BEST 2010 Results of the survey

BEST 2010BEST 2010

BEST 2010Results of the survey

Kjetil VrenneBEST Project Manager

May 27th, 2010

BEST Survey 2010 Results & Analyses Page 1

BEST 2010

Main results and City reports


BEST 2010

BEST Results of the 2010 survey


BEST 2010

Summary report – per city


Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - positive development

%-points change in 2010 Top five improvement areas Compared to

BEST

The information is good when traffic problems occur 11 % Citizen satisfaction 11 I am satisfied with the number of departures 5

The information is good in stops and terminals 9 % Loyalty 7 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 6

Waiting time is short at transfers 4 % Nearest stop is close to where I live 1

The busses and trains are clean 4 % 1

2

Transfers are easy 3 % Security & safety 2Public transport mostly runs on schedule 2 % Value for money 2I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 1 % Comfort -1The busses and trains are modern 0 %

I feel secure at stations and bus stops -1 %

Public transport gives value for money -1 %

The staff answers my questions correctly -2 %

I am satisfied with the number of departures -2 %

I feel secure on board busses and trains -2 %

Below average - compared with other BEST cities Index - lower satisfaction scores

%-points change in 2010

I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport -8 % Social image -3

It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip -8 % Traffic supply -4Nearest stop is close to where I live -9 % Staff behaviour -4The staff behaves nicely and correctly -11 % Information -8

Reliability -13 VIE 2010

SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009

DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION

On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction scores at the same level

%-points change in 2010

SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES

It's easy to get the info needed when planning a trip

I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT

Quality element score compared

Change in index Top 5 drivers of satisfaction

BEST 2010

Changes in the web based reporting solutionhttps://report.scandinfo.se/best/Login.aspx


https://report.scandinfo.se/best/Login.aspx

BEST 2010

BEST Survey 2010 Results & Analyses

Page 6

BEST 2010


BEST 2010


BEST 2010BEST 2010

SPECIAL TOPIC

TRANSFER


BEST 2010

Additional questions included in the 2010 survey

ROTATE STATEMENTSDon’t

agree at all

Hardly agree Neutral Partially

agreeFully agree

Don’t know /

no answer

A Walking distances are short at transfers

B When transferring, I usually have enough time to catch the departure I plan to transfer to

C I would transfer more often if corresponding transport was guaranteed

D I prefer not to transfer, even if the journey takes longer


BEST 2010

Additional background question


If travel by public transport in background question 1

When travelling by public transport, do you usually make a transfer on …..

READ OUT

All or almost all journeys 1

Most journeys 2

About half the journeys 3

Some journeys 4

None or almost none of the journeys 5

(DO NOT READ) Do not know/No answer 6

Page 11

BEST 2010

Frequent users transfers more often


0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

Daily A few times per week

A few times per month

Less than monthly Never

PT travel frequency

Usually make a transfer on all or most journeys

BEST 2010

The drivers of satisfaction with transfers


Transfers are easy

I feel secure at stations and bus stops

It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip

The information is good when traffic problems occur

The information is good in stops and terminals

Waiting time is short at transfers

Walking distances are short at transfers

0,11

0,10

0,12

0,11

0,28

0,23

Page 13

BEST 2010

Drivers of satisfaction with transfers – per city


Average Stockholm Oslo Helsinki Copenhagen Vienna Geneva

I feel secure at stations and bus stops ,11 ,13 ,13 ,11 ,12 ,14 ,07

It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip ,10 ,04 ,14 ,14 ,12 ,07 ,13

The information is good when traffic problems occur ,12 ,03 ,06 ,09 ,11 ,16 ,15

The information is good in stops and terminals ,11 ,07 ,07 ,06 ,09 ,11 ,12

Waiting time is short at transfers ,28 ,39 ,26 ,29 ,28 ,25 ,25

Walking distances are short at transfers ,23 ,25 ,25 ,27 ,19 ,21 ,22

Page 14

BEST 2010

Satisfaction with transfer does not affect preference


BEST 2010

PT travel frequency does not affect preference


BEST 2010

And even transfer frequency has a little impact


BEST 2010

Not a strong belief in guaranteed correspondence?


BEST 2010

Main findings1. Frequent users of PT transfer more often than less frequent users

2. Citizens prefer not to transfer, even if they:– Transfer frequently– Finds transfers easy to make

3. Reduced waiting time and walking distances, are the main drivers of satisfaction with transfers

4. More than 50 % of the citizens would transfer more often if correspondence was guaranteed:– But a weak correlation with transfer frequency suggests that the citizens are sceptical

to the idea of guaranteed correspondence


BEST 2010BEST 2010

BEST Results 2010

Index – increase more than + 3 % points

Index – decrease more than - 3 % points


70761432433

BEST 2010

The BEST Survey 2010• Six participating cities/regions• The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2010

was conducted in March (from the 1st to the 14th)

• 1.000 telephone interviews with persons aged 15 years or older (except Helsinki with 1.600 interviews)

• Weighted for sex and age


BEST 2010

PT travel frequency 2010


35

35

36

44

20

33

34

25

26

25

21

27

28

28

22

20

23

21

26

18

23

16

16

15

12

24

19

13

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

Daily

A few times per week

A few times per month

Less than monthly

Never

Page 22

BEST 2010

Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction and loyalty included in the survey

10. Loyalty

8. Value for money

7. Social image

9. Satisfaction

1. Traffic Supply2. Reliability3. Information4. Staff behaviour5. Personal security/safety6. Comfort

Ridership


BEST 2010

Traffic supply

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-15

-12

-16

-16

-22

-21

68

67

64

60

59

56

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

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

68 71 68 69 68

67 68 65 66 67

64 68 60 72 66

60 63 59 58 57

59 57 59 62 55

56 54 55 57 56


BEST 2010

Reliability

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Copenhagen

Stockholm

Oslo

-11

-21

-19

-26

-29

-37

73

56

53

43

40

39

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

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

73 76 79 83 79

56 68 64 64 72

53 65 56 72 68

43 43 41 40 38

40 50 41 36 38

39 39 48 52 43


BEST 2010

Information

Geneva

Vienna

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Oslo

Stockholm

-11

-20

-28

-27

-32

-33

71

53

46

45

44

40


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

71 75 71 71 66

53 61 54 64 64

46 52 49 48 57

45 46 48 43 48

44 46 46 47 42

40 52 58 49 51


BEST 2010

Staff behaviour

Geneva

Oslo

Copenhagen

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

-7

-9

-8

-12

-11

-10

74

67

65

59

56

55


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

74 78 74 75 76

67 71 69 74 65

65 68 65 66 65

59 58 54 57 59

56 60 54 71 67

55 58 54 55 59


BEST 2010

Security and safety

Oslo

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Copenhagen

Stockholm

-5

-8

-10

-9

-10

-9

84

76

74

74

71

69


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

84 82 82 83 80

76 74 72 71 72

74 79 77 80 74

74 72 76 87 81

71 68 69 70 70

69 70 64 65 63


BEST 2010

Comfort

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-11

-11

-10

-13

-15

-14

67

62

60

57

56

56


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

67 71 68 71 67

62 62 63 63 63

60 61 60 69 64

57 59 56 55 53

56 53 52 54 48

56 58 55 54 54


BEST 2010


BEST 2010


Page 31

BEST 2010

Value for money

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Geneva

Copenhagen

-24

-29

-29

-37

-39

-44

51

42

39

37

36

28


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

51 51 47 49 50

42 40 33 53 49

39 36 26 46 40

37 38 38 34 34

36 40 33 31 25

28 28 27 35 32


BEST 2010

Social image

Oslo

Helsinki

Geneva

Stockholm

Vienna

Copenhagen

-4

-3

-3

-2

-5

-9

88

87

87

85

81

71


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

88 88 87 89 81

87 89 84 86 82

87 90 86 87 85

85 86 80 80 81

81 84 79 85 81

71 73 69 70 68


BEST 2010


BEST 2010


BEST 2010

Loyalty

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-6

-8

-7

-12

-17

-23

80

75

72

62

60

47


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

80 81 80 78 75

75 75 73 75 67

72 65 70 81 75

62 63 56 61 57

60 61 63 65 53

47 47 42 49 45


BEST 2010

I am satisfied with the number of departures

Public transport mostly runs on schedule

Waiting time is short at trans-fers

Transfers are easy

The staff answers my ques-tions correctly

0.24

0.19

0.13

0.12

0.10

CopenhagenI am satisfied with the number of departures

Waiting time is short at transfers

I normally get a seat when I travel with public trans-

portThe information is good when traffic problems

occur

The staff behaves nicely and correctly

0.24

0.14

0.12

0.12

0.11

GenevaI am satisfied with the number of departures

Transfers are easy


I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using

public transport

The busses and trains are clean

0.23

0.19

0.14

0.10

0.08

Helsinki



I feel secure at stations and bus stops

The busses and trains are modern


0.30

0.25

0.10

0.09

0.09

OsloPublic transport mostly runs

on schedule


The staff behaves nicely and correctly


The busses and trains are clean

0.25

0.17

0.17

0.15

0.12

StockholmI am satisfied with the number of departures


Nearest stop is close to where I live

It is easy to get the informa-tion needed when planning a

tripI am not afraid of traffic

accidents when using pub-lic transport

0.20

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.09

Vienna

Which improvements will have the greatest impact on satisfaction?

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.


BEST 2010

Results per index and city/region in 2010Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Traffic supply 64 67 68 60 59 56

Reliability 53 56 73 40 39 43

Information 53 46 71 40 44 45

Staff behaviour 56 59 74 55 67 65

Security & safety 74 76 74 69 84 71

Comfort 60 62 67 57 56 56

Value for money 42 51 36 39 37 28

Social image 81 87 87 85 88 71

Loyalty 72 80 75 62 60 47


BEST 2010

Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010

Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Traffic supply -4 -1 - 3 -3 2 1

Reliability -13 -12 - 3 -9 0 0

Information - 8 -6 - 4 -11 -2 -1

Staff behaviour - 4 1 - 3 -3 -4 - 3

Security & safety 2 3 - 5 -2 2 3

Comfort -1 0 - 4 -2 3 -2

Value for money 2 0 - 4 3 -1 -1

Social image - 3 -2 - 3 -1 0 -2

Loyalty 7 -1 0 -2 -1 0


BEST 2010BEST 2010

Thank you for your attention!


Date post:	08-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	adeola
View:	31 times
Download:	0 times

BEST 2010 Results of the survey

Documents