15. This

figure increased to 38% in 1997, and to 46% in 1999 (see Figure 5).

Consistent with the higher scores overall, train riders are more loyal than bus riders. In 1999, over half(52%) of all train riders had a customer loyalty index in the target zone---up from 43 percent in 1997.

The bus has also achieved significant gains in customer loyalty. In 1999, two out of five (40%) of all bus

riders had a customer loyalty index in the target zone up from 34 percent in 1999.

CUSTOMER LOYALTY SEGMENTS

Another way to segment responses to the ratings given to the three loyalty index components is

summarized in Figure 6. Here, all respondents who fell in the target zone of Figure 5 are now classified as

secure riders---three perfect scores of five, or favorable--- two 5s and a 4.

All remaining respondents are then regarded as either vulnerable or highly vulnerable to being lost as

CTA riders. This is consistent with interpretations in general market research literature (7, 9, 16), where those who

are not completely satisfied with a product or service should be considered vulnerable to market competition.

Figure 6 also indicates the significant improvement since 1995 in the number of riders who can be

classified as either secure or loyal. These secure/loyal riders have increased from 30% to 49%.

The proportion of Secure riders, in particular, has nearly doubled since 1995 increasing from 13 percentto 25 percent. Similarly, the proportion of those who are generally favorable towards riding has increased relatively

by 41 percent 17 percent in 1995 to 24 percent in 1999.

As with other measures, CTA rail has achieved the greatest increases in the number of Secure Riders.

However, bus has also achieved a significant increase in the number of Secure Riders. Note that while train

achieved positive increases between 1995 and 1997, bus did not. The changes for bus between 1997 and 1999 arehowever, significant. Therefore, bus has also achieved significant increases over the benchmark figures established

in 1995.

Variation by Area and Mode

While the proportion of bus riders with a loyalty index in the target zone has increased significantly since

1997 (see Table 1), the increase in the average index for bus riders is not statistically significant at the 95 percent

confidence level. It is significant at the 90 percent level. The average index has increased significantly (p

7/30/2019 00395

6/16

6

TABLE 1: CUSTOMER LOYALTY INDEX BY AREA AND MODE

All Riders

1997

1999

Bus1997

1999

Train1997

1999

ALL

AREAS

12.2

12.6

12.0

12.2

12.5

13.0

DOWN

TOWN

12.8

13.1

12.8

12.6

12.9

13.5

NORTH

12.6

12.9

12.3

12.6

12.8

13.2

NORTH

WEST

12.4

12.6

12.1

12.1

12.7

13.1

SOUTH

11.7

11.9

11.6

11.5

11.8

12.3

SOUTH

WEST

12.3

13.0

11.7

12.6

12.8

13.5

WEST

12.0

12.7

12.2

12.4

11.8

13.1

SUBURBS

12.4

12.9

12.2

12.8

12.6

13.0

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

Note that the two areas with the highest average loyalty index, 13.5 for rail, in 1999---Downtown and

Southwest---maintained their top-ranked positions, though their relative gain from 1997 was not quite statistically

significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

Downtown residents have maximum flexibility to easily use all CTA rail lines, while Southwest corridor

residents are served by the newest, most modern of CTAs rail lines.

Customer Loyalty vs. Transit Dependence

Customer loyalty ratings were also examined according to whether survey respondents were transit

dependent did not have a car available/unable to drive---or choice riders---car available, or voluntarily

gave up car to ride transit. As indicated in Figure 7, choice riders are significantly more loyal than

dependent riders, particularly for bus. For example, 25.9% of bus riders are very loyal/secure, if they ride

bus by choice, compared to 15.4% secure, among dependent bus riders.

While rail riders are, generally, much more loyal than bus riders to start out with---reflecting the

higher overall service qualities offered by rail---choice rail riders still show significantly higher loyaltylevels than dependent rail riders. The relative increases in loyalty are less dramatic than for bus, however.

It is important to remember that choice riders are a discriminating group. They have, in general, chose

both bus and rail services that offer relatively high service quality, which thereby puts transit on a more

competitive footing with auto. But by selecting high-quality transit, they are also self-selecting

themselves to be relatively satisfied and, therefore, tend to be more loyal as well. In effect, theyve

picked only the best of the services CTA offers, which puts them in the upper levels of both more

satisfied and more loyal CTA customers.

Customer Loyalty vs. Riding Frequency

Figure 8 summarizes a similar comparison of customer loyalty ratings according to whether service respondents

were frequent (at least five days in the last week) or infrequent CTA riders. Separate bus and rail distinctions

continue to be made. Again, rail riders tend to be more loyal overall than bus riders, but show smaller relative gains

in loyalty.

7/30/2019 00395

7/16

7

Infrequent bus riders show a modest 4.9% gain in secure riders, compared to frequent riders, while for secure rail

riders this increase is only 3.5%. These relative gains are less for loyal bus riders, and, in fact, no gain is shown at

this level for rail.

Infrequent riders, as a general rule, tend to have other mode options available to them, and therefore also are

more discriminating in the levels of transit service selected. There are consequently parallels with the results shownin Figure 7, in that infrequent riders are more loyal because they are more loyal to the better levels of CTA service

that they have chosen. This again is particularly true for rail, as compared to bus, with higher overall loyalty levels.

Similar investigations were also made of customer loyalty stratified by length of time riding CTA. No

statistically significant differences were found, however.

SERVICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR CTA BUS AND RAIL

Between 1997 and 1999, significant improvements were found in many more specific transit service attributes

than were seen between 1995 and 1999. These were directly related to CTA management initiatives of 1998 and

1999. These improvements in customer satisfaction, for both bus and rail, are also major factors in the parallel

increases in customer loyalty.

Improvements in Customer Satisfaction: Bus

Satisfaction ratings improved for 24 of the 44 elements of bus service, as rated in both 1997 and 1999 (see

Table 2). The largest significant improvement occurred in cost of bus pass use---from a mean in 1997 of 2.97 to3.95 in 1999.

This satisfaction increase reflects the success of the different fare media introduced late in 1998. This

includes the new 7-Day pass, as well as a price reduction for the 30-Day pass, and other improvements related to

CTA farecard discount pricing.

Improvements were also noted for cleanliness of bus exterior, as well as, to a lesser extent, cleanliness of

bus interior. All garages are now performing a general cleaning of buses at 2,000-mile intervals, compared to the

previous 4,000-mile interval.

Improvements in Customer Satisfaction: Rail

Satisfaction ratings improved for 31 of the 43 elements of rail service, rated in both 1997 and 1999 (see

Table 3). The most significant change occurred for the cost of the pass used. This increase again reflects the

success of the different fare media improvements introduced at the end of 1998. As with bus, those using the new 7-Day pass are the most satisfied, rating the cost of the pass at 4.23, compared with 3.77 for those using the 30-Day

pass.

While gains were made in many other areas of CTA Rail service, the attributes with the 5 next largest gains

relate to other dimensions of the fare simplification package inaugurated in 1998.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Through the measurement of customer-derived satisfaction and loyalty measures, and through management

initiatives based on satisfaction-based priorities, CTA has succeeded in substantially improving customersatisfaction and loyalty.

2. By improving service quality features that matter to customers, CTA has succeeded in attracting new

choice riders, and greatly improving the satisfaction and loyalty of current riders.

7/30/2019 00395

8/16

8

3. CTA must continue to put its customers needs first, through ongoing focus on the service attributes that

drive customer satisfaction and loyalty.

4. When service quality is improved, the potential to attract new choice riders, who will be at least as satisfiedas current choice riders, is increased. In general, all choice riders will fall above some minimum threshold of

acceptable service quality.

5. However, when perceived service quality stabilizes, and no significant increases are observed in customer

satisfaction with regard to specific quality-of-service measures, additional choice riders will be very difficult to

attract. This may be possible, to some degree, however, through expanded marketing and promotion, which stress

the positive transit performance measures most attractive to choice riders, in an effort to better inform them of their

options.

6. The three-part loyalty index explored here appears to be a useful summary measure of the extent to which

satisfaction with individual service quality measures can be translated into a broader index of customer

commitment to public transit, as a consumer service.

7. Further research into the usefulness of customer loyalty as a measure that helps better define ways in which

notoriously hard-to-please choice rider can be attracted to public transit should be further pursued.

REFERENCES

1. Northwest Research Group. Customer Satisfaction Survey of CTA Riders. Technical Report

MR00-01. Chicago Transit Authority. December 1999.

2. M. K. Christopher, D. G. Stuart, and P. J. Foote. Structuring and Assessing Transit Management Response toCustomer Satisfaction Surveys. Transportation Research Record 1669. Transportation Research Board. 1999.

3. A. S. Weinstein. Customer Satisfaction Among Transit Riders: How Do Customers Rank the Relative

Importance of Various Service Attributes? Paper No. 00-0700, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,

January 2000. Preprint CD-ROM.

4. F. C. Van Bennekom. How to Create a Customer Loyalty Survey. Customer Support Management.September 1999. pp. 46-52.

5. R. C. Lewis and B. H. Booms. The Marketing Aspects of Service Quality, in Emerging Perspectives on

Services Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association. 1983. pp. 99-107.

6. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. Conceptual Model of Service Quality. Journal of

Marketing, Fall 1985. pp. 41-50.

7. C. Fornell, M. D. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha, and B. E. Bryant, The American Customer SatisfactionIndex: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60. 1996. pp. 7-18.

8. R. F. Hurley, and H. Estelami. Alternative Indexes for Monitoring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality:A Comparative Evaluation in a Retail Context, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 3.

1998. pp 209-221.

9. M. P. Pritchard, M. E. Havitz, and D. R. Howard. Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in ServiceContexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, No. 3. 1999. pp 333-348.

10. MORPACE International, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A Handbook for Measuring Customer

Satisfaction and Service Quality. TCRP Report 47. Transportation Research Board. 1999.

7/30/2019 00395

9/16

9

11. D. R. Brandt. Customer Satisfaction Indexing. Paper presented at Annual Conference, American MarketingAssociation. 1996.

12. S. Silkunas, Customer Satisfaction: The Next Frontier. Transportation Research Record 1395.

Transportation Research Board. 1993.

13. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. Customer Satisfaction Index for the Mass TransitIndustry. IDEA Program Final Report. Transportation Research Board. August 1995.

14. M. Ryan, R. Rayner, and A. Morrison. Diagnosing Customer Loyalty Drivers, Marketing Research. Summer

1999. Pp 19-26.

15. T. B. Taylor, B. Timothy. Better Loyalty Measurement Leads to Business Solutions, Marketing News, Vol.32, No. 22. 1998. pp. 41-42.

16. M. Srinivasan. New Insights into Switching Behavior, Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3. 1996. pp. 27-33.

7/30/2019 00395

10/16

10

Dependence on CTA

12 %

37%

12 %

39%

9%

31 %

13 %

47 %

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Cant / Dont Know

How to Drive

Dont Hav e Car

Available

Dont Have Car /

Prefer Transit

Have Car / Prefer

Transit Sometimes

1999

1997

CTAs Choice market has grown from 51% to 60%.

Choice

Customers

Figure 1

Overall Satisfaction With CTA

17 % 13 %

10 %

6 % 7 %

51 %

50 % 46 %

22 %31 % 34 %

12 %0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 9 95 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9

V e ry

Satisf ied

Satisf ied

Neutra l

Dissatisf ied

/ Very

Dissatisf ied

Those Satisfied and Very Satisfied have grown from 73% to 80%.

Figure 2

7/30/2019 00395

11/16

11

Likelihood of Continued Ridership

12 % 9%

12 %10 %

7%

32 %

31 %

27 %

44 %50 %

59 %

8%0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100%

1995 1997 1999

Definitely

Will

Probably

Will

Neutral

Will Not

Those Likely to Continue Riding have grown from 76% to 80%.

Figure 3

Likelihood of Recommending CTA

9 % 7 %

1 4 %14 % 1 0%

4 1 %38 %

3 3%

3 2 %42 %

5 0%

7 %0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

19 9 5 1 9 97 19 9 9

Definitely

Wo u ld

P ro b ab ly

Wo u ld

Neutra l

Would Not

Those Likely to Recommend have grown from 73% to 83%.

Figure 4

7/30/2019 00395

12/16

12

Cu stom er Loyalty Index

0 %

5 %

1 0 %

1 5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 9

T

A

R

G

E

T

Z

O

N

E

The Share in the Target Zone has grown from 27% to 46%.

Figure 5

All Riders Bus Train

1995 1997 1999 1997 1999 1997 1999

% Within Target

Zone

27% 38% 46% 34% 40% 43% 52%

Mean 11.7 12.3 12.6 12.0 12.2 12.5 13.0

Median 12.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.0

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

7/30/2019 00395

13/16

13

Customer Loyalty Segments

45 %

25 %

17%

13%

36%

24%

21%

19 %

30%

21%

24%

25 %

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Highly Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Loyal

Very Lo yal/Secure

Riders

1999

1997

1995

Those Loyal have grown from 30% to 49%.

Figure 6

Secure

or Loyal

Bus Train

1997 1999 1997 1999

Secure 16% 20% 22% 30%Favorable 21 22 21 26Vulnerable 24 22 23 20

Highly Vulnerable 39 36 34 24Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

7/30/2019 00395

14/16

14

Customer Loyalty vs. Transit Dependence

Figure 7

26.6%

28.0%

25.2%

29.2%

32.5%

25.9%

20.4%

22.3%

18.5%

21.2%

27.0%

15.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Loyal System

Loyal Rai l

Loya l Bus

Very Loyal/Secure

System

Very Loyal/Secure Rail

Very Loyal/Secure Bus

P e r c e n t

Dependent

Choice

Customer Loyalty vs. Riding Frequency

Figure 8

24.1%

24.3%

23.9%

27.3%

31.6%

23.0%

24.2%

27.6%

20.7%

23.1%

28.1%

18.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Loyal System

Loyal Rail

Loyal Bus

Very Loyal/Secure

System

Very Loyal/Secure

Rail

Very Loyal/Secure

B us

Percent

Frequent

Riders

Infrequent

Riders

7/30/2019 00395

15/16

15

Table 2: Positive Changes in Bus Performance: 1997 to 1999

1997 1999 Change

Cost of pass used 2.97 3.95 33%

Cleanliness / appearance of bus

exterior

3.44 3.93 14%

Cost of a transfer 3.44 3.84 12%Availability of bus stop where work 3.99 4.44 11%

Cost of a one-way ride 3.32 3.67 11%

Availability of printed schedules for

all routes

2.94 3.23 10%

Effectiveness of CTAs customer

service hotline

3.57 3.90 9%

Courtesy of bus driver 3.56 3.87 9%

Smoothness of ride 3.30 3.59 9%

Ease of making transfers 3.75 4.06 8%

Safety from crime while riding the

bus

3.73 4.02 8%

Safety from crime when get on / off

bus

3.67 3.96 8%

Value of service received for fare

paid

3.52 3.79 8%

Availability of accurateroute/schedule info at stops

3.26 3.52 8%

Availability of bus stop where live 4.13 4.43 7%

Professional appearance of driver 4.09 4.37 7%

Cleanliness and appearance of bus

interior

3.36 3.61 7%

Comfort of bus seats 3.52 3.72 6%

Ease of paying fare on bus 4.08 4.27 5%

Ease of getting passes / fare cards 3.93 4.11 5%

Bus drivers knowledge of

system/routes/schedules

3.80 3.98 5%

Ease of getting information byphone

3.71 3.89 5%

Personal safety at stops related to

behavior of others

3.53 3.72 5%

Driver operates bus in safe /

competent manner

3.93 4.06 3%

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not. p

7/30/2019 00395

16/16

16

Table 3: Positive Changes in CTA Rail Performance 1997 to 1999

1997 1999 Change

Cost of pass used 2.94 4.01 36%

Cost of transfer 3.42 3.92 15%

Ease of paying fare at train stations 3.73 4.15 11%Ease of getting passes / fare cards 3.82 4.25 11%

Cost of one-way ride 3.35 3.72 11%

Value of service for fare paid 3.57 3.92 10%

Effectiveness of CTAs customer service

hotline

3.43 3.79 10%

Cleanliness / appearance of train exterior 3.63 3.95 9%

Ease of making transfers to another bus /

train

3.70 4.05 9%

Ease of getting information by phone 3.52 3.83 9%

Availability of printed schedules for all

trains

3.47 3.76 8%

Courtesy / helpfulness of customer

assistants

3.57 3.83 7%

Time between trains 3.39 3.62 7%

Availability of train station where live 4.15 4.39 6%

Names of stations clearly visible from

inside trains

4.05 4.31 6%

Ease of getting on / off train 4.01 4.24 6%

Availability of accurate route / schedule

information

3.72 3.95 6%

Comfort of seats 3.37 3.57 6%

Knowing what time the next train arrives 3.32 3.52 6%

Availability of seats / benches at stations 3.12 3.32 6%

Availability of temporary service change

information3.47 3.69 6%

Availability of train station where work 4.12 4.32 5%

Visibility of route names / numbers on

train3.99 4.17 5%

Operators knowledge of system, routes,

schedules3.90 4.11 5%

Travel time by train compared with car 3.84 4.02 5%

Smoothness of ride 3.49 3.68 5%On-time performance 3.51 3.67 5%

Professional appearance of operator 3.97 4.12 4%

Courtesy of train conductors / operators 3.80 3.94 4%

Trains / stations are clean of graffiti 3.37 3.51 4%

Wait time when transferring 3.16 3.30 4%

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not. p