Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)

Main results of the BEST 2009 Survey

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 2

Content1) 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


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 20078questionnaire. Since 2008, 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?’


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


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%


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%


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.

BEST performing city/region perindex 2006 - 2009

Citizen satisfaction

Traffic supply

Reliability

Information

Staff behaviour

Security and safety

Comfort

Value for money

Social image

Loyalty

-6

-16

-11

-10

-7

-6

-12

-22

-3

-4

84

76

76

75

78

82

71

51

90

81

Partly/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Citizen satisfaction Geneva (84)

Geneva(78)

Vienna(80)

Helsinki(81)

Barcelona(83)

Traffic supply Geneva (71)

Berlin(86)

Berlin(84)

Berlin(70)

Prague(73)

Reliability Geneva (76)

Berlin(84)

Berlin(84)

Geneva(79)

Prague(82)

Information Geneva (75)

Geneva(71)

Geneva(71)

Geneva(66)

Geneva(64)

Staff behaviour Geneva (78)

Geneva(74)

Geneva(75)

Geneva(76)

Geneva(72)

Security and safety Oslo (82)

Oslo(82)

Vienna(87)

Vienna(81)

Vienna(81)

Comfort Geneva (71)

Berlin(78)

Berlin(77)

Geneva(67)

Geneva(66)

Value for money Helsinki (51)

Berlin(56)

Vienna(53)

Helsinki(50)

Prague(60)

Social image Geneva (90)

Oslo(87)

Oslo(89)

Geneva(85)

Oslo(82)

Loyalty Helsinki (81)

Helsinki(80)

Vienna(81)

Vienna(75)

Vienna(79)


Best performing city per index

Results per index and city/region in 2009 and 2008


Results per index and city/region in 2009

Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Citizen satisfaction 61 82 84 76 62 56

Traffic supply 68 68 71 63 57 54

Reliability 65 68 76 50 39 43

Information 61 52 75 52 46 46

Staff behaviour 60 58 78 58 71 68

Security & safety 72 74 79 70 82 68

Comfort 61 62 71 59 53 58

Social image 84 89 90 86 88 73

Value for money 40 51 40 36 38 28

Loyalty 65 81 75 63 61 47



Vienna Helsinki Geneva Berlin Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Citizen satisfaction 68 76 78 73 64 62 50

Traffic supply 60 65 68 86 59 59 55

Reliability 56 64 79 84 41 48 41

Information 54 49 71 70 48 46 48

Staff behaviour 54 54 74 72 54 69 65

Security & safety 76 72 77 68 64 82 69

Comfort 60 63 68 78 56 52 55

Social image 79 84 86 80 80 87 69

Value for money 33 47 33 56 26 38 27

Loyalty 70 80 73 75 56 63 42




Citizen satisfaction 80 79 79 73 67 66 58

Traffic supply 72 66 69 84 58 62 57

Reliability 72 64 83 84 36 52 40

Information 64 48 71 67 49 47 43

Staff behaviour 71 57 75 71 55 74 66

Security & safety 87 71 80 72 65 83 70

Comfort 69 63 71 77 55 54 54

Social image 85 86 87 80 80 89 70

Value for money 53 49 31 53 46 34 35

Loyalty 81 78 75 71 61 65 49


Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009

Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Citizen satisfaction -6 6 6 13 -1 6

Traffic supply 8 3 3 4 -2 -1

Reliability 9 4 -3 9 -9 2

Information 8 3 4 4 1 -2

Staff behaviour 6 3 4 4 3 3

Security & safety -3 2 2 7 0 -1

Comfort 1 -1 3 4 1 3

Social image 4 4 4 6 0 4

Value for money 7 4 8 10 0 1

Loyalty -5 1 3 8 -1 5


Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008


Citizen satisfaction -12 -3 -1 0 -3 -4 -8

Traffic supply -12 -1 -1 2 1 -3 -2

Reliability -16 0 -4 0 5 -4 1

Information -10 1 0 3 -1 -1 5

Staff behaviour -17 -3 -1 1 -1 -5 -1

Security & safety -11 1 -3 -4 -1 -1 -1

Comfort -9 0 -3 1 1 -2 1

Social image -6 -2 -1 0 0 -2 -1

Value for money -20 -2 2 3 -20 4 -8

Loyalty -11 2 -2 4 -5 -2 -7

Which improvements matter most?

Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction


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

18

I am satisfied with the number of departures

Public transport mostly runs on schedule

Transfers are easy

I feel secure at stations and bus stops

The busses and trains are modern

0.24

0.21

0.15

0.12

0.12

CopenhagenI am satisfied with the number of departures


I feel secure on board busses and trains

The staff behaves nicely and correctly

Transfers are easy

0.17

0.15

0.14

0.14

0.10

GenevaI am satisfied with the number of departures

Transfers are easy

The busses and trains are clean

Waiting time is short at transfers


0.19

0.15

0.12

0.09

0.08

Helsinki



I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport

Nearest stop is close to where I live

Transfers are easy

0.24

0.18

0.17

0.10

0.09

OsloI am satisfied with the number

of departures

The busses and trains are modern


I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport

Waiting time is short at trans-fers

0.22

0.15

0.13

0.11

0.09

Stockholm

Transfers are easy


The staff behaves nicely and correctly


I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using pub-

lic transport

0.20

0.19

0.17

0.09

0.07

Vienna

Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport?

When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each city is of prime interest.

Comparison of the estimated effects across cities must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.

Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2005 - 2009


Overall citizen satisfaction

Geneva

Helsinki

Stockholm

Oslo

Vienna

Copenhagen

-6

-4

-6

-15

-10

-12

84

82

76

62

61

56

Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

84 78 79 76 71

82 76 79 81 76

76 64 67 65 66

62 62 66 58 58

61 68 80 74 75

56 50 58 56 58


Overall citizen satisfaction

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

% satisfied citizens

Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2008


Traffic supply

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-16

-12

-15

-14

-23

-22

71

68

68

63

57

54


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

71 68 69 68 67

68 65 66 67 65

68 60 72 66 67

63 59 58 57 62

57 59 62 55 57

54 55 57 56 55

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Traffic supply



Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2008


Reliability

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Oslo

-11

-10

-11

-17

-29

-35

76

68

65

50

43

39

Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

76 79 83 79 79

68 64 64 72 75

65 56 72 68 73

50 41 36 38 48

43 41 40 38 45

39 48 52 43 52

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Reliability



Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2008


Information

Geneva

Vienna

Stockholm

Helsinki

Oslo

Copenhagen

-10

-16

-20

-22

-29

-25

75

61

52

52

46

46


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

75 71 71 66 64

61 54 64 54 58

52 48 49 51 51

52 49 48 57 52

46 46 47 42 44

46 48 43 48 53

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Information



Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2008


Staff behaviour

Geneva

Oslo

Copenhagen

Vienna

Stockholm

Helsinki

-7

-8

-8

-12

-9

-13

78

71

68

60

58

58


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

78 74 75 76 72

71 69 74 65 67

68 65 66 65 65

60 54 71 67 64

58 54 55 59 63

58 54 57 59 56

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Staff behaviour



Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2008


Security and safety

Oslo

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Copenhagen

-6

-9

-9

-10

-8

-12

82

79

74

72

70

68


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

82 82 83 80 80

79 77 80 74 72

74 72 71 72 72

72 76 87 81 81

70 64 65 63 65

68 69 70 70 70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Security and safety



Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2008


Comfort

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Oslo

-12

-11

-13

-11

-14

-17

71

62

61

59

58

53


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

71 68 71 67 66

62 63 63 63 64

61 60 69 64 65

59 56 55 53 55

58 55 54 54 58

53 52 54 48 49

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Comfort



Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2008


Social image

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Copenhagen

-3

-2

-4

-2

-6

-9

90

89

88

86

84

73


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

90 86 87 85 80

89 84 86 82 81

88 87 89 81 82

86 80 80 81 78

84 79 85 81 82

73 69 70 68 67

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Social image



Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2008


Value for money

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Oslo

Stockholm

Copenhagen

-22

-40

-33

-36

-34

-43

51

40

40

38

36

28


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

51 47 49 50 48

40 33 31 25 19

40 33 53 49 46

38 38 34 34 32

36 26 46 40 29

28 27 35 32 31

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Value for money



Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2008


Loyalty

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-4

-8

-9

-8

-17

-23

81

75

65

63

61

47


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

81 80 78 75 76

75 73 75 67 63

65 70 81 75 79

63 56 61 57 57

61 63 65 53 57

47 42 49 45 45

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna


Loyalty



Background information


Gender

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

48.4180022123591

51.077131098985

48.4098320130438

47.99955514692

48.2929611357575

47.8884366530996

46.9946934529516

51.5819977876382

48.9228689010147

51.5901679869568

52.0004448530797

51.7070388642426

52.1115633469006

53.005306547048

Man

Woman


Life situation

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

53.8022915810985

59.8991542382438

60.5886163596481

52.4755590022109

57.3211712579311

51.0490314709442

41.9413029612134

9.98984406998496

12.1873319991134

8.0664819700827

4.64225540511467

5.62523126817678

10.3932117963539

20.6679016807698

10.6248233153604

12.0543210320762

11.1668965373791

12.8371373059153

12.9622366539781

5.36666099983

8.70610937955337

20.1590284126378

11.9373198957218

17.2438734921735

22.7535207486863

19.7173952829683

27.1697150914528

21.26226055184

5.14039225563286

3.92187283484475

2.79972927523525

7.16079050207949

4.22133853025727

4.89294678840366

7.22359242294442

Working, fulltime

Working, part time

Student

Retired

Others


Public transport travel frequency

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

34.8973657325462

38.7801256953638

37.4351488586201

47.6450935708359

20.6630173913669

28.0336410092303

33.0324903248671

26.1099196342742

24.440563048765

27.6774171225415

21.939221487141

25.2623769933019

32.8074842245267

25.7753657089172

21.2441557790996

19.1842041188726

20.3237476979596

19.0936210664353

25.5719466806474

20.6419192575778

23.2728720458317

15.3539261512081

16.4534465152895

10.7995200715533

10.2084872468409

23.571791636064

17.2482174465234

15.3994371231878

2.32019868650561

1.00959973300777

3.764166249326

1.11357662874637

4.93086729861987

0.931027930837927

2.51983479719572

Daily

A few times per week

A few times per month

Less than monthly

Never

For more information and other reports see our web site http://best2005.net or https://report.scandinfo.se/best/

http://best2005.net/

Date post:	04-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brynn-landry
View:	23 times
Download:	0 times

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)

Documents