Deliverable 2.3Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of

variables to be measured by the METPEX toolPublishable summary

Coordinator:

Professor Andree Woodcock, Coventry University

Tel.: +44 (0) 2476 158349 Email: A.woodcock@coventry.ac.uk

Author:

Dr, Yusak O. Susilo, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

tel.: +46(0)87909635, Email: yusak.susilo@abe.kth.se

Duration of Research:Project Duration Nov 2012 – October 2015

Deliverable Duration : Feb 2013 – Aug 2013

WEBSITE

WWW.METPEX.EU

Grant Agreement no: 314354 Project Full Title ‘A Measurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience’

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Desk study findings on travel needs of different groups of

travellers

3. Experiment and survey design

4. Passenger survey and stakeholders interview results

5. Conclusions

Aims of the deliverable

• To identify the variables which can be used to measure the whole

journey passenger experience that will impact on increased

acceptance and take-up of new terrestrial transport solutions and

technologies, and a more inclusive terrestrial transport system

with better access for all.

• To involve cities/agencies/operators in the process by getting early

feedback on the adequacy of the tools and how the information

provided will inform sustainable transport policies.

• To define the variables that will be measured by the METPEX Tool.

Who travelled in METPEX cities?

Within the cities involved in METPEX:

• A relatively balanced proportion of men and women,

• A higher proportion of younger individuals, than national average,

in Vilnius, Dublin and Coventry,

• Coventry also has a higher proportion of minority groups,

• Stockholm also has a higher proportion of cyclist than other

observed cities,

• Students and pupils are a significant part of the population,

• Coventry and Valencia have a significant proportion of

unemployed travellers,

• Valencia and Rome have a significant proportion of

tourists/unfamiliar travellers.

Needs for different groups of travellers

Groups Special Characteristics Main Important Factors

Full-time employed workersRegularly incur more temporal constraints than

monetary expendituresPunctuality, reliability, cost

Female travellers

Travel shy, reassurance seeker and cautious

planner. Has a complex scheduling of activities

in both time and space and is likely to bring

luggage

Safe, reliable, affordable and

comprehensive access

Parents with small childrenLikely to be a female than a male, travelling

with buggies and luggages

Accessible vehicle and station,

on-board space and supportive

attitudes

Low income travellers

Tend to be captive with the cheapest mode

alternative and spent a significant proportion

of his/her income for travel

Availability, adequacy, cost and

safety

Children and young travellers

Smaller children highly dependent on their

parents' decisions and preferences. For many

young teens, travel represents a gateway to

adulthood, enabling independence,

socialisation and a recognition of maturity.

Practicalities (such as cost and

speed of journey), flexibility and

safety

Needs for different groups of travellers

Groups Special Characteristics Main Important Factors

Elderly travellers

Tend to have more limited ability and

strength to move. The feeling of able to

travel independently is closely linked with

his/her sense of self-worth. They have

increased difficulty in identifying signs, in

reading timetables, listening to loudspeakers

and to execute responses.

Physical and emotional barriers,

affordability, flexibility, reliability

and support facilities

Disabled travellers

Has physical or mental impairment which

has a substantial and long-term adverse

effect on his/her ability to travel. Lack

confidence when travelling, experience a

lack of flexibility in their travel choices and

difficult to be spontaneous.

Physical accessibility and

availability, support facilities

(including information

availabilities), cost, certainty and

security and supportive attitudes

Tourists and unfamiliar

travellers

Suffer lost-in-translation problem. Have a

high mobility needs, but limited spatial and

language knowledge

A simpler system, more

information provisions and more

helpful and tolerant staff

The needs of experiment

• There is a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different

groups of travellers who used different travel modes.

• There is a lack of studies that well integrated instrumental and

non-instrumental variables and covered the whole (door-to-door)

travellers journey.

• On the other hand, it is impossible to incorporate all variables and

factors of concern in measuring the existing level of service.

• A mix of qualitative and quantitative experiment, that involves

primary data collections and empirical data analysis, carried out.

The variables that matters will be tested statistically, for different

socio-demographic groups and travel modes.

Experiment and survey description

• Experiment: questionnaire, consisted of five sections: • Individual attributes (socio-demographic, mobility behaviour)

• Attitudes (travel preferences, mobility-related opinions)

• Contextual variables (temporal, weather conditions, trip purpose,

subjective well-being indices)

• Underlying travel aspects (familiarity, adaptation, past experience)

• Travel experience factors (availability, travel time components,

information provision, reliability, way-finding, comfort, appeal, safety

and security, customer care, price, connectivity, ride quality,

environmental impact and travel time productivity as applicable)

• The experiment were carried out at eight METPEX cities:

Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Turin,

Valencia and Vilnius.

Experiment and survey description

• To complement the designed questionnaire, a series of

interviews with relevant stakeholders were held to discuss

which variables are important from their perspectives and

also to identify the variables that may be missed / unique

from city to city throughout Europe.

• The stakeholder interviews survey involved ten cities:

Bucharest, Dublin, Grevena, Rome, Stockholm, Turin,

Valencia, Coventry, Vilnius and Zurich, along with one

European body: the European Disability Forum (see

http://www.edf-feph.org/)

Passenger survey results

• 554 participants, Men (56%); Women (44%)

• Elderly and disabled travellers are underrepresented

• Majority has access to car (64%), PT card (62%) and bike

(61%)

• PT travel frequency: daily (55%); 2-3 time a week (16%);

seldom or never (13%)

• 66% of all trips were multimodal, 2.44 trip stages on

average

Passenger survey results

• Average satisfaction (1-5 scale)

Waiting and transfer conditions more prominent than

vehicle-related aspects

Satisfaction with walking was weakly correlated with

aspects included in the questionnaire

The primary trip stage is very strongly correlated with entire

trip satisfaction. The impacts of access and egress trip

stages is marginal, but each of them is strongly correlated

with the satisfaction from the primary trip stage.

Travellers that feel more passive are more likely to be

satisfied with the service, giving everything else is the same.

Current satisfaction is very strongly correlated with the

elements of past experience. It is even strongly correlated

with the assertion that the chosen mode is the best mean

of connection based on traveller’s experience.

Salient findings from regression analyses

• Past experience and travellers’ expectations are key

determinants of passenger experience

• Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to

contribute significantly to explaining travel experience in

most cases – with age and income being noticeable

exceptions.

• Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low

income or unemployed travellers have distinctive

determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various

travel modes.

• The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations.

Salient findings from regression analyses

• Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few

variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however

significantly more complicated than the factors determining

satisfaction on other transport modes. The variables

included in this pilot study were not able to explain

variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages.

• Travellers’ emotional state is an important determinant of

travel experience and satisfaction

• Travellers’ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety

and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of

travel satisfaction.

Stakeholders Interviews

Cities Operators Authorities

Non-

governmental’s

special interest

groups

Others (including

universities and

national research

institutes)

Total

Bucharest 2 1 1 4

Coventry 6 3 2 11

Dublin 1 1 1 3

Grevena 1 1

Rome 1 1

Stockholm 2 1 2 2 7

Turin 3 3 2 8

Valencia 2 1 3

Vilnius 1 2 1 4

Zurich 1 1 2

EDF (Brussels) 1 1

Total 17 12 9 7 45

Different questions were valued differently by different classes of

stakeholders.

Operators were mostly interested and concerned about the impacts of

detailed level-of-service related variables on passenger experience, whilst

the planning authorities were more interested with wider general urban

and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel patterns.

The special interest groups were understandably more interested with their

detailed constituent’s interests, where as the government’s research

institutes were interested with more detailed trip patterns and behavioural

variables that underlie the travellers’ decision making processes.

Variables valued most by stakeholders

Operator Authorities Special Needs Groups Other

Subjective Well-Being Subjective Well-Being

Attitudes and opinions towards mode-specific preferences, social norm, transfer preference, traffic

congestions and pollutions and safe and secure feelings whilst travelling

The main purpose of the trip

Trip arrival constraint

The use of pre-trip information

Carrying heavy or bulk item whilst travelling

Familiarity with the trip

Satisfaction level towards to the

current choice

The occurrence of disruption events and its impacts

Detailed trip stages, including waiting and on-vehicle time and

speed, travel time, punctuality

Detailed time reliability

perception

Detailed trip stages, including

waiting and on-vehicle time and

speed, travel time, punctuality

Information acquisition Information acquisition

Time utilisation on-board and at

stops

Time utilisation on-board and at

stops

Overall satisfaction in general and compared to the his/her

expectation and towards other mode alternatives and possible

modify the choice

Passenger satisfaction on: service availability (frequency and stop location), travel speed (both subjective and relative speeds),

information at stations and on-board, information about ticketing, comfort (quality on on-board, fellow travellers, seat availability,

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool

Variable Definition Comments

Primary variables

Travel time Actual time components including

access, waiting, in-vehicle/moving and

egress times (as applicable).

Could be measured directly from

traveller’s position data

Subjective travel

time

Perceived time components Direct questioning could be contrasted

against measured travel time

Station

environment

The appeal and safety of the physical

waiting environment

Relevant for public transport

Safety and security are particularly

relevant for women travellers

Personnel Availability and responsiveness of

personnel at stops and on-board

Relevant for public transport

Subjective satisfaction levels

Ease of

transferring

Quality of interchange (coordination,

transfer design, accessibility,

connectivity)

A complex notion that requires a more

detailed investigation of interchange

quality factors

Physical design The presence of physical hindrances,

appropriate and thoughtful design and

the surface quality.

Relevant for active modes

Requires an inventory for classifying

design quality

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool

Variable Definition Comments

Secondary variables

Information The availability and quality of pre-trip

and en-route information

Relevant for all modes except walking. Requires a

careful classification of information sources (type,

trip stage, comprehensiveness)

Availability Service frequency and span, service

coverage

Could be derived from the respective public

transport agencies and GIS analysis

Reliability Service punctuality/regularity and travel

time predictability

Relevant for public transport and car

Could be derived empirically from data on travel

time distribution

Comfort and appeal Seat availability and comfort, availability

of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness

at stops and on-board and travel

sickness

Relevant for public transport

A combination of subjective satisfaction levels and

an inventory of characteristics

Safety and security The perceived risk of being exposed to

traffic-related or an intentional act of

hostility

Relevant for all travel modes

Subjective risk levels that could be contrasted

against reported safety and security incidents

Parking availability Ease of finding an available parking

place

Relevant for car.

Could be measured empirically through the

parking search time.

Way-finding and

vehicle accessibility

Physical and mental barriers associated

with travelling – in particular, vehicle

design (low floor, priority seat) and way-

finding (orientation)

Relevant for special mobility groups

Accessibility could be checked against fleet

allocation and composition

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool

A MEasurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience

D2.3 – Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured

by the METPEX tool

Variable Definition Comments

Secondary variables

Information The availability and quality of pre-trip

and en-route information

Relevant for all modes except walking. Requires a

careful classification of information sources (type,

trip stage, comprehensiveness)

Availability Service frequency and span, service

coverage

Could be derived from the respective public

transport agencies and GIS analysis

Reliability Service punctuality/regularity and travel

time predictability

Relevant for public transport and car

Could be derived empirically from data on travel

time distribution

Comfort and appeal Seat availability and comfort, availability

of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness

at stops and on-board and travel

sickness

Relevant for public transport

A combination of subjective satisfaction levels and

an inventory of characteristics

Safety and security The perceived risk of being exposed to

traffic-related or an intentional act of

hostility

Relevant for all travel modes

Subjective risk levels that could be contrasted

against reported safety and security incidents

Parking availability Ease of finding an available parking

place

Relevant for car.

Could be measured empirically through the

parking search time.

Way-finding and

vehicle accessibility

Physical and mental barriers associated

with travelling – in particular, vehicle

design (low floor, priority seat) and way-

finding (orientation)

Relevant for special mobility groups

Accessibility could be checked against fleet

allocation and composition