European Commission - Special Eurobarometer 388 · 2017-11-30 · Special Eurobarometer 388 RAIL...

Special Eurobarometer 388

RAIL COMPETITION

REPORT

Fieldwork: March 2012

Publication: September 2012

This survey has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and

Transport (DG MOVE) and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Special Eurobarometer 388 / Wave EB77.2 – TNS Opinion & Social

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 388 “Railway competition”

Special Eurobarometer 388

RAIL COMPETITION

Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility

and Transport (DG MOVE)

Survey co-ordinated by Directorate-General Communication (DG COMM “Research and Speechwriting” Unit)


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 8

I. CURRENT USE OF TRAINS IN THE EU ...................................................................................... 10

1. Frequency of train use ....................................................................................................... 10

1.1. Frequency of use of national or regional trains ........................................................... 10

1.2. User frequency of suburban trains ............................................................................. 15

2. Reasons for using national or regional trains ..................................................................... 19

3. Improvements that may encourage Europeans to travel by train ....................................... 23

4. Overall satisfaction with current national and regional rail systemS .................................. 28

II. ATTITUDES TOWARD EU RAILWAY COMPETITION ................................................................. 32

1. Support for railway competition in the EU ......................................................................... 33

2. Expected impact of rail market competition on rail services in the EU ............................... 39

2.1. The way railway companies are managed .................................................................. 40

2.2. Frequency of trains .................................................................................................... 43

2.3. Ticket prices ............................................................................................................... 46

2.4. Service quality to passengers in trains ........................................................................ 49

2.5. Punctuality of trains ................................................................................................... 52

2.6. Number of stations or routes which will be served ..................................................... 55

2.7. Safety of the railway network .................................................................................... 58

2.8. Comfort and cleanliness of trains ............................................................................... 61

2.9. Overall ....................................................................................................................... 64

3. Expected impact of rail market competition on stakeholders ............................................. 66

3.1. Passengers ................................................................................................................. 67

3.2. Private rail operators ................................................................................................. 70

3.3. Employees of rail transport operators ........................................................................ 73

4. Expected impact of rail market competition on public funding .......................................... 76


3

III. DESIRABILITY OF THE EFFECTS OF RAILWAY MARKET ............................................................. 80

1. Railway offers .................................................................................................................... 81

1.1. Low‐cost offers .......................................................................................................... 81

1.2. Premium offers .......................................................................................................... 85

2. Ways of buying tickets ....................................................................................................... 88

2.1. More ways of buying tickets....................................................................................... 88

2.2. Single outlet for multiple‐operator rail journeys ........................................................ 92

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 96

ANNEXES

Technical specifications Questionnaire Tables


4

INTRODUCTION

Over the last two centuries, rail transport in Europe has evolved primarily within

national borders, with each State establishing its own rail system and railway

companies adopting their own technical and operational standards. This has resulted

in a structural fragmentation of the European railway system. This fragmentation

leads to serious problems of efficiency, flexibility and reliability, in particular for

freight transport. In addition, it leads to high operating costs that prevent rail from

becoming a credible competitor against other modes of transport.

The European Commission is striving to develop a Single European Railway Area1

that enables seamless transport services throughout Europe and with neighbouring

countries. The objective of EU rail policy is two-fold. Firstly, the rail sector is an

environmentally friendly mode of transport that can deliver high-quality, reliable,

safe and secure services and thereby facilitate the sustainable development of the

European economy. Secondly, European manufacturers are world leaders in rail

technology – high-speed in particular - and a strong European railway is a vital

showcase to promote European technology in other markets.

Therefore the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive establishing a

Single Rail Area on 17 September 2010 to provide better rail services for passenger

and freight users by: increasing competition in the railway market; strengthening the

power of national regulators; and improving the framework for investment in rail2.

This report focuses on the first issue, that is, competition in the railway market.

Opening up national freight and passenger markets to cross-border competition is a

major step towards the creation of an integrated European railway area and of a

genuine EU internal market for rail. All European railway operators would then be in

a position to offer efficient services that meet passenger and business expectations,

along with better connections between EU and neighbouring markets.

1 Communication from the Commission, COM/2010/0474 final, see

http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0474:EN:NOT 2 For more information on railways in the EU, please see: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail


5

EU rail legislation has consistently encouraged competitiveness and market

liberalisation, with the first major law in this direction dating back to 1991. The

legislation is based on a distinction between infrastructure managers who run the

network and the railway companies that use it for transporting passengers or goods.

Different organisations must be set up for transport operations on the one hand and

for infrastructure management on the other.

As well as encouraging greater competition within national markets, EU legislation

gives rail operators the ability to run services in and between other EU countries,

opening up competition in a cross-border sense. Rail freight transport has been

completely liberalised in the EU since the start of 2007, for both national and

international services. The market for international rail passenger services has been

liberalised in the EU from 1 January 2010. The market for purely national rail

passenger services is not being opened up to cross-border competition, though this

could change in the future.

This report addresses Europeans’ thoughts on rail market competition. The survey

presented here has three main objectives; firstly, to gain insight into the use of

regional and national trains in the EU and satisfaction with the current services;

secondly, to analyse the attitudes of Europeans towards opening up the rail market

in the EU to competition; and thirdly, to understand what Europeans would expect of

such rail market competition.

A greater understanding of Europeans’ opinions and expectations regarding rail

market competition may be of help to policymakers in developing rail market policies

that take into account the level of support such legislation would receive from EU

citizens, at EU and national level.

The outline of the report is as follows.

Current use of trains in the EU: frequency, reasons and satisfaction

Support for rail market competition in the EU

Expected impact of rail market on:

- rail services

- individual stakeholders - public funding

Effects of rail market competition wished for:

- railway offers - ways of buying tickets


6

This survey was conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE). It was coordinated by the

Directorate-General for Communication. It is the result of the special Eurobarometer

388 (Wave EB77.2) conducted in March 2012 and involving 25,591 interviews in 25

Member States3. Cyprus and Malta were excluded from the survey as there are no

national or regional trains in these countries. Furthermore, some questions regarding

the expected impact of rail market competition were adjusted for the UK to the

specific situation there, i.e. “is” instead of “will be”.

The methodology used is that of the Standard Eurobarometer surveys of the

Directorate-General for Communication (“Research and Speechwriting” Unit). A

technical note concerning the methodology used in carrying out the interviews is

annexed to this report.

The Eurobarometer web site can be consulted at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

We would like to take the opportunity to thank all the respondents across the

continent who gave their time to take part in this survey. Without their active

participation, this study would simply not have been possible.

3 For precise details of the fieldwork dates in each country, please refer to the technical specifications.


7

In this report, the countries are represented by their official abbreviations. The

abbreviations used in this report correspond to:

ABREVIATIONS

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CZ Czech Republic

DK Denmark

DE Germany

EE Estonia

IE Ireland

EL Greece

ES Spain

FR France

IT Italy

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

HU Hungary

NL The Netherlands

AT Austria

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

FI Finland

SE Sweden

UK United Kingdom


8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over half of Europeans (55%) use national or regional trains: at least weekly

(6%), several times a month (4%), several times a year (19%), or at most once a year (26%). Over four in ten Europeans have never done so (45%).

Slightly over four in ten Europeans (41%) use suburban trains: at least weekly

(7%), several times a month (5%), several times a year (13%), or at most once a year (15%). Almost six in ten Europeans have never done so (59%).

Rail passengers’ main reason for travelling by national or regional train is to go on

leisure trips (70%); just a few rail passengers mention going to work or class (10%)

or business trips (10%).

When Europeans who travel by train never or at most once a year are asked what

improvements would encourage them to do so, more than four in ten mention

lower prices (43%). Other improvements are cited far less often: better network with

more routes or stations (20%), faster journeys (17%), more reliable services (16%),

more comfortable and cleaner trains (16%), and more frequent services (14%).

Nearly three in ten respondents who never or rarely travel by train spontaneously

mention that nothing could encourage them to do so (28%).

Almost half of Europeans (46%) are satisfied with the current national and regional

rail system in their country. A significant proportion nevertheless answers that they are not satisfied (36%).

The majority of Europeans (71%) support opening the national and regional rail

system to competition provided that all operators must meet the same safety standards.

Absolute majorities of Europeans expect that more competition in the rail market will have a positive influence on the following:

Ticket prices (72%)

Quality of services to passengers on the trains (71%)

Comfort and cleanliness of trains (70%)

Frequency of trains (68%)

Punctuality of trains (66%)

The way railway companies are managed (63%)

Number of stations or routes which will be served (62%)

Safety of the railway network (55%)


9

Absolute majorities of Europeans expect that more competition in the rail market will be good for individual stakeholders:

Passengers (78%)

Private rail operators (68%)

Employees of rail transport operators (55%)

European opinion4 is divided about the impact of more competition in the rail market

on the public funding of the rail sector: 34% say public funding will decrease,

30% think it will stay the same, 19% believe it will increase, and another 17% have no opinion on this.

Moreover, striking differences exist between supporters and opponents of rail market

competition with respect to their expectations about the influence of competition on

various matters. This is true in particular for the safety of the railway network, the

way railway companies are managed, the passengers, and the employees of rail

transport operators; absolute majorities of the opponents believe competition will have a negative influence in these four matters.

When Europeans are asked about their wishes regarding railway offers as an effect of more competition:

Seven in ten (70%) wish for low-cost offers or ‘no frills’ rail service similar to that provided by some airlines

Over four in ten (43%) wish for premium offers which would be more

expensive but would include additional services (meals, films, newspapers, etcetera)

Turning to their wishes regarding ways to purchase tickets as an effect of more competition:

Almost two-thirds (65%) of Europeans wish for more ways of buying tickets (e.g. online, via smartphones, or on board)

Three-quarters (75%) of those for whom multiple-operator rail journeys are

relevant5, say that they would like to be able to buy tickets and obtain information covering the whole journey through one single point.

***********

4 The UK excluded 5 Respondents who spontaneously say that this is not relevant to them are excluded (6% of total sample)


10

I. CURRENT USE OF TRAINS IN THE EU

- Over half of Europeans travel by national or regional trains, though

more than half of these rail passengers do so only once a year at the

most; lower prices would encourage four in ten Europeans to travel more by train -

This report starts by examining Europeans’ travel experiences with national and

regional trains and their satisfaction with the national and regional rail system in the EU. In this chapter the following topics will be addressed:

frequency of use of regional and suburban trains

reasons for using national or regional trains

improvements that may encourage travelling by train

satisfaction with current national and regional rail system

1. FREQUENCY OF TRAIN USE

In this section Europeans’ current use of trains will be discussed; firstly the

frequency of use of national or regional trains, next the frequency of use of suburban

trains.

1.1. Frequency of use of national or regional trains

- Over half of Europeans have used a national or regional train at least once and four in ten have used a suburban train at least once –

Respondents were asked how often they travel by national or regional trains (this

excludes suburban trains)6.

Only a small minority (6%) of Europeans are regular rail passengers: daily or almost

daily (2%), several times a week (2%) or once a week (2%). Almost a quarter

(23%) of the interviewees is occasional rail passengers: they travel by national or regional trains several times a month (4%) or several times a year (19%).

6 QC1.1 How often do you travel by National or regional trains (this excludes suburban trains) in (OUR

COUNTRY)?


11

A majority (71%), however, may be considered as non-rail passengers: they never use national or regional trains (45%) or only once a year or less (26%).

In the remainder of this report, this distinction between regular, occasional and non-

users of national or regional trains will be included in the socio-demographic analyses whenever applicable, i.e. when the total sample is being discussed.

Base: Total number of respondents (n=25591)

Country-by-country analysis reveals that the highest percentages of respondents

who have travelled at least once by national or regional train are in the Nordic

countries Sweden (86%), Finland (74%), and Denmark (72%), followed by the

Netherlands (69%), Germany (66%), the UK (65%), and Austria (63%). The lowest percentages are in Portugal (29%) and Lithuania (32%).

Now taking into account the frequency of use, the highest percentages of regular

users of national or regional trains (that is at least once a week: daily or almost

daily, several times a week, and once a week) are in Luxembourg (12%: 4%, 5%

and 3% respectively), the Netherlands (10%: 3%, 3%, 3%), the UK (9%: 4%, 2%,

3%), Italy (9%: 2%, 4%, 3%), Belgium (8%: 4%, 3%, 2%) and Austria (8%: 3%,

3%, 2%). The countries with lowest proportions of regular users are Greece and Lithuania (both 1%), and Latvia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Ireland, and Finland (all 2%).


12


Countries where more than one-third of the interviewees are occasional users of

national or regional trains (that is several times per month or several times per year)

are Sweden (47%: 6% and 41% respectively), the Netherlands (42%: 7% and 35%)

and Denmark (34%: 7% and 27%). The lowest percentages of occasional users are

observed in Lithuania (9%: 1% and 8%), Portugal (10%: 2% and 8%) and Greece (10%: 1% and 9%).


13

Member States with largest majorities of non-users of national or regional trains (i.e.

never or once a year at most) are Greece and Lithuania (90%), Portugal (86%),

Spain (85%), Slovenia (84%), Estonia (81%), Latvia (80%) and Poland (79%). The

lowest percentages of non-users of national or regional trains are in the Netherlands

and Sweden (both 48%).



14

Total 'At least once'

Never Don't know

TOTAL 55% 45% 0%

15-24 69% 31% 0%

25-39 58% 42% 0%

40-54 54% 45% 0%

55 + 48% 52% 0%

15- 34% 66% 0%

16-19 53% 47% 0%

20+ 68% 32% 0%

Still studying 76% 24% 0%

Rural village 48% 51% 0%

Small/ Mid-size town 55% 44% 0%

Large town 63% 37% 0%

Self-employed 57% 43% 0%

Managers 75% 25% 1%

Other white collars 61% 39% 0%

Manual workers 50% 50% 0%

House persons 43% 57% 0%

Unemployed 49% 50% 1%

Retired 46% 53% 0%

Students 76% 24% 0%

Respondent occupation scaleRespondent occupation scale

QC1.1 How often do you travel by … in (OUR COUNTRY)?

National or regional trains (this excludes suburban trains)

AgeAge

Subjective urbanisation

Education (End of)


Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, occupation and subjective

urbanisation all influence the frequency of use of national or regional trains. There

are no significant gender differences.

The youngest respondents aged 15-24 (69%) are more likely to have travelled at

least once on national or regional trains compared to the oldest respondents aged

55+ (48%). This is also true of respondents who were educated until the age of 20

or beyond (68%) compared to respondents who left school at the age of 15 or

younger (34%). Accordingly, managers (75%) and students (76%) are more likely

to have travelled this way at least once than house persons (43%), as are inhabitants of large towns (63%) compared to rural villagers (48%).


15

1.2. User frequency of suburban trains

- Four in ten Europeans have at least once used a suburban train –

Respondents were asked also how often they travel by suburban trains7. Only a few

respondents are regular users (7%), more specifically: daily or almost daily (3%),

several times a week (3%), or once a week (2%). Others travel by suburban trains

occasionally: several times a month (5%) or several times a year (13%). Sizeable

proportions of respondents seldom or never use suburban trains: once a year or less (15%), or never (59%).


Country-by-country analysis shows that over half the respondents have travelled

at least once by a suburban train in the Netherlands (72%), Germany (59%), and

the Nordic countries Denmark (66%), Sweden (59%) and Finland (52%). The lowest proportions are observed in Bulgaria (10%) and Luxembourg (11%).

Taking into account the frequency of use, the highest percentages of regular users of

suburban trains (that is at least once a week: daily or almost daily, several times a

week, and once a week) are in Denmark (13%: 5%, 5% and 3% respectively),

Germany (12%: 5%, 5%, 2%) and Spain (12%: 3%, 5%, 4%). The lowest percentages of regular users are observed in Lithuania and Bulgaria (both 1%).

7 QC1.1 How often do you travel by suburban trains in (OUR COUNTRY)?


16


As to the occasional users of suburban trains (that is several times per month or

several times per year), the Netherlands stand out (46%: 8% and 38%

respectively), followed at some distance by Denmark (31%: 10% and 21%), Sweden

(29%: 6% and 23%), and Germany (28%: 8% and 20%). The lowest percentages of

occasional users of suburban trains are in Bulgaria (4%: 1% and 3%), Luxembourg (5%: 1% and 4%) and Lithuania (6%: 1% and 5%).

The largest majorities of non-users of suburban trains (i.e. never or at most once a

year) are in Lithuania (93%), Luxembourg (92%), Bulgaria (90%), and Greece and

Slovenia (89%). The lowest proportions of non-users of suburban trains are

observed in the Netherlands (45%) and Denmark (56%).


17



18

Total 'At least once'

Never Don't know

TOTAL 40% 59% 1%

15-24 52% 47% 1%

25-39 44% 55% 1%

40-54 41% 59% 1%

55 + 33% 66% 1%

15- 24% 76% 0%

16-19 37% 62% 1%

20+ 52% 47% 1%






Managers 62% 38% 1%





Retired 31% 69% 1%

Students 59% 40% 1%

Respondent occupation scale


Suburban trains

Age

Education (End of)



Socio-demographic analysis reveals a similar pattern as in the use of national and

regional trains: age, education, occupation and subjective urbanisation are of influence, but not gender.

The youngest respondents aged 15-24 are more likely (52%) to have travelled at

least once on a suburban train than the older respondents aged 55+ (33%).

Respondents who were educated until the age of 20 or beyond (52%) are more likely

to have travelled this way than respondents who left school at the age of 15 or

younger (24%). This is also true of managers (62%) and students (59%) compared

to house persons and retired respondents (both 31%). Inhabitants of large towns

(52%) are more likely than villagers (32%) to have used suburban trains at least once.


19

2. REASONS FOR USING NATIONAL OR REGIONAL TRAINS

- Seven in ten of the rail passengers mention leisure trips as the most

common reason for using national or regional trains –

Those respondents who have travelled by national or regional train at least once

(55% of the total sample) were asked why they use these trains most often8. Respondents were presented with three options and asked to make one choice.

Over two-thirds of rail passengers mention leisure trips (70%) and only small

minorities cite going to work or to class (10%) or business trips (10%). Another 8% spontaneously mention other reasons and 2% cannot form an opinion on this matter.

Country-by-country analysis shows that leisure trips are the most frequently

mentioned reason in every single Member State. The highest percentages are in

Greece (82%), Finland (81%) and Romania (80%); conversely, the lowest proportions are in Hungary (51%), Slovakia (55%) and Belgium (57%).

Respondents in the Netherlands (19%), Luxembourg and Slovenia (both 18%) are

the most likely to cite going to work or to class; on the other hand, those in Romania (3%), Bulgaria (4%) and Greece (5%) are least likely so.

8 QC1.1 How often do you travel by national or regional trains in (OUR COUNTRY)?


20

Base: Respondents who travel by national or regional train (55% of total sample, n=14064)

Business trips are mentioned most often as the commonest reason for travelling on

national or regional trains in Latvia (19%) and France and Sweden (both 16%), and least often in Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and Spain (all 5%).

Member States with the highest percentages of respondents who spontaneously

mention other reasons are Hungary (27%), Portugal (19%), and Slovakia and Poland

(18%). The lowest percentages are found in Estonia, the Netherlands, and Greece (all 2%).


21

Going to work\ to class

Business trips Leisure tripsOther

(SPONTANEOUS)Don't know

TOTAL 10% 10% 70% 8% 2%

Male 12% 14% 64% 8% 2%

Female 8% 7% 76% 7% 2%

15-24 22% 3% 68% 6% 1%

25-39 12% 13% 66% 7% 2%

40-54 9% 16% 66% 7% 2%

55 + 3% 6% 79% 10% 2%

15- 4% 5% 77% 11% 3%

16-19 8% 8% 73% 8% 3%

20+ 9% 18% 65% 7% 1%

Still studying 27% 1% 67% 5% -

Rural village 9% 9% 72% 8% 2%

Small/ Mid-size town 11% 11% 69% 7% 2%

Large town 11% 9% 70% 8% 2%

QC2 Why do you use national or regional trains most often?

Sex

Age

Education (End of)


Base: Respondents who travel by national or regional train (55% of total sample, n=14064)

Socio-demographic analysis reveals the influence of gender, age, and education. There are no significant differences regarding subjective urbanisation.

Those who mention leisure trips as the commonest reason for travelling by national

or regional trains are most likely to be found among women (76%), the oldest

respondents aged 55+ (79%), respondents who only studied until age 15 or before (77%), house persons (81%) and retired respondents (82%).

In contrast, this reason is least likely among men (64%), respondents who were

educated until the age of 20 or beyond (65%), self-employed interviewees (60%), and managers (58%).

Going to work or to class as the most frequent reason for taking a national or

regional train is mentioned most often by men (12%), the youngest respondents aged 15-24 (22%), and students (27%).

Conversely, this reason is least often mentioned by women (8%), the oldest

respondents aged 55+ (3%), the least educated who left school aged fifteen or younger (4%), and house persons and retired respondents (both 2%).


22

Business trips, perhaps unsurprisingly, are cited most often by men (14%),

respondents aged 40-54 (16%), respondents who were educated until the age of 20 or beyond (18%), self-employed interviewees (24%) and managers (26%).

In contrast, this reason is less likely to be mentioned by women (7%), the youngest

respondents aged 15-24 (3%), respondents who left school at the age of 15 or younger (5%), retired respondents (2%) and students (1%).


23

3. IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY ENCOURAGE EUROPEANS TO TRAVEL BY

TRAIN

- Over four in ten Europeans who seldom or never use national or regional trains would be encouraged to do so if prices were lower –

Having established that many Europeans have little or no experience of national or

regional rail travel (71% of the total sample), we asked these respondents what

would make them more likely to travel by train9. Interviewees were presented with six options and they could give multiple answers.

Lower prices (43%) clearly stands out as the most frequently cited way to increase

the use of national or regional trains. This is followed at some distance by better

network with more routes/stations (20%), faster journeys (17%), more reliable

services (16%), more comfortable and cleaner trains (16%), and more frequent

services (14%). A small minority mention other reasons spontaneously (5%).

Notably, a sizeable minority spontaneously say that nothing would make them more

likely to travel by train (28%). Another 5% could not form an opinion on this matter.

9 QC3 What would make you more likely to travel by train? (ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)


24

Base: Respondents who do not travel by national or regional trains OR do so only once a year or less

(71% of total sample, n=18214)

Country-by-country analysis shows that lower prices are mentioned most

frequently as a way to increase the use of national or regional trains in every single

Member State, with the exception of Luxembourg. The highest percentages are in

France (55%), the Czech Republic (51%), and Greece (49%); conversely, the lowest proportions are in Luxembourg (12%), Portugal (26%) and the Netherlands (27%).

Better network with more routes or stations is the item cited most often in Greece

(37%) and Sweden and Slovenia (both 31%). Interviewees in Bulgaria (12%) and Italy, Romania, Spain, and the UK (all 13%) are least likely to say so.


25

Faster journeys are mentioned most frequently in Greece (30%), Romania (26%)

and Slovenia (25%); conversely, this is mentioned least frequently in the Netherlands (7%) and Ireland (8%).

More reliable services are cited most often in Sweden (30%) and Italy (24%); by

contrast, this is mentioned least in the Baltic States Lithuania and Latvia (both 4%) and Estonia (5%), and in Ireland (5%).

More comfortable and cleaner trains are mentioned most often in the Czech Republic

(35%) and Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia (all 31%) and least frequently in Finland (3%), the Netherlands (4%) and Portugal (4%).

More frequent services would be most likely to increase the use of national or

regional trains in Greece (30%) and Poland and Austria (both 21%); this is mentioned least often in the Netherlands (4%) and Hungary (7%).

Interestingly, a substantial proportion of the respondents who seldom or never take

the train mention spontaneously that nothing would encourage them to do so (28%).

In four countries, this is the leading response: Portugal (43%), Hungary (34%),

Latvia (34%) and the Netherlands (28%).


Lower pricesBetter network

with more routes\ stations

Faster journeys More reliable

services

More comfortable and cleaner

trains

More frequent services

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

None (SPONTANEOUS)

Don't know

TOTAL 43% 20% 17% 16% 16% 14% 5% 28% 5%

15-24 49% 24% 23% 15% 18% 16% 6% 18% 6%

25-39 50% 21% 22% 17% 17% 16% 4% 22% 4%

40-54 45% 21% 18% 18% 17% 16% 5% 27% 4%

55 + 36% 17% 12% 14% 14% 11% 6% 36% 5%

15- 36% 15% 11% 12% 13% 10% 6% 38% 6%

16-19 45% 20% 18% 17% 17% 15% 5% 28% 5%

20+ 47% 23% 20% 18% 17% 16% 5% 22% 3%

Still studying 49% 26% 23% 17% 19% 18% 5% 14% 6%

Rural village 39% 22% 14% 12% 12% 12% 6% 31% 5%

Small/ Mid-size town 46% 19% 18% 18% 18% 15% 4% 27% 4%

Large town 46% 18% 19% 17% 19% 14% 6% 27% 5%

Self-employed 39% 20% 19% 18% 20% 17% 5% 30% 4%

Managers 50% 26% 19% 20% 15% 17% 4% 20% 4%

Other white collars 47% 22% 22% 19% 22% 16% 5% 23% 4%

Manual workers 48% 21% 19% 16% 15% 14% 4% 27% 4%

House persons 41% 16% 16% 16% 17% 13% 5% 30% 4%

Unemployed 47% 19% 20% 13% 15% 15% 7% 23% 5%

Retired 35% 16% 11% 13% 14% 10% 6% 38% 5%

Students 49% 26% 23% 17% 19% 18% 5% 14% 6%

QC3 What would make you more likely to travel by train? (ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

Age

Education (End of)



Base: Respondents who do not travel by national or regional trains OR do so only once a year or less (71% of total sample, n=18214)


Socio-demographic analysis reveals the influence of age, education, occupation

and slight influence of subjective urbanisation. There are no significant gender differences.

Lower prices are most likely to be mentioned by younger respondents aged 15-24

(49%) and aged 25-39 (50%), managers (50%), manual workers (48%), students

(49%), inhabitants of small/mid-size towns or of large towns (both 46%);

conversely, lower prices are mentioned least often by the oldest respondents aged

55+ (36%), less educated interviewees who left school at the age of fifteen (36%),

retired respondents (35%) and rural villagers (39%).

Better networks with more routes or stations are more important for respondents

who were educated until the age of 20 or beyond (23%) than for respondents who

left school at the age of 15 or younger (15%). This is also true of managers and

students (both 26%), compared to retired respondents (16%). Rural villagers (22%) slightly more often cite better networks than inhabitants of large towns (18%).

A high proportion of respondents aged 55 and over spontaneously answered that

nothing would encourage them to travel by train (36%). This is also the case for

respondents who finished their education before the age of 16 (38%), retired respondents (38%) and rural inhabitants (31%).


28

4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT NATIONAL AND REGIONAL

RAIL SYSTEMS

- Almost half of Europeans are satisfied with their national or regional rail system –

All respondents were asked to what extent they are satisfied with their national and

regional rail system10. Almost half are satisfied with it: very satisfied (6%) or fairly

satisfied (40%). However, over one-third is not satisfied: not very satisfied (25%) or

not at all satisfied (11%). Almost one-fifth could not form an opinion on this matter

(18%).


Country-by-country analysis reveals that the majority of respondents in 12 of the

25 Member States surveyed are satisfied with their national or regional rail system.

These include the northern European countries Finland (67%), Sweden (60%),

Denmark (64%) and Latvia (51%) and the western European countries Austria

(66%), the Netherlands (64%), Luxembourg (62%), Ireland, France and Spain (all 59%), Belgium (57%), and the UK (55%).

10 QC4 Overall, how satisfied are you with the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY)?


29

In eight Member States, more interviewees were dissatisfied than satisfied. These

include Italy (61% dissatisfied), Romania (60%), Bulgaria (58%), and Greece

(52%). Finally, interviewees in Lithuania (38%) and Estonia (31%) are most likely to answer they don’t know.



30



31

Total 'Satisfied'Total 'Not satisfied'

Don't know

TOTAL 46% 36% 18%

15-24 55% 35% 10%

25-39 46% 39% 15%

40-54 42% 40% 18%

55 + 44% 32% 24%

15- 40% 33% 27%

16-19 43% 38% 19%

20+ 51% 37% 12%





At least once a week 63% 36% 1%

Several times month\ Year 66% 33% 1%

Once a year\ Less\ Never 38% 37% 25%

National or regional trains

QC4 Overall, how satisfied are you with the national and regional rail system in (OURCOUNTRY)?

Age

Education (End of)



A socio-demographic breakdown shows that age, education, subjective

urbanisation and user frequency influence the extent of satisfaction with the national or regional rail system.

The younger the interviewees, the more likely they are to be satisfied (fairly satisfied

or very satisfied): 55% of the youngest respondents (aged 15-24) compared to 42%

of the 40-54 age group and 44% of the oldest category (55+). Respondents

educated until the age of twenty or beyond (51%) are more likely to be satisfied

than respondents who studied only until age 15 or younger (40%). The same is true

of managers (55%) and students (58%) compared to self-employed interviewees

(37%). Inhabitants of large towns (50%) are more inclined to be satisfied with the

railway system than respondents who live in small/mid-size towns (44%) and rural dwellers (45%).

Turning to user frequency of national and regional trains, rail passengers are notably

more likely to be satisfied than non-rail passengers: 63% of regular passengers (at

least once a week) and 66% of occasional passengers (several times monthly or

early) compared to 38% of non-rail passengers (who seldom or never travel by train).

******************


32

II. ATTITUDES TOWARD EU RAILWAY COMPETITION

- More than seven in ten Europeans support national and regional rail

system competition, which they expect to have a positive influence on various rail services -

This chapter discusses Europeans’ attitudes towards opening up railway competition in the EU. The chapter consists of four sections, addressing the following topics:

The degree of support across the EU for opening up railway competition.

The influence that Europeans think that railway competition will have on the

management of railway companies, train frequency, ticket prices, on-train

services, punctuality, number of stations and routes, the safety of the railway

network, and the comfort and cleanliness of trains.

The expected impact of railway competition on individual passengers, private rail operators and employees of rail transport operators.

The anticipated influence of this railway competition on public funding.


33

1. SUPPORT FOR RAILWAY COMPETITION IN THE EU

- More than seven in ten Europeans support

national and regional rail system competition –

It was explained to the interviewees that competition means the right for railway

companies to offer services either on the same route as a competitor or after

winning a tender granting exclusive rights. Then respondents were asked whether in

general they support or oppose opening the national or regional rail system in their

country to competition, provided that all operators must meet the same safety standards11.

Three in ten (30%) totally support such rail system competition and over four in ten

(41%) tend to support it. The remaining respondents tend to oppose (12%) or totally oppose (9%) it. Another 8% answer that they do not know.


11 QC5 In general, do you support or oppose opening the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY) to competition provided that all operators must meet the same safety standards?


34


Country-by-country analysis shows that in every single Member State surveyed,

an absolute majority of respondents support opening up the railways to competition, with the exception of the Netherlands.

The highest proportions of support (total or tend to) are observed in the Czech

Republic (90%), Slovakia (86%), Slovenia and Italy (both 80%), Greece and Austria

(both 79%), Denmark (76%) and Germany (75%). Conversely, the lowest levels of support are in the Netherlands (46%), Luxembourg (57%) and Sweden (60%).

Respondents in Denmark and the Czech Republic are the most likely to totally

support railway competition (52% and 48% respectively). By contrast, the largest

proportions of interviewees who totally oppose railway competition are in the

Netherlands (28%), Sweden (19%), Luxembourg (15%), France (14%) and Spain

(13%).


35



36

There is a moderate correlation between dissatisfaction with the current national and

regional rail system on the one hand and support for opening it to competition on the

other. At the bottom are the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the countries with least

support for competition and least or relatively little dissatisfaction with the current

rail system. At the other end of the spectrum are Italy and Greece, countries where

respondents are more likely to be dissatisfied with the current rail system and also more inclined to support competition.


37

Total 'Support' Total 'Opposed' Don't know

TOTAL 71% 21% 8%

15-24 74% 19% 7%

25-39 76% 18% 6%

40-54 72% 21% 7%

55 + 66% 23% 11%

15- 66% 19% 15%

16-19 73% 19% 8%

20+ 71% 24% 5%






Managers 73% 24% 3%





Retired 65% 24% 11%

Students 75% 20% 5%




Age

Education (End of)


QC5 In general, do you support or oppose opening the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY) to competition provided that all operators must meet the

same safety standards?




Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, education, occupation, and user

frequency all have some influence. There are no significant differences regarding subjective urbanisation.


38

Respondents in the age-group 25-39 (76%) are more likely than the oldest

respondents aged 55+ (66%) to support railway competition. The same is true of

respondents who finished school between the age of sixteen and nineteen (73%)

compared to respondents who left school at the age of 15 or younger (66%). Non-

managerial white collar workers (76%) are more likely to support railway competition than retired respondents (65%).

Regarding user frequency, occasional rail passengers are slightly more likely (74%)

to support railway competition than regular rail passengers and non-rail passengers

(both 71%). Regular rail passengers (26%) are more likely to be opposed to railway

competition than occasional rail passengers (23%) and non-rail passengers (19%).


39

2. EXPECTED IMPACT OF RAIL MARKET COMPETITION ON RAIL

SERVICES IN THE EU

- The majority of Europeans expect rail market competition to have a positive influence on various rail services -

This section deals with Europeans’ expectations regarding opening the rail market to

competition. Respondents were asked to what extent they think this competition would have a positive or negative influence on eight different rail services12.

Over two-thirds of Europeans expect rail market competition to have a positive or

very positive influence on ticket prices (72%), the quality of services to passengers

on the trains (71%), the comfort and cleanliness of trains (70%) and the frequency

of trains (68%). Furthermore, an absolute majority think rail market competition will

have a positive or very positive influence on the punctuality of trains (66%), the way

railway companies are managed (63%), the number of stations or routes which will be served (62%), and the safety of the railway network (55%).

Overall, a small minority believe that competition in the rail market will have a negative influence and only very few think the influence would be very negative.


12 QC6 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have …

on …?


40

2.1. The way railway companies are managed

- Over half of Europeans expect rail market competition

to improve the way railway companies are managed -

In the previous section we saw that a majority of Europeans (63%) think that more

competition in the rail market will improve the way railway companies are

managed13. In more detail, 15% expect a very positive influence and 48% a positive

influence. By contrast, 12% of respondents foresee that there will be a negative

influence and 4% a very negative influence. Another 8% spontaneously say that

competition will have no influence on management, and 13% could not form an opinion on this matter.


13 QC6.1 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on the way railway companies are managed?


41

Country-by-country analysis reveals that the Member States where the largest

proportions of respondents expect an improvement (positive or very positive

influence) in railway company management are the Czech Republic, Greece and

Slovenia (all 77%), Italy (76%), Slovakia (74%), Bulgaria (71%) and Austria (70%);

in contrast, the fewest respondents share this view in the Netherlands (40%),

followed at some distance by Luxembourg (51%), France (53%) and Sweden (55%).

The Netherlands and Sweden are also the countries where one-third of respondents expect a negative impact (negative or very negative: 34% and 33% respectively).

Total 'A positive influence'

Total 'A negative influence'

No influence (SPONTANEOUS)

Don't know

TOTAL 63% 16% 8% 13%

15-24 67% 14% 7% 12%

25-39 66% 15% 8% 11%

40-54 63% 18% 8% 11%

55 + 59% 17% 8% 16%

15- 59% 15% 8% 18%

16-19 65% 15% 8% 12%

20+ 63% 19% 8% 10%

Still studying 66% 14% 8% 12%

Rural village 60% 16% 9% 15%

Small/ Mid-size town 64% 16% 8% 12%

Large town 64% 17% 7% 12%

Self-employed 66% 16% 8% 10%

Managers 64% 21% 8% 7%

Other white collars 68% 16% 7% 9%

Manual workers 64% 16% 8% 12%

House persons 66% 12% 8% 14%

Unemployed 59% 18% 7% 16%

Retired 57% 17% 9% 17%

Students 66% 14% 8% 12%

Low (1-4) 58% 19% 8% 15%

Medium (5-6) 64% 15% 8% 13%

High (7-10) 66% 17% 8% 9%

Total 'In favour' 78% 7% 6% 9%

Total 'Opposed' 24% 52% 13% 11%

Age

Education (End of)


QC6.1 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on …?

The way railways companies are managed


Self-positioning on the social staircase

Competition



42

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, occupation, self-

positioning on the social scale and subjective urbanisation all have a modest

influence; the majority view within all groups is that more competition in the rail

market will improve the way railway companies are managed, especially among

those who support competition.

The younger, the more positive: the youngest respondents aged 15-24 are more

likely (67%) to expect improvement (positive or very positive influence) than the

oldest respondents aged 55+ (59%). Respondents who left school at 15 or before

(59%) are less likely to expect improvement of rail company management than their

longer-educated counterparts. Non-managerial white collar workers (68%) are more

optimistic than retired respondents (57%) and unemployed interviewees (59%).

Respondents who place themselves high on the social scale (66%) are more likely to

have positive expectations than respondents who place themselves low on the social

scale (58%). Inhabitants of small/mid-size towns and those of large towns (both 64%) are slightly more likely to expect improvement than rural villagers (60%).

Turning to user frequency, only slight differences are found; the majority of regular

passengers (62%), occasional passengers (65%) and non-rail passengers (63%) are

optimistic, expecting rail market competition to have a positive or very positive

influence on rail company management. However, regular passengers and occasional

passengers (23% and 20% respectively) are more likely than non-rail passengers

(14%) to expect competition to have an adverse impact (negative or very negative influence).

Analysis of attitude towards competition reveals that respondents who support

competition are more likely than those who are opposed to it (78% vs. 24%) to

believe it will have a positive influence on the way railway companies are managed.

By contrast, an absolute majority of 52% of the opponents of rail market competition

think it will have a negative influence on railway management compared to only 7% of the supporters.


43

2.2. Frequency of trains

- Over two-thirds of Europeans expect rail market competition

to improve train frequency -

In the first section of this chapter we saw that over two-thirds (68%) of Europeans

believe that rail market competition will improve the frequency of trains14. More

specifically, 17% think there will be a very positive influence and 51% expect a

positive influence. On the other hand, 11% believe there will be a negative influence

and 3% expect a very negative influence. Almost one in ten respondents

spontaneously say that they do not expect any influence (9%), and the same percentage is unable to form an opinion on this matter (9%).


14 QC6.2 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on frequency of trains?


44

Country-by-country analysis shows that large majorities in Greece (87%), the

Czech Republic (85%), Slovakia (83%), Slovenia (81%), Italy (78%) and Austria (77%) expect improvement (positive or very positive) in train frequencies.

Conversely, this is lowest, again, in the Netherlands (45%), followed at distance by

the UK (59%), France (61%), and Luxembourg and Sweden (both 63%). The

Netherlands and Sweden are the countries with largest proportions of interviewees

(29% and 24% respectively) who expect a negative or very negative influence on

train frequency.




Don't know

TOTAL 68% 14% 9% 9%

15-24 76% 11% 7% 6%

25-39 74% 12% 7% 7%

40-54 67% 16% 9% 8%

55 + 64% 14% 10% 12%



Large town 69% 15% 8% 8%


Managers 66% 18% 10% 6%





Retired 62% 15% 10% 13%

Students 75% 12% 7% 6%

At least once a week 67% 21% 7% 5%

Several times month\ Year 68% 18% 9% 5%

Once a year\ Less\ Never 69% 12% 9% 10%


Total 'Opposed' 32% 44% 16% 8%

Age



Frequency of trains



Competition



45

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, occupation, user frequency and support for competition are of importance, but not subjective urbanisation.

The younger respondents are, the more inclined they are to have high expectations

regarding the frequency of trains, as 76% of the youngest respondents aged 15-24

believe that rail market competition will have a positive or very positive influence

compared to 64% of the oldest respondents aged 55 and older. Students and non-

managerial white collar workers (75% and 73% respectively) are more likely to be

optimistic about train frequency than retired respondents and, notably, managers

(62% and 66%).

The majority of regular passengers (67%), occasional passengers (68%) and non-

rail passengers (69%) anticipate that rail market competition will have a positive or very positive influence on train frequency.

Nevertheless, less optimistic respondents are more likely to be found among regular

passengers (21%) and occasional passengers (18%) than among non-rail passengers (12%).

Regarding attitude towards competition, more of the supporters than of the

opponents of rail market competition (83% vs. 32%) think it will positively influence

the frequency of trains. In contrast, 44% of the opponents say competition will have a negative influence on train frequency, compared to only 6% of the supporters.


46

2.3. Ticket prices

- More than seven in ten Europeans hope that

rail market competition will result in better ticket prices –

As discussed previously in this chapter, more than seven in ten Europeans (72%)

think that rail market competition will improve ticket prices15. More specifically, 24%

of respondents believe there will be a very positive influence and 48% expect a positive influence.

By contrast, 11% of interviewees expect a negative influence and 4% a very

negative influence. A few respondents (6%) spontaneously say they expect competition to have no influence on prices, and another 7% say they don’t know.


15 QC6.3 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on ticket prices?


47

Country-by-country analysis reveals that respondents in the Czech Republic and

Slovenia (both 85%) and Austria (82%) are most likely to believe that rail market competition will result in better ticket prices (positive or very positive influence).

In contrast, respondents are again the least inclined to think so in the Netherlands (57%), Luxembourg (60%) and the UK (61%).

Two of these countries, the Netherlands and the UK, also have the largest

proportions of respondents (24% and 23% respectively) who expect a rise in ticket

prices (negative or very negative influence); a similar percentage is also observed in Belgium (24%).




Don't know

TOTAL 72% 15% 6% 7%

15- 65% 16% 7% 12%

16-19 73% 15% 6% 6%

20+ 73% 16% 6% 5%




Large town 72% 16% 5% 7%


Managers 75% 15% 7% 3%





Retired 67% 15% 8% 10%

Students 75% 16% 5% 4%






Education (End of)



Ticket prices



Competition



48

Socio-demographic analysis shows that education, occupation and user frequency

have some influence; the majority view within all groups is that rail market

competition will result in better ticket prices. As to subjective urbanisation, no significant differences are observed.

Respondents who left school at the age of 15 or younger are less likely (65%) to

take this view (positive or very positive influence) than their longer-educated

counterparts (73%). Non-managerial white collars (77%) are more likely to be

optimistic about the influence on ticket prices than retired interviewees (67%).

In terms of user frequency, there are only slight differences: regular passengers

(66%) are somewhat less inclined to expect better ticket prices (positive or very

positive influence) than occasional passengers and non-rail passengers (both 72%).

Conversely, regular passengers (24%) are more likely than occasional passengers

(18%) and much more likely than non-rail passengers (14%) to expect worse ticket prices (negative or very negative influence).

In relation to attitude towards competition, interviewees who are in favour of

competition are more likely than those who are against it (85% vs. 39%) to say that

it will have a positive influence on ticket prices. Conversely, 44% of the opponents

think it will have a negative influence on ticket prices compared to only 7% of the supporters.


49

2.4. Service quality to passengers in trains

- More than seven in ten Europeans believe that rail market competition

will improve the quality of services to passengers in trains -

We saw that over seven in ten Europeans (71%) expect rail market competition to

have a positive effect on the quality of services to passengers in trains16. More

specifically, 18% expect a very positive influence, 53% a positive influence, 11% a

negative influence and 3% a very negative influence. Another 7% spontaneously say

that they expect this to have no influence and 8% were unable to form an opinion on this subject.


16 QC6.4 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on The quality of services to the passengers in the trains


50

Country-by-country analysis reveals that vast majorities of respondents expect

improvement (positive or very positive) to in-train services in the Czech Republic

(91%), Slovenia and Slovakia (both 89%), Greece (86%), Austria (83%), Hungary (82%) and Italy (81%).

In contrast, such optimism is least likely in the Netherlands (53%), Luxembourg

(56%), France (57%) and Sweden (63%). Three of these countries, the Netherlands,

Sweden and France, are also the Member States with the highest percentages of

respondents (28%, 24% and 20% respectively) who expect the quality of these

services to deteriorate (negative or very negative influence).




Don't know

TOTAL 71% 14% 7% 8%

15-24 76% 11% 7% 6%

25-39 75% 12% 7% 6%

40-54 71% 15% 7% 7%

55 + 68% 14% 8% 10%

15- 65% 14% 8% 13%

16-19 73% 13% 7% 7%

20+ 71% 17% 7% 5%




Large town 72% 14% 7% 7%






Age

Education (End of)


The quality of services to the passengers in the trains



Competition



51

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, user frequency all have

some influence; the majority within all groups believe that rail market competition

will improve the quality of service to passengers in trains. There are no significant differences regarding subjective urbanisation.

The younger the respondents, the more optimistic they are: respondents aged 15-24

(76%) are more likely to expect improved service quality (positive or very positive

influence) than the oldest respondents aged 55+ (68%). Respondents who left

school at the age of fifteen or before (65%) are less likely to expect improvement

than their longer-educated counterparts. Students (78%) and non-managerial white

collar workers (76%) are more optimistic than unemployed interviewees (69%) and

retired respondents (66%).

In terms of user frequency, only slight differences are found; the majority of regular

passengers (74%), occasional passengers (73%) and non-rail passengers (71%)

expect rail market competition to have a positive or very positive influence on the

quality of service in the trains. However, regular passengers and occasional

passengers (18% and 16% respectively) are somewhat more inclined than non-rail

passengers (13%) to expect worse service quality (negative or very negative

influence).

Turning to attitude towards competition, respondents who support competition are

more likely than the opponents (86% vs. 35%) to say that it will have a positive

influence on the quality of services to the passengers in the trains. In contrast, 44%

of the opponents think it will have a negative influence on service quality compared to only 5% of the supporters.

52

2.5. Punctuality of trains

- Almost two-thirds of Europeans believe that rail market competition will improve the punctuality of trains -

In the first section of this chapter we saw that almost two-thirds (66%) of Europeans

believe that rail market competition will improve the punctuality of trains17. More

specifically, 17% believe there will be a very positive influence and 49% expect a

positive influence on the punctuality of trains. On the other hand, 11% believe there will

be a negative influence and 3% expect a very negative influence. Furthermore, 11% of

interviewees spontaneously say that they do not expect competition to have any influence, and another 9% could not form an opinion.


17 QC6.5 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on the punctuality of trains?


53

Country-by-country analysis reveals that large majorities in Greece (85%), the Czech

Republic and Slovakia (both 83%), Slovenia (78%) and Italy (76%) expect improvement (positive or very positive) in the punctuality of trains.

Again, fewest respondents are optimistic in the Netherlands (45%), Luxembourg and

Sweden (both 50%) and France (54%). These countries are also among the Member

States with largest proportions of interviewees who expect a negative or very negative

influence on train frequency: Sweden (31%) and the Netherlands (29%), followed at

some distance by France (21%), Belgium and Finland (both 20%) and Luxembourg (19%).




Don't know

TOTAL 66% 14% 11% 9%

15-24 71% 13% 10% 6%

25-39 68% 13% 11% 8%

40-54 67% 14% 12% 7%

55 + 62% 14% 12% 12%



Large town 66% 15% 11% 8%


Managers 64% 16% 15% 5%




Unemployed 64% 15% 11% 10%

Retired 61% 15% 12% 12%

Students 73% 12% 9% 6%






Age



The punctuality of trains



Competition



54

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, occupation, user frequency and support for competition are of importance, but subjective urbanisation is not.

The younger the interviewees, the more inclined they are to have optimistic expectations

regarding the punctuality of trains, as 71% of the youngest respondents aged 15-24

believe that rail market competition will have a positive or very positive influence

compared to 62% of the oldest respondents aged 55+. Respondents who finished school

between the ages of 16 and 19 are more likely (68%) to take this optimistic view than interviewees who left school at the age of 15 or before (62%).

Students (73%), self-employed respondents (71%) and non-managerial white collar

workers (71%) are more likely to be optimistic about the effect of rail market competition on the punctuality of trains than retired respondents (61%).

In terms of user frequency, the majority of regular passengers (64%), occasional

passengers (67%) and non-rail passengers (66%) anticipate that rail market competition will have a positive or very positive influence on the punctuality of trains.

Nevertheless, respondents with pessimistic expectations, i.e. those expecting a negative

or very negative influence, are more likely to be found among regular passengers (22%) than among occasional passengers (16%) and non-rail passengers (12%).

Again, analysis of attitude towards competition reveals that respondents who support

competition are more likely than those who are opposed to it (81% vs. 29%) to think it

will positively influence the punctuality of trains. Conversely, 43% of the opponents think

it will have a negative influence on punctuality compared to only 6% of the supporters.


55

2.6. Number of stations or routes which will be served

- Over six in ten Europeans think that rail market competition will improve the number of stations and routes which will be served -

A majority of Europeans (62%) think that more competition in the rail market will

improve the number of stations or routes which will be served18. Specifically, 15% expect

it to have a very positive influence and 47% a positive influence. By contrast, 14% of

respondents foresee a negative influence and 3% a very negative influence. Another

11% say spontaneously that they do not expect any influence and 10% say they do not know.


18 QC6.6 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on the number of stations or routes which will be served?


56

Country-by-country analysis reveals that respondents in Greece (83%), the Czech

Republic (79%), Slovakia (76%) and Slovenia (75%) are most likely to believe that rail

market competition will result in an improvement in the number of stations or routes which will be served (positive or very positive influence).

Conversely, respondents are least inclined to take this view in the Netherlands (37%),

followed at distance by France (50%), and Sweden (51%).

Sweden (36%) and the Netherlands (35%) are also the Member States where the largest proportions of respondents expect there to be a negative or very negative influence.




Don't know

TOTAL 62% 17% 11% 10%

15-24 67% 16% 10% 7%

25-39 65% 14% 12% 9%

40-54 60% 20% 11% 9%

55 + 57% 18% 12% 13%

15- 59% 15% 11% 15%

16-19 64% 15% 11% 10%

20+ 58% 23% 12% 7%




Large town 62% 17% 11% 10%


Managers 55% 25% 14% 6%




Unemployed 62% 17% 11% 10%

Retired 56% 18% 12% 14%

Students 66% 17% 11% 6%






Age

Education (End of)



The number of stations or routes which will be served



Competition



57

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, occupation, user frequency

and support for competition influence respondents’ opinions about the impact of rail

market competition on the number of stations or routes which will be served. There is however no significant influence of subjective urbanisation.

The younger the interviewees, the more inclined they are to have positive expectations:

67% of the youngest respondents aged 15-24 believe there will be a positive or very

positive influence compared to 57% of the oldest respondents aged 55+. Respondents

who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 (64%) are somewhat more likely to

expect improvement than respondents who were educated until the age of 20 or beyond (58%) and respondents who left school at the age of 15 or before (59%).

White collar workers (67%) are more likely to expect competition to have a positive or

very positive influence than managers (55%) and retired respondents (56%). Notably,

managers also stand out as the occupational group that is most likely to expect there to

be a negative or very negative influence on the number of stations and routes: 25% compared to the average of 17%.

In terms of user frequency, there are only slight differences regarding expectations of

improvement (positive or very positive influence): regular passengers (58%) are slightly

less inclined to expect this than occasional passengers (60%) and non-rail passengers (62%).

However, clear differences are found regarding the expectation that competition will have

negative or very negative impact: regular passengers (27%) are more likely to have this

view than occasional passengers (22%) and substantially more likely than non-rail passengers (15%).

Regarding attitude towards competition, more of the supporters of competition than of

the opponents (75% vs. 27%) say it will have a positive influence on the number of

stations and routes which will be served. By contrast, almost half, 48% of the opponents

believe competition will have a negative influence in this matter compared to only 10% of the supporters.


58

2.7. Safety of the railway network

- More than half of Europeans believe that rail market competition will improve the safety of the railway network -

We saw that over half of the Europeans (55%) expect rail market competition to have a

positive effect on the safety of the railway network19. More specifically, 14% expect a

very positive influence and 41% a positive influence. In contrast, 16% of the Europeans

surveyed foresee a negative influence and 4% a very negative influence. Another 15%

say spontaneously that they expect no influence and 10% were not able to form an opinion on this subject.


19 QC6.7 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on the safety of the railway network?


59

Country-by-country analysis shows that large majorities in Greece (76%), the Czech

Republic and Italy (both 71%), Slovenia (70%), and Slovakia (69%) expect rail market

competition to have a positive or very positive influence on the safety of the railway network.

Conversely, this is lowest, again, in the Netherlands (21%), followed at a distance by

Sweden (34%). The Netherlands and Sweden are also the countries that stand out for

the largest proportions (49% and 46% respectively) expecting a negative or very negative influence on the safety of the railway network.




Don't know

TOTAL 55% 20% 15% 10%

Male 54% 23% 14% 9%

Female 56% 18% 15% 11%

15-24 59% 18% 14% 9%

25-39 58% 18% 15% 9%

40-54 53% 22% 16% 9%

55 + 52% 22% 14% 12%

15- 54% 18% 14% 14%

16-19 59% 18% 14% 9%

20+ 49% 26% 17% 8%




Large town 56% 21% 14% 9%


Managers 45% 30% 18% 7%




Unemployed 57% 19% 14% 10%

Retired 51% 22% 14% 13%

Students 58% 20% 14% 8%






Sex

Age

Education (End of)



The safety of the railway network



Competition



60

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that gender, age, education, occupation, user

frequency have a modest influence. No significant differences are found with respect to subjective urbanisation.

More men than women (23% vs. 18%) expect rail market competition to have a negative

or very negative influence on the safety of the railway network. In terms of age, the

younger, the more optimistic: youngest respondents aged 15-24 are the most likely

(59%) to expect enhanced safety (positive or very positive influence) and the oldest respondents aged 55+ (52%) are the least likely to do so.

Respondents who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 (59%) are somewhat

more inclined to expect improved safety than respondents who left school at the age of

15 or younger (54%) and substantially more than respondents educated until the age of

20 or beyond (49%). These best-educated respondents are also more likely (26%) to

expect a negative or very negative influence than their less-educated counterparts (both categories 18%).

In terms of occupation, managers stand out as the group least likely to expect there to

be a positive or very positive influence (45% compared to the average of 55%) and the

most likely to expect a negative or very negative influence (30% compared to the average of 20%).

Turning to user frequency, only minor differences are found in expectations of a positive

or very positive influence on the safety of the railway network: over half of regular

passengers (56%), occasional passengers (53%) and non-rail passengers (56%) share this optimism.

However, regular passengers (27%) and occasional passengers (25%) are clearly more

likely to foresee a negative or very negative influence than non-rail passengers (18%).

Turning to attitude towards competition, supporters of competition are more likely than

those who are opposed to it (69% vs. 20%) to believe it will have a positive influence on

the safety of the railway network. Conversely, an absolute majority of 56% of the

opponents say it will have a negative influence on the safety of the railway network, compared to only 11% of the supporters.


61

2.8. Comfort and cleanliness of trains

- Seven in ten Europeans think that rail market competition will improve the comfort and cleanliness of trains -

As described at the start of this chapter, seven in ten Europeans (70%) think that rail

market competition will improve the comfort and cleanliness of trains20. More specifically,

18% of respondents think there will be a very positive influence and 52% expect a

positive influence. On the other hand, 10% of interviewees expect a negative influence

and 2% a very negative influence. Few respondents (10%) spontaneously say they expect there to be no influence and another 8% say they don’t know.


20 QC6.8 Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on the comfort and cleanliness in trains?


62

Country-by-country analysis reveals that large majorities in the Czech Republic (91%),

Greece (89%), Slovakia (88%) and Hungary and Slovenia (both 85%) expect improvement (positive or very positive) in the comfort and cleanliness of trains.

By contrast, this optimism is lowest, again, in the Netherlands (45%), Luxembourg

(53%) and France (55%). Respondents in the Netherlands (28%) and Sweden (25%) are

also most likely to expect competition to have a negative or very negative influence.




Don't know

TOTAL 70% 12% 10% 8%

15-24 74% 11% 9% 6%

25-39 73% 12% 9% 6%

40-54 69% 14% 10% 7%

55 + 66% 13% 10% 11%



Large town 71% 12% 9% 8%


Managers 71% 15% 9% 5%





Retired 65% 13% 10% 12%

Students 75% 12% 8% 5%






Age



The comfort and cleanliness of trains



Competition



63

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, occupation, user frequency and support

for competition are of importance with respect to respondents’ expectations of the

influence of rail market competition on the comfort and cleanliness of trains. Subjective urbanisation has no significant influence.

The younger the interviewees, the more optimistic: those aged 15-24 and those aged

25-39 (74% and 73% respectively) are more inclined to expect a positive or very

positive influence than their older counterparts aged 40-54 and 55+ (69% and 66%

respectively). Interviewees who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 (71%)

are somewhat more likely to share this optimistic view than respondents who left school

at the age of 15 or younger (65%). This is even more true of students (75%), compared

to retired respondents (65%).

Turning to user frequency, only slight differences are found regarding optimistic

expectations; the majority of regular passengers (71%), occasional passengers (71%)

and non-rail passengers (69%) expect rail market competition to have a positive or very positive influence on the comfort and cleanliness of trains.

There are some differences, however, regarding pessimistic expectations: regular

passengers and occasional passengers (17% and 15% respectively) are somewhat more

likely than non-rail passengers (11%) to expect competition to have a negative or very negative influence.

Analysis of attitude towards competition reveals that the supporters of rail market

competition are more likely than the opponents (83% vs. 38%) to think it will have a

positive influence on the comfort and cleanliness of trains. By contrast, 36% of the

opponents believe competition will have a negative influence compared to only 6% of the supporters.


64

2.9. Overall

- About seven in ten Europeans believe rail market competition will result

in improvements in ticket prices, service quality to passengers in trains,

comfort and cleanliness and the frequency of trains -

At least half or more of the interviewees in every single Member State expect

competition in the rail market to have a positive influence on ticket prices, on the quality

of services to passengers on trains, on the comfort and cleanliness of the trains, on the

frequency and punctuality of the trains, on the way railway companies are managed, and

on the number of stations and routes which will be served; the only exception is the

Netherlands, where this optimistic view is held by an absolute majority only with respect to the first two topics (ticket prices and service quality).

Furthermore, half or more of respondents in 17 of the 25 Member States surveyed

believe that rail market competition will improve the safety of the railway network; this is

not the case in the Netherlands (21%), Sweden (34%), Luxembourg (39%), France

(41%), Denmark (42%), Germany (47%), Finland (48%) and Belgium (49%). In the

Netherlands (49% vs. 21%) and in Sweden (46% vs. 34%), a relative majority of respondents even believe that it will have a negative influence.

Four Member States stand out. Firstly, the Netherlands, for having the lowest

percentages of respondents who expect rail market competition to have a positive in all eight areas (varying from 57% to as low as 21%).

Secondly, Greece, with the highest percentages of interviewees who believe that rail

market competition will result in the improvement of five topics: the frequency of trains

(87%), the punctuality of trains (85%), the way railway companies are managed (77%),

the number of stations or routes which will be served (83%), and the safety of the

railway network (76%).

Thirdly, the Czech Republic, with the largest proportions of respondents who expect

improvement in four areas: ticket prices (85%), the quality of services to train

passengers (91%), the comfort and cleanliness of the trains (91%), and the way railway companies are managed (77%, the same high proportion as in Greece).

Fourthly, Slovenia, where respondents were most likely to be optimistic about two topics:

ticket prices (85%, as in the Czech Republic) and railway management (77%, as in both Greece and the Czech Republic).


65



66

3. EXPECTED IMPACT OF RAIL MARKET COMPETITION ON STAKEHOLDERS

- The majority of Europeans believe that rail market competition

will be good for passengers, private rail operators, and employees of rail transport operators -

Having discussed Europeans’ expectations regarding the influence of rail market

competition on several aspects of rail services in the previous section, we now turn to the

impact of rail market competition on individual stakeholders. Respondents were asked to

what degree they think more competition in the rail market would be good or bad for

passengers, private rail operators and employees of rail transport operators21. Please note that UK respondents are excluded from the figures and analysis.

Base: Total number of respondents except in the UK (n=24286)

More than three-quarters (78%) of respondents believe that more competition in the rail

market will be good for passengers. A minority (13%) say it will be bad and 9% could not form an opinion on this matter.

Two-thirds (68%) of respondents think it will be good for private rail operators, whereas almost one in five (18%) say it will be bad. Another 14% do not know.

More than half (55%) of interviewees say it will be good for employees of rail

transport operators. However, a sizeable minority (one-third, 32%) believe it will be

bad. Another 13% have no opinion on this subject.

21 QC7a. Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for …?


67

3.1. Passengers

- Over three-quarters of respondents believe that rail market competition will be good for passengers -

More than three-quarters (78%) of respondents believe that more competition in the rail

market will be good for passengers22: very good (25%) or fairly good (53%). A minority

(13%) thinks it will be bad: fairly bad (11%) or very bad (2%). Almost one in ten (9%)

could not form an opinion on this matter. Please note that the United Kingdom was not

included in the calculation of these percentages.

22 QC7a1. Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for passengers?


68

Country-by-country analysis shows that an absolute majority of respondents in every

single Member State say that rail market competition will be good (very or fairly) for

passengers: the highest percentages are observed in the Czech Republic (93%),

Slovenia (92%), Slovakia (91%), Greece (87%), Austria (86%) and Hungary, Italy and

Bulgaria (all 83%). By contrast, the lowest percentages are found in the Netherlands (56%) and Sweden (67%).

Respondents in the latter two countries, accordingly, are also most likely to think that rail market competition is bad for passengers: 37% in the Netherlands and 28% in Sweden.

Total 'Good' Total 'Bad' Don't know

TOTAL 78% 13% 9%

15-24 82% 12% 6%

25-39 81% 12% 7%

40-54 78% 15% 7%

55 + 74% 15% 11%

15- 73% 13% 14%

16-19 80% 12% 8%

20+ 77% 17% 6%








Total 'In favour' 94% 3% 3%

Total 'Opposed' 36% 51% 13%

Age

Education (End of)


QC7a.1 Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for…?

Passengers


Competition

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, education and user frequency have a

modest influence; the majority view within all groups is that more competition in the rail

market will be good for passengers, especially among those who support competition.

There are no significant differences regarding subjective urbanisation.


69

Please note that the United Kingdom is not included in the following percentages.

The younger the respondents, the more inclined they are to be optimistic: 82% of the

youngest respondents aged 15-24 believe rail market competition will be good for

passengers compared to 74% of the respondents aged 55 and older. Respondents who

left school at the age of 15 or younger (73%) are less likely to say it will be good for

passengers than their better-educated counterparts; conversely, respondents who were

educated until the age of 20 or beyond are most likely (17%) to think it will be bad for passengers.

Turning to user frequency, the majority of regular passengers (74%), occasional

passengers (79%) and non-rail passengers (78%) say that rail market competition will be good for passengers.

Respondents who think that competition is bad for passengers are more likely to be

found among regular passengers (24%) than non-rail passengers (12%) and occasional passengers (16%).

Regarding attitude towards competition, almost all of the supporters of rail market

competition (94%) believe it will be good for the passengers, compared to just over one-

third of the opponents (36%) saying so. Conversely, an absolute majority of 51% of the

opponents say it will be bad for passengers, compared to only 3% of the supporters.


70

3.2. Private rail operators

- Two-thirds of respondents believe that rail market competition will be good for private rail operators -

Over two-thirds (68%) of interviewees think that rail market competition will be good for

private rail operators23: very good (18%) or fairly good (50%). On the other hand,

almost one in five interviewees (18%) expects it to be bad: fairly bad (15%) or very bad

(3%). Another 14% say they don’t know. Please note that the United Kingdom was not

included in the calculation of these percentages.

23 QC7a2. Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for private rail operators?


71

Country-by-country analysis reveals that at least half the interviewees in every single

Member State except Latvia believe that rail market competition will be good for private

rail operators; most strikingly in Greece (89%), Slovakia (80%), the Czech Republic

(77%), Italy (76%), and Austria (75%). By contrast, respondents are least inclined to have this view in Latvia (48%), the Netherlands (50%), and Lithuania (51%).

More than a third (37%) of respondents in the Netherlands says that rail market

competition will be bad for private rail operators. This view is shared by over a quarter of interviewees in Luxembourg (27%) and Belgium and Latvia (both 26%).


TOTAL 68% 18% 14%

15-24 65% 24% 11%

25-39 72% 17% 11%

40-54 70% 17% 13%

55 + 67% 16% 17%





Managers 76% 15% 9%





Retired 65% 17% 18%

Students 65% 26% 9%






Age



Private rail operators



Competition



72

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, occupation, subjective urbanisation and

user frequency have a slight influence; within all groups the majority view is that

competition in the rail market will be good for private rail operators, except among those who oppose opening up to competition.

Please note that the United Kingdom is not included in the following percentages.

The youngest respondents aged 15-24 are the most likely to expect it will be bad for

private rail operators (24% compared to the average of 18%). This is also true of

students (26%). Students and retired respondents are less likely to think it will be good

for private rail operators (both 65%) than managers (76%) and self-employed

interviewees (74%). Inhabitants of large towns are slightly more likely to think it will be good than rural villagers (71% compared to 67%).

In terms of user frequency, the majority of regular passengers (69%), occasional

passengers (72%) and non-rail passengers (68%) believe that rail market competition is good for private rail operators.

However, regular passengers (26%) are more likely to think it will be bad for private rail operators than occasional passengers and non-rail passengers (19% and 17%).

As to attitude towards competition, the supporters of competition are more likely than

the opponents (79% vs. 46%) to think it will be good for private rail operators. In

contrast, more of the opponents (41%) say competition will be bad for private rail operators than of the supporters (12%).


73

3.3. Employees of rail transport operators

- Over half of respondents believe that rail market competition will be good for employees of rail transport operators -

More than half (55%) the interviewees expect rail market competition to be good for

employees of rail transport operators24: very good (12%) or fairly good (43%). However,

a sizeable minority of one-third (33%) of respondents say it will be bad for employees of

rail transport operators: fairly bad (26%) or very bad (6%). A further 13% have no

opinion on this. Please note that the United Kingdom was not included in the calculation of these percentages.

24 QC7a3. Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for employees of rail transport operators?


74

Country-by-country analysis shows that in 19 of the 25 Member States surveyed, at

least half the respondents think rail market competition will be good for employees of rail

transport operators. The largest proportions of respondents with this view are in Italy

(73%), the Czech Republic (72%), Slovakia (71%) and Greece (70%). The lowest proportions were observed in the Netherlands (33%) and Luxembourg (38%).

Respondents in the latter two countries, accordingly, are also most likely to think that rail

market competition would be bad for employees of rail transport operators: 58% in the Netherlands and 47% in Sweden.


TOTAL 55% 32% 13%

15-24 59% 29% 12%

25-39 57% 31% 12%

40-54 53% 35% 12%

55 + 52% 32% 16%

15- 55% 28% 17%

16-19 56% 30% 14%

20+ 51% 38% 11%






Managers 47% 44% 9%





Retired 50% 33% 17%

Students 57% 32% 11%






Age

Education (End of)



Employees of rail transport operators



Competition



75

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, occupation, and user

frequency exercise a modest influence. There is no significant influence of subjective

urbanisation. Please note that the United Kingdom is not included in the following percentages.

The younger, the more optimistic: 59% of the youngest respondents aged 15-24 believe

that rail market competition will be good for employees of rail transport operators

compared to 52% of the oldest respondents aged 55+. Respondents who were educated

until the age of 20 or beyond are somewhat less likely (51%) to share this view than

their less educated counterparts. White collar workers (61%) are more likely than

managers (47%) and retired interviewees (50%) to think rail market competition will be

good for employees of rail transport operators.

Turning to user frequency, regular passengers (59%) are somewhat more likely than

occasional passengers (53%) and non-rail passengers (55%) to think that rail market competition will be good for employees of rail transport operators.

Furthermore, interviewees who think rail market competition will be bad in this respect

are more likely to be found among regular passengers and occasional passengers (35% and 38% respectively) than non-rail passengers (30%).

Analysis of attitude towards rail market competition reveals that the supporters of

competition are more likely than the opponents (67% vs. 24%) to think it will be good

for employees of rail transport operators. Conversely, almost two-thirds (66%) of the

opponents say it will be bad for employees of rail transport operators, compared to less than a quarter (23%) of the supporters.


76

4. EXPECTED IMPACT OF RAIL MARKET COMPETITION ON PUBLIC FUNDING

- Opinion about the impact of rail market competition on public funding of the rail sector is divided –

Opinion is divided as to whether public funding of the rail sector will increase, decrease

or remain the same if there is more competition in the rail market25: 34% of the

interviewees say that public funding of the rail sector will decrease, 30% think it will stay

the same and 19% believe it will increase. Another 17% are unable to form an opinion

on this subject. Please note that here again the United Kingdom was not included in the calculation of percentages.


25 QC8a Do you think that public funding of the rail sector will increase, decrease or remain the same if there is more competition in the rail market? Public funding of the rail sector…


77

Country-by-country analysis shows that respondents in Austria (32%) and Greece and

Bulgaria (both 25%) are most likely to think that public funding of the rail sector will increase, whereas this is least expected in Portugal (11%) and Germany (13%).

Interviewees in Belgium (48%), Germany (45%), Hungary and Finland (both 44%) are

most likely to say that public funding of the rail sector will decrease; conversely,

interviewees were least likely to have this view in Bulgaria (15%), Romania (23%), Austria and Poland (both 24%).

Largest proportions of respondents who think public funding of the rail sector will stay

the same are found in the Czech Republic (38%), Italy (37%) and Denmark (36%); whereas smallest proportions are in Bulgaria (18%), Greece (22%) and Ireland (23%).

Finally, notably high percentages of respondents who are unable to form an opinion are observed in Bulgaria (42%) and Portugal (36%).


78

Will increase Will decrease Will stay the same Don't know

TOTAL 19% 34% 30% 17%

15- 17% 28% 30% 25%

16-19 18% 33% 33% 16%

20+ 18% 42% 28% 12%




Large town 19% 35% 29% 17%


Managers 15% 46% 29% 10%




Unemployed 21% 31% 28% 20%

Retired 17% 30% 31% 22%

Students 25% 36% 27% 12%




Total 'In favour' 20% 35% 31% 14%

Total 'Opposed' 15% 40% 30% 15%

QC8a Do you think that public funding of the rail sector will increase, decrease or remain the same ifthere is more competition in the rail market? Public funding of the rail sector…

Education (End of)



Competition




79

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that education, occupation and user frequency are of importance; subjective urbanisation is however not.

There are striking differences due to education: respondents who were educated until the

age of 20 or beyond (42%) are much more likely to think that public funding of the rail

sector will decrease than respondents who left school at the age of 15 or younger (28%)

and respondents who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 (33%). Similarly,

managers are also most likely to take this view (46% compared to the average of 34%).

Students, however, are more likely than managers to believe that public funding will increase (25% vs. 15%).

As to user frequency, no significant differences were found, except that non-rail

passengers (33%) are less likely to think public funding will decrease than regular passengers (41%) and occasional passengers (39%).


80

III. DESIRABILITY OF THE EFFECTS OF RAILWAY MARKET

COMPETITION

The first chapter of this report presented Europeans’ current use of trains in the EU,

while the second chapter discussed their expectations regarding the impact of

competition in the railway market. The present chapter will focus on how much

Europeans hope that competition might have a number of effects: low-cost offers,

premium offers, and more versatile ways of buying tickets. Respondents were asked to

what extent they wished that more competition would lead to these effects26.


Seven in ten (70%) Europeans wish for a low cost or ‘no frills’ rail service similar to

that provided by some airlines, whereas over one in five (21%) do not. Another 9%

have no opinion on this subject.

Almost two-thirds (65%) of Europeans hope for more ways of buying tickets (e.g.

online, via smartphones, or on board); while a quarter (25%) do not. A further 10%

of respondents answer that they don’t know.

Over four in ten (43%) Europeans would like a premium offer which would be more

expensive but would include additional services (meals, films, newspapers,

etc.). However, more respondents (47%) do not want such premium offers. A further 10% have no opinion on this topic.

26 QC9 To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects…,?


81

1. RAILWAY OFFERS

This section discusses the extent to which Europeans would like more competition in the rail market to lead to low-cost offers and premium offers.

1.1. Low-cost offers

- Seven in ten Europeans wish for low-cost offers or a ‘no frills’ rail service

similar to that provided by some airlines -

We saw that a majority (70%) of Europeans wold like to be offered a low-cost or ‘no

frills’ rail service similar to that provided by some airlines27. More specifically, 26% would

very much like such a service, and 44% quite a lot. On the other hand, 15% do not

much wish for such low-cost offers and 6% not at all. Furthermore, 9% of the interviewees answer that they don’t know.


27 QC9.1 To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects…? Low cost\ "no frills" rail service similar to that provided by some airlines


82

Country-by-country analysis shows that in every single Member State, an absolute

majority of respondents would like a low-cost or ‘no frills’ rail service similar to that

provided by some airlines. At least three-quarters of respondents would like such a

service in in Greece (84%), Austria (79%), Italy and Slovakia (both 76%) and Hungary

(75%). The lowest percentages are observed in Luxembourg (51%) and the Netherlands (54%).

These last two countries are also among the Member States with the largest proportions

of interviewees who do not wish for low-cost offers: Luxembourg (44%), the Netherlands (39%), and Belgium (37%).


83

Total 'Yes' Total 'No' Don't know

TOTAL 70% 21% 9%

15-24 78% 15% 7%

25-39 76% 18% 6%

40-54 70% 22% 8%

55 + 62% 24% 14%

15- 63% 21% 16%

16-19 72% 20% 8%

20+ 71% 23% 6%






Managers 71% 24% 5%





Retired 61% 24% 15%

Students 78% 16% 6%

Most of the time 73% 16% 11%

From time to time 73% 18% 9%

Almost never 69% 23% 8%




Age

Education (End of)


QC9.1 To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects… ?

Low cost\ "no frills" rail service similar to that provided by some airlines


Difficulties paying bills



Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, education, occupation, financial situation

and subjective urbanisation are of influence. User frequency has less impact.

Nevertheless, the majority within all groups would like a low-cost or ‘no frills’ rail service

similar to that provided by some airlines.


84

The younger the respondents, the more they would like low-cost offers: 78% of the

respondents aged 15-24 compared to 68% of the oldest respondents aged 55+.

Respondents who left school at the age of fifteen are less likely (63%) to want low-cost

offers than their longer-educated counterparts. This is also true of retired respondents

(61%) compared with students (78%) and unemployed interviewees (75%), as of rural

villagers (66%) compared to respondents who live in small/mid-size towns (72%) or in large towns (71%).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, interviewees who have difficulties paying their bills most of the

time are most likely to say they would like low cost-offers very much (33% compared to the average of 26%).

Turning to user frequency, only minor differences are found; the majority of regular

passengers, occasional passengers (both 73%) and non-rail passengers (69%) would like

low-cost offers. However, regular passengers and occasional passengers (24% and 22%

respectively) are slightly more inclined than non-rail passengers (20%) not to want low-cost offers.


85

1.2. Premium offers

- European opinion is divided on the wish for premium offers

which would be more expensive but would include

additional services such as meals, films, newspapers –

Opinion is divided about a premium offer which would be more expensive but would

include additional services (meals, films, newspapers, etc.)28. A sizeable proportion

(43%) of Europeans would like rail market competition to lead to such premium offers

whereas a slightly larger proportion (47%) would not. In more detail, 11% would like

premium offers very much and 32% quite a lot. Conversely, 29% would not much want

premium offers and 18% would not want at all. Another 10% of respondents have no opinion on this topic.


28 QC9.2 To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects? A premium offer which would be more expensive but would include additional services (meals, films, newspapers, etc.)


86

Country-by-country analysis reveals that absolute majorities would like premium offers

in the Czech Republic (57%), Greece (55%), Lithuania and Poland (both 53%), and Italy

(52%). Conversely, the lowest percentages are observed in the Netherlands (25%), Luxembourg (32%), and Belgium (33%).

The latter three are also among the countries where the largest proportions of

interviewees do not wish for premium offers, namely the Netherlands (69%),

Luxembourg and Belgium (both 64%), Germany (58%), Hungary (55%), the UK and

France (both 52%) and Finland (51%). By contrast, the lowest percentages who do not want premium offers are found in Lithuania (30%), Poland (31%) and Romania (32%).

Member States where opinion is most divided between respondents who do and do not

want premium offers are Spain (46% vs. 45% respectively), Slovenia (48% vs. 47%), Denmark (47% vs. 45%), Portugal (39% vs. 37%), and Austria (50% vs. 47%).


TOTAL 43% 47% 10%

15-24 47% 45% 8%

25-39 48% 45% 7%

40-54 43% 49% 8%

55 + 36% 49% 15%

15- 38% 45% 17%

16-19 43% 47% 10%

20+ 43% 50% 7%






Managers 43% 52% 5%





Retired 35% 49% 16%

Students 45% 49% 6%




Age

Education (End of)



A premium offer which would be more expensive but would include additional services (meals, films, newspapers, etc.)





87

Socio-demographic analysis shows that age, education, occupation, user frequency

and to a lesser extent subjective urbanisation, are of importance with respect to respondents’ wish that more rail market competition would lead to premium offers.

The younger the interviewees, the more likely they are want premium offers: 47% of the

youngest respondents aged 15-24 compared to 36% of the oldest respondents aged

55+. Respondents who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 or at the age of

20 and beyond (both 43%) are somewhat more likely to wish for premium offers than

their those who left school at the age of 15 (38%). Self-employed respondents (48%)

are much more likely to want premium offers than retired respondents (35%). Rural

villagers (40%) are somewhat less likely so than the inhabitants of small/mid-size towns

and those of large towns (43% and 44% respectively).

As to user frequency, more regular passengers (48%) would like rail market competition

to result in premium offers than occasional passengers and non-rail passengers (both

42%). Notably, occasional passengers are more likely (54%) not to want premium offers than either regular passengers (47%) or non-rail passengers (46%).


88

2. WAYS OF BUYING TICKETS

Having discussed railway offers, we now address the ways rail passengers can buy

tickets, first considering how far Europeans would like rail market competition to result in

more ticket purchase options before turning to the question of buying tickets for rail

journeys that involve multiple rail operators.

2.1. More ways of buying tickets

- Almost two-thirds of Europeans would like more ways of buying tickets

such as online, via smartphones or on board –

We saw in the introduction to this chapter that almost two-thirds (65%) of Europeans

would like more ways of buying tickets (e.g. online, via smartphones, or on board)29. More specifically, 23% would like this very much and 42% quite a lot.

In contrast, 17% do not much want more ways to buy tickets, and 8% not at all. Another 10% of respondents answer that they don’t know.


29 QC9.3 To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects… ? More ways of buying tickets (e.g. online, via smartphones, or on board)


89

Country-by-country analysis reveals that absolute majorities want more ways of

buying tickets in every single Member State; the highest percentages are found in the

Czech Republic (82%), Greece (77%), and Slovenia and Slovakia (both 75%). By contrast, the lowest percentages are in Portugal (51%), and Romania (54%).

Countries where about a third of respondents do not wish for more ways of buying

tickets are Austria and Belgium (both 36%), Finland (34%), the Netherlands (33%), and

Luxembourg and France (both 32%).


90

Total 'Yes' Total 'No' DK

TOTAL 65% 25% 10%

15-24 72% 22% 6%

25-39 71% 23% 6%

40-54 67% 25% 8%

55 + 56% 29% 15%

15- 55% 28% 17%

16-19 66% 25% 9%

20+ 68% 26% 6%






Managers 68% 28% 4%





Retired 54% 29% 17%

Students 74% 21% 5%

Low (1-4) 61% 26% 13%

Medium (5-6) 64% 27% 9%

High (7-10) 70% 23% 7%




Age

Education (End of)



More ways of buying tickets (e.g. online, via smartphones, or onboard)





Socio-demographic analysis reveals the influence of age, education, occupation, self-

positioning on the social scale, user frequency and to some extent subjective

urbanisation. Nevertheless, the majority within all groups would like rail market competition to lead to more ways of buying tickets.


91

The younger respondents, aged 15-24 (72%) and aged 25-39 (71%), are somewhat

more likely to want more ways of buying tickets than those aged 40-54 (67%) and far

more than the oldest respondents aged 55+ (56%). Respondents who left school at the

age of fifteen or before are less likely (55%) to wish for more ways of buying tickets than

those who finished school between the ages of 16 and 19 or at the age of 20 or later

(66% and 68% respectively). Rural dwellers (62%) are somewhat less inclined to want

more ways of buying tickets than interviewees who live in small/mid-size towns or those

who live in large towns (both 66%).

Of all occupational groups, retired interviewees (54%) are the least likely to want more

ways of buying tickets, in particular compared to students (74%), self-employed

interviewees (71%), and white collar workers (70%). The higher respondents place

themselves on the social scale, the more likely they are to wish for more ways of buying

tickets: 61% of those who place themselves towards the bottom of the scale compared to 70% who place themselves towards the top.

In terms of user frequency, regular passengers and occasional passengers (68% and

70% respectively) are more inclined than non-rail passengers (63%) to wish for more

ways to buy tickets. Furthermore, slightly more regular passengers (29%) do not want

more ticket purchase options than occasional passengers and non-rail passengers (26% and 25% respectively).


92

2.2. Single outlet for multiple-operator rail journeys

- A single ticket and information point

for multiple-operator rail journeys matters to the majority of Europeans -

Respondents were asked whether, when a rail journey used different rail operators, it

mattered to them be able to buy tickets and to get information covering the whole

journey through one single point, rather than from the different rail operators

separately30.

A small minority of 6% answered spontaneously that this question is not relevant for

them; therefore these respondents are not included in the calculation of the percentages

below.

Base: Total number of respondents, excluding those who answered that it is not relevant for them (n=23988)

30 QC10T Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?


93

The opportunity to buy tickets and get information covering a whole journey through one

single point matters to three-quarters (75%) of the respondents to whom multiple-

operator rail journeys are of relevance: a lot to 43% and somewhat to 32%. On the

other hand, it does not matter to one-fifth (20%): not really to 13%, and not at all to 7%. Further, a small minority (5%) has no opinion on this subject.

Country-by-country analysis shows that in every single Member State except Bulgaria,

an absolute majority of respondents would like to be able to buy tickets and get

information covering the whole journey through one single point when making a

multiple-operator rail journey. The proportion is as high as 95% in Denmark, followed at some distance by Sweden (87%), Finland and France (86%).

The lowest percentages of respondents to whom such a single point matters are

observed in Bulgaria (47%) and Ireland (56%); respondents in these countries are also

most likely to say it does not matter to them (40% and 41%

respectively).



94


TOTAL 75% 20% 5%

15-24 77% 19% 4%

25-39 76% 20% 4%

40-54 77% 19% 4%

55 + 72% 21% 7%

15- 64% 27% 9%

16-19 75% 20% 5%

20+ 82% 15% 3%






Managers 84% 14% 2%





Retired 73% 19% 8%

Students 78% 18% 4%

Most of the time 71% 22% 7%

From time to time 72% 23% 5%

Almost never 77% 18% 5%

Low (1-4) 73% 20% 7%

Medium (5-6) 74% 21% 5%

High (7-10) 79% 17% 4%





Age

Education (End of)


QC10T Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey

through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?



Difficulties paying bills



95

Socio-demographic analysis reveals that age, education, occupation, financial

situation, positioning on the social scale and user frequency are all of influence.

Nevertheless, a single ticketing and information point for multiple-operator rail journeys

matters to the majority within all groups. There is no significant influence of subjective urbanisation.

The oldest respondents aged 55+ (72%) are less likely to say it matters to them than

any of the three younger age groups: 15-24, 25-39, and 40-54 (77%, 76%, and 77%

respectively). The longer respondents remained in education the more likely it is to

matter: 64% of respondents who left school at the age of 15 or before, rising to as many

as 82% of those who studied till the age of 20 or beyond. Of the occupational groups,

managers (84%) are most likely and house persons (67%) least likely to say this matters to them.

As to financial situation, interviewees who never have difficulties paying their bills (77%)

are somewhat more likely to say a single outlet point matters than respondents who do

have these financial difficulties most of the time (71%), or from time to time (72%). This

is also true of respondents who place themselves high on the social scale (79%)

compared with those who position themselves towards the bottom (73%) or the middle (74%).

Turning to user frequency, a single ticketing and information point for multiple-operator

rail journeys is more likely to matter to occasional passengers (84%) than to regular

passengers (79%) or non-rail passengers (72%). Unsurprisingly, occasional passengers

(14%) are also least likely to say it does not matter to them, compared to regular

passengers (19%) and non-rail passengers (22%).

**********************************


96

CONCLUSION

In the light of the EU’s policy to increase competition in the railway market in order to

achieve better rail services for passenger and freight users, the purpose of this report is to gain insight into European public opinion on rail market competition in the EU.

More specifically, the survey presented here has three main objectives:

- First, to gain insight into the current use of regional and national trains in the EU and satisfaction with current rail services;

- Second, to analyse the attitudes of Europeans to opening the EU rail market to competition;

- Third, to understand public expectations of such rail market competition.

Over half of Europeans have used a national or regional train at least once. One

in ten Europeans does so at least several times a month and almost one in five several

times a year. The majority of rail passengers travel for leisure trips. Regular rail passengers, who take a train at least once a week, do so mainly to go to work or class.

Almost half of Europeans have never travelled using a national or regional train and

another quarter do so at most once a year. However, four in ten would be encouraged to take the train more often by lower prices.

Almost half of Europeans are satisfied with their national and regional rail

system. Satisfaction is greater in the northern and western countries. Over six in ten of

both regular and occasional rail passengers are satisfied with their national and regional rail system.

More than seven in ten Europeans support opening up the national and regional

rail system to competition - provided that all operators must meet the same

safety standards. Absolute majorities in favour of rail market competition are observed

in every single Member State except the Netherlands. The greatest support is observed

in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy, Greece and Austria. In contrast, the

least support is found in the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg. There is no

difference between regular, occasional and non-users of national or regional trains in

terms of the degree of support.

There is no clear correlation between satisfaction with the railway system and

support for rail market competition.

The majority of Europeans expect that more competition in the rail market will

have a positive influence on all the rail services investigated in the survey.

About seven in ten Europeans expect it to improve ticket prices, the quality of services to

passengers on the trains, and the comfort and cleanliness of the trains. However, regular

rail passengers are somewhat more inclined to think competition will have a negative impact on ticket prices.


97

Two in three Europeans expect that rail market competition will have a positive influence

on the frequency and punctuality of trains. Six in ten think competition will improve the

way railway companies are managed and the number of stations or routes which will be served.

Just over half of Europeans expect competition to enhance the safety of the railway

network; opinions on this are sharply divided across countries. Regular and occasional

users, however, are more likely to think that competition will decrease safety.

Overall, expectations of the influence of rail market competition on all or most of these

topics are greatest in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Greece, and Italy. In contrast,

expectations regarding all or most of the topics are lowest in the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg.

Support for rail market competition is strongly related to expectations regarding its influence on the rail services examined here.

The majority of Europeans think that rail market competition will be good for

individual stakeholders. Almost eight in ten Europeans believe that it will be good for

passengers, with an absolute majority in every country. However, regular and occasional rail passengers are more sceptical.

More than half of Europeans say it will be good for employees of rail transport operators,

but opinion on this is sharply divided across countries. Again, regular and occasional rail passengers are more sceptical than less frequent rail passengers.

Opinion is divided about the impact of rail market competition on the public

funding of the rail sector. One-third of Europeans say that public funding of the rail

sector will decrease, a slightly smaller proportion think it will stay the same, and almost

one-fifth believes that public funding of the rail sector will increase. However, a relative majority in fourteen Member States think that public funding will decrease.

Europeans’ wishes regarding special offers and ways to buy tickets are various.

Seven in ten Europeans would like low-cost offers or a ‘no frills’ rail service similar to that

provided by some airlines, with absolute majorities in every country. Regular, occasional and non-rail passengers have similar opinions on this.

Opinion varies widely across countries regarding premium offers which would be more

expensive but would include additional services such as meals, films, newspapers. There

are no clear differences between passengers who use the train mainly for business trips, for going to work or class, or for leisure trips.

Almost two-thirds of Europeans would like more ways of buying tickets such as online,

via smartphones or on board, with an absolute majority in every country. A single

ticketing and information point for multiple-operator rail journeys matters to three-

quarters of Europeans. Even though there are absolute majorities within every country surveyed (except Bulgaria), there are notable differences across countries.


98

In conclusion, widespread support exists among Europeans for opening up the rail

system to competition. Support for rail market competition is strongly related to

expectations regarding its influence on the rail services investigated here. However, it

appears to be independent of the degree of satisfaction with the current rail system. As

mentioned in the introduction of this report, EU rail legislation is based on a distinction

between transport companies on the one hand and railway networks on the other, with

different organisations for each. An explanation for the absence of a clear link between

support for opening up the rail system to competition provided that all operators meet

the same safety standards on the one hand, and levels of satisfaction with the current rail system on the other, might be found in this distinction.

********************

ANNEXES

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 388

Rail Competition TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Between the 10th and 25th of March 2012, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between TNS plc and TNS opinion, carried out the wave 77.2 of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, “Research and Speechwriting”. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 388 is part of wave 77.2 and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States except in Malta and in Cyprus, and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density.

In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.

TS1


For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above. Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:

Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%

Confidence limits ± 1.9 points ± 2.5 points ± 2.7 points ± 3.0 points ± 3.1 points

ABBR. COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N° INTERVIEWS

FIELDWORK DATES

POPULATION 15+

BE Belgium TNS Dimarso 1.075 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 8.939.546 BG Bulgaria TNS BBSS 1.000 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 6.537.510 CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa 1.002 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 9.012.443 DK Denmark TNS Gallup DK 1.008 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 4.561.264 DE Germany TNS Infratest 1.532 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 64.409.146 EE Estonia Emor 1.001 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 945.733 IE Ireland Ipsos MRBI 1.007 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 3.522.000 EL Greece TNS ICAP 1.000 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 8.693.566 ES Spain TNS Demoscopia 1.003 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 39.127.930 FR France TNS Sofres 1.024 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 47.756.439 IT Italy TNS Infratest 1.037 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 51.862.391 LV Latvia TNS Latvia 1.003 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 1.447.866

LT Lithuania TNS Gallup Lithuania 1.016 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 2.829.740

LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS 506 12/03/2012 25/03/2012 404.907 HU Hungary TNS Hoffmann Kft 1.010 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 8.320.614 NL Netherlands TNS NIPO 1.011 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 13.371.980

AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut 1.001 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 7.009.827

PL Poland TNS OBOP 1.000 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 32.413.735 PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE 1.000 13/03/2012 25/03/2012 8.080.915 RO Romania TNS CSOP 1.031 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 18.246.731 SI Slovenia RM PLUS 1.012 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 1.759.701 SK Slovakia TNS Slovakia 1.000 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 4.549.955 FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy 1.000 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 4.440.004 SE Sweden TNS GALLUP 1.007 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 7.791.240 UK United Kingdom TNS UK 1.305 10/03/2012 25/03/2012 51.848.010

TOTAL 25.591 10/03/2012 25/03/2012

407.883.193

TS2


QUESTIONNAIRE


QC1

Daily/

Almost daily

Several

times per

week

Once a

week

Several

times per

month

Several

times per

year

Once a year

or less

Never DK

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

QC2

12345

QC3

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

QC4

12345

QC5

12345

QC6

A very

positive

influence

A positive

influence

A negative

influence

A very

negative

influence

No

influence

(SPONT.)

DK

1 1 2 3 4 5 62 1 2 3 4 5 63 1 2 3 4 5 64 1 2 3 4 5 65 1 2 3 4 5 66 1 2 3 4 5 67 1 2 3 4 5 68 1 2 3 4 5 6

QC7a

123

NEW

Employees of rail transport

operators

1 2 3 4 5Private rail operators 1 2 3 4 5Passengers 1 2 3 4 5

Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for…?(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Very good Fairly good Fairly bad Very bad DK

The punctuality of trainsThe number of stations or routes which will be servedThe safety of the railway networkThe comfort and cleanliness of trains

NEW

SPLIT: DO NOT ASK QC7a IN UK – UK GO TO QC7b

(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)(READ OUT – ROTATE)

The way railways companies are managedFrequency of trainsTicket pricesThe quality of services to the passengers in the trains

Tend to opposeTotally oppose DKNEW

Please tell me if you think that more competition in the rail market in (OUR COUNTRY) will have … on …?

Competition means the right for railway companies to offer services either on the same route as a competitor or after winning a tender providing exclusive rights.

In general, do you support or oppose opening the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY) to competition provided that all operators must meet the same

safety standards?

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)Totally supportTend to support

Very satisfiedFairly satisfiedNot very satisfiedNot at all satisfied DKNEW

DKNEW

ASK ALL

Overall, how satisfied are you with the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY)?(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

More reliable servicesFaster journeys More comfortable and cleaner trainsBetter network with more routes/ stations Other (SPONTANEOUS)None (SPONTANEOUS)

ASK QC3 IF "DO NOT TRAVEL BY NATIONAL OR REGIONAL TRAIN OR TAKE IT ONLY ONCE A YEAR OR LESS", CODE 6 OR 7 IN QC1.1 – OTHERS GO TO QC4

What would make you more likely to travel by train?(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)Lower pricesMore frequent services

Going to work/ to classBusiness tripsLeisure tripsOther (SPONTANEOUS)DKNEW

Suburban trainsNEW

ASK QC2 IF "TRAVEL BY NATIONAL OR REGIONAL TRAIN", CODE 1 TO 6 IN QC1.1 – OTHERS GO TO QC3

Why do you use national or regional trains most often?(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

C. Railway competition

How often do you travel by … in (OUR COUNTRY)? (SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(READ OUT)


Q1


QC7b

123

QC8a

1234

QC8b

1234

QC9

1

2

3

QC10

123456

No, it does not really matter to youNo, it does not matter to you at allNot relevant (SPONTANEOUS)DKNEW

NEW

Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a

single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately ?(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)Yes, it matters to you a lotYes, it matters to you somewhat

More ways of buying tickets

(e.g. online, via smartphones,

or onboard)

1 2 3 4 5

A premium offer which would

be more expensive but would

include additional services

(meals, films, newspapers, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

DKLow cost/ "no frills" rail service

similar to that provided by

some airlines

1 2 3 4 5

NEW

ASK ALL

To what extent do you wish that more competition lead to the following effects… ?(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Very much Quite a lot Not much Not at all

Do you think that public funding of the rail sector increased, decreased or remained the same as a result of more competition in the rail market?

Public funding of the rail sector …

(ONE ANSWER ONLY)IncreasedDecreasedStayed the sameDK

Will decreaseWill stay the sameDKNEW

SPLIT: ASK QC8b ONLY IN UK – OTHERS GO TO QC9

NEW

SPLIT: DO NOT ASK QC8a IN UK – UK GO TO QC8b

Do you think that public funding of the rail sector will increase, decrease or remain the same if there is more competition in the rail market?

Public funding of the rail sector …(ONE ANSWER ONLY)Will increase

Employees of rail transport

operators

1 2 3 4 5Private rail operators 1 2 3 4 5

DKPassengers 1 2 3 4 5

SPLIT: ASK QC7b ONLY UK – OTHERS GO TO QC8a

Do you think that more competition in the rail market is good or bad for…?(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)

(READ OUT – ROTATE) Very good Fairly good Fairly bad Very bad

Q2

TABLES


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Überregionale oder regionale Züge (ausgenommen Vorortszüge / S-Bahnen)

Täglich / Fast täglich

EB77.2

Plusieurs fois par semaine

Several times a week

Mehrmals in der Woche

EB77.2

Tous les jours/ presque tous les

jours

Daily/ Almost daily

Einmal pro Woche

Plusieurs fois par mois

Several times a month

Mehrmals im Monat

EB77.2

Une fois par semaine

Once a week

Mehrmals pro Jahr

EB77.2

Plusieurs fois par an

Several times a year

2 2 2 4 19

EB77.2

4 3 2 5 24

0 0 1 4 20

3 2 2 5 23

2 1 1 7 27

2 2 2 6 21

0 1 1 4 11

1 1 1 4 18

0 0 1 1 9

0 1 1 1 11

2 1 1 4 18

2 4 3 3 15

0 1 1 4 13

0 0 0 1 8

4 5 3 7 20

2 2 2 6 18

3 3 3 7 35

3 3 2 8 24

1 1 1 2 14

1 1 1 2 8

1 1 1 3 15

0 1 1 2 12

1 2 2 7 25

3 20

2 2 1 6 41

4 2 3 6 23

0 1 1

QC1.1 Wie oft nutzen Sie in Deutschland ...?

QC1.1 A quelle fréquence vous déplacez-vous en … en (NOTRE PAYS) ? Trains nationaux ou régionaux (trains suburbains exclus)

QC1.1 How often do you travel by … in (OUR COUNTRY)? National or regional trains (this excludes suburban trains)

T1


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

6

3

34 14 0 86 5

22 40 1 59

3

27 35 0 65 9

36 41 1 58

10

48 26 0 74 2

31 48 1 51

12

21 63 0 37 2

17 31 0 69

2

15 71 0 29 3

14 47 0 53

4

22 37 0 63 8

30 50 1 49

1

24 45 0 54 6

24 50 0 50

3

22 68 0 32 1

28 62 0 38

4

22 52 0 48 9

23 58 1 42

2

21 64 0 36 3

34 28 0 72

6

29 45 1 54 2

27 46 1 53

Total 'Au moins une fois par semaine'

33 34 0 66 6

26 45 0 55

Total 'Au moins une fois par semaine'

23 42 0 58 7

Einmal pro Jahr oder seltener

Niemals WNGesamt 'Mindestens

einmal'

QC1.1 A quelle fréquence vous déplacez-vous en … en (NOTRE PAYS) ? Trains nationaux ou régionaux (trains suburbains exclus)


20 43 0 57 8


QC1.1 Wie oft nutzen Sie in Deutschland ...? Überregionale oder regionale Züge (ausgenommen Vorortszüge / S-Bahnen)

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

Once a year or less Never DK Total 'At least once'Total 'At least once

per week'

Une fois par an ou moins

Jamais NSPTotal 'Au moins une

fois'

T2


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Vorortszüge / S-Bahn

Täglich / Fast täglich

EB77.2

Plusieurs fois par semaine

Several times a week

Mehrmals in der Woche

EB77.2

Tous les jours/ presque tous les

jours

Daily/ Almost daily

Einmal pro Woche

EB77.2

Plusieurs fois par mois

Several times a month

Mehrmals im Monat

EB77.2

Une fois par semaine

Once a week

Mehrmals pro Jahr

EB77.2

Une fois par an ou moins

Once a year or less

Einmal pro Jahr oder seltener

EB77.2

Plusieurs fois par an

Several times a year

3 3 2 5 13 15

2 2 2 3 10 9

1 0 0 1 3 5

2 1 1 3 14 14

5 5 3 10 21 22

5 5 2 8 20 19

0 1 1 4 7 16

1 2 2 5 14 17

0 1 1 2 8 17

3 5 4 7 10 13

2 2 1 3 10 10

2 3 3 3 9 11

2 1 1 5 15 19

0 0 0 1 5 12

1 1 1 1 4 4

1 1 1 2 7 9

4 2 2 8 38 17

3 4 2 6 17 12

1 2 1 1 8 14

1 1 2 2 8 13

1 1 1 2 7 23

1 1 0 2 8 13

1 2 1 5 11 12

3 3 2 5 15 24

5 2 1 6 23 22

3 3 2 5 18 18

QC1.2 A quelle fréquence vous déplacez-vous en … en (NOTRE PAYS) ? Trains suburbains

QC1.2 How often do you travel by … in (OUR COUNTRY)? Suburban trains


T3


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK 50 1 49 8

QC1.2 A quelle fréquence vous déplacez-vous en … en (NOTRE PAYS) ?



41 0 59 9

47 0 52 8

69 1 30 3

76 0 24 2

63 3 35 2

71 0 28 4

73 1 26 3

55 1 44 10

28 0 72 9

78 0 22 3

88 1 11 2

81 0 18 1

55 1 43 4

68 1 31 8

71 1 28 5

58 0 42 12

72 0 28 2

58 1 41 5

70 1 29 2

41 0 59 12

34 0 66 13

64 1 36 5

86 4 10 1

72 0 28 6

59 1 40 7

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

Niemals WNGesamt

'Mindestens einmal'

Total 'Au moins une fois par

semaine'

Never DKTotal 'At least

once'Total 'At least once per week'

Jamais NSPTotal 'Au moins

une fois'

Total 'Au moins une fois par

semaine'

Vorortszüge / S-Bahn

Trains suburbains

Suburban trains

T4


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Pour se rendre au travail/ aller en

cours

Going to work/ to class

Für den Weg zur Arbeit / zum Unterricht

EB77.2

Pour des déplacements de

loisirs

Leisure trips

Für private Reisen / Ausflüge

EB77.2

Pour des déplacements professionnels

Business trips

Für Dienstreisen

EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Autre (SPONTANE)

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

Sonstiges (SPONTAN)

EB77.2

2

15 9 57 16 3

10 10 70 8

8

13 6 77 3 1

4 8 72 8

19 9 76 5

19 15 72 3

5

9 7 73 7 4

13 5 75 2

1

14 5 64 12 5

5 10 82 2

0

11 14 63 9 3

10 16 70 4

3

6 5 71 15 3

13 19 60 5

0

14 5 51 27 3

18 6 67 9

0

16 7 71 5 1

19 9 70 2

4

9 7 64 19 1

9 8 61 18

6

18 6 63 12 1

3 6 80 5

2

7 8 81 4 0

16 9 55 18

1

9 9 75 6 1

10 16 69 4

QC2 Quelle est la raison principale pour laquelle vous utilisez les trains nationaux ou régionaux ?

QC2 Why do you use national or regional trains most often?

QC2 Zu welchem Zweck nutzen Sie überregionale oder regionale Züge hauptsächlich?

T5


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Des prix plus bas

Lower prices

Niedrigere Preise

EB77.2

Une plus grande fiabilité du service

More reliable services

Zuverlässigere Verbindungen

EB77.2

Une fréquence plus importante du

service

More frequent services

Häufigere Verbindungen

EB77.2

Des trains plus confortables et plus

propres

More comfortable and cleaner trains

Bequemere und sauberere Züge

EB77.2

Des trajets plus rapides

Faster journeys

Schnellere Verbindungen

EB77.2

1643 14 16 17

36 15 17 14 11

2628 8 18 22

51 16 22 20 35

644 12 16 15

1247 16 21 13

1631 15 5 19

31 10 5 8 5

2849 30 22 30

43 15 7 15 7

855 8 15 17

40 15 24 19 31

1131 13 4 14

37 10 4 14 5

512 11 8 18

45 7 14 22 31

427 4 6 7

40 21 15 22 17

2235 21 15 24

26 11 6 10 4

2641 8 20 26

38 14 11 25 19

3135 15 12 23

44 13 8 13 3

648 15 30 18

46 11 13 11 12

QC3 Qu’est-ce qui pourrait vous encourager à voyager en train ? (ROTATION – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)


QC3 Was würde Sie dazu bewegen, häufiger den Zug zu nutzen? (ROTIEREN - MEHRFACHNENNUNGEN MÖGLICH)

T6


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

2

13 7 34 2

28 1

31 7 16

8 28 4

21 7

16

18

31 17 21 2

43 9

13 4 18

4 33 7

24 3

25

3

20 7 38 2

34 2

16 12 28

15 34 2

20 3

29

3

18 8 36 4

28 5

24 2 34

6 22 3

13 5

22

2

13 6 29 5

23 21

37 1 27

4 30 4

21 8

28

3

28 3 28 2

23 2

17 8 30

4 26 18

18 5

12

5

24 7 33 1

EB77.2

EB77.2

20 5 28

Sonstiges (SPONTAN)

Nichts davon (SPONTAN)

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Ein besseres Verkehrsnetz mit

mehr Verbindungen/

Haltestellen

NSP

Better network with more routes/

stations

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

None (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

Un réseau plus étendu avec plus

d’itinéraires/ d’arrêts

Autre (SPONTANE) Aucun (SPONTANE)

QC3 Qu’est-ce qui pourrait vous encourager à voyager en train ? (ROTATION – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)


QC3 Was würde Sie dazu bewegen, häufiger den Zug zu nutzen? (ROTIEREN - MEHRFACHNENNUNGEN MÖGLICH)

T7


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Très satisfait(e)

Very satisfied

Sehr zufrieden

EB77.2

QC4 D’une manière générale, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait(e) du système ferroviaire national et régional en (NOTRE PAYS) ?

QC4 Overall, how satisfied are you with the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY)?

QC4 Wie zufrieden sind Sie insgesamt mit dem überregionalen und regionalen Schienenverkehrssystem in Deutschland?

Plutôt pas satisfait(e)

Not very satisfied

Nicht sehr zufrieden

EB77.2

Plutôt satisfait(e)

Fairly satisfied

Ziemlich zufrieden

EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Pas du tout satisfait(e)

Not at all satisfied

Überhaupt nicht

zufriedenEB

77.2

Total 'Pas satisfait(e)'

Total 'Not satisfied'

Gesamt 'Nicht zufrieden'

EB77.2

Total 'Satisfait(e)'

Total 'Satisfied'

Total 'Satisfait(e)'

EB77.2

36

6 51 25 7 11 57 32

6 40 18 4625 11

24 18

44 43

1 17 37 21

45

2119 45

58

5 39 32 11 13

345 40 24 10

15 6416 5

21

30

15 44 14 9 18 59 23

3 36

32 20

31 3920 10

18 30 52

10 49 15 5 21 59 20

2 28

22

2 25 42 19 12 27 61

7 52

17 6

19 5916 6

26 51 23

6 41 11 4 38 47 15

5 46

12

4 36 35 12 13 40 47

18 44

18 5

26 629 3

13 64 23

9 57 18 3 13 66 21

13 51

47

1 42 24 6 27 43 30

3 26

38 22

24 2933 14

17 23 60

5 35 31 17 12 40 48

1 22

48

10 57 16 2 15 67 18

2 37 13 3935 13

6 60

55 27

9 51 26 8 34

9 46 18 9 18

T8


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Que vous soutenez tout

à fait

Totally support

Voll und ganz dafür

EB77.2

QC5 D’une manière générale, êtes-vous favorable ou opposé(e) à l’ouverture du réseau ferroviaire national ou régional en (NOTRE PAYS) à la concurrence, à condition que tous les opérateurs soient obligés de respecter les mêmes normes de sécurité ?

QC5 In general, do you support or oppose opening the national and regional rail system in (OUR COUNTRY) to competition provided that all operators must meet the same safety standards?

QC5 Sind Sie im Allgemeinen dafür oder dagegen, dass der überregionale und regionale Schienenverkehr in Deutschland für den Wettbewerb geöffnet wird, unter der Voraussetzung, dass alle Anbieter dieselben Sicherheitsstandards erfüllen müssen?

A laquelle vous êtes

plutôt opposé(e)

Tend to oppose

Eher dagegen

EB77.2

Que vous soutenez

plutôt

Tend to support

Eher dafür

EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Tout à fait opposé(e)

Totally opposed

Voll und ganz dagegen

EB77.2

Total 'Opposé(e)'

Total 'Opposed'

Gesamt 'Dagegen'

EB77.2

Total 'Favorable'

Total 'Support'

Total 'Favorable'

EB77.2

21

21 47 19 10 3 68 29

30 41 8 7112 9

21 67

90 7

25 42 7 5

75

2052 24

12

48 42 5 2 3

1839 36 11 7

4 7611 9

7

16

30 40 9 6 15 70 15

21 46

10 6

17 6711 5

5 79 16

29 34 12 13 12 63 25

29 50

27

26 54 10 3 7 80 13

28 38

13 8

7 6613 14

12 67 21

29 43 8 5 15 72 13

31 36

36

24 47 15 8 6 71 23

23 34

24 28

7 5721 15

2 46 52

31 48 13 3 5 79 16

23 23

17

19 51 11 2 17 70 13

24 48

9 7

11 7211 6

16 68 16

34 46 9 7 4 80 16

26 42

9

34 36 16 10 4 70 26

33 53 5 868 1

2 60

71 21

34 26 19 19 38

35 36 11 10 8

T9


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

A very positive influence

Einen sehr positiven Einfluss

Une influence

très négative

A very negative influence

Einen sehr negativen Einfluss

QC6.1 Bitte sagen Sie mir, ob mehr Wettbewerb im deutschen Schienenverkehr Ihrer Meinung nach einen sehr positiven, positiven, negativen oder sehr negativen Einfluss auf die folgenden Aspekte haben würde?

Auf die Art und Weise wie Bahnunternehmen geführt werden

Total 'Une influence négative'


EB77.2

Une influence positive

A positive influence

Einen positiven Einfluss

EB77.2

A negative influence

Einen negativen Einfluss

EB77.2

Une influence

très positive

Une influence négative

EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)

Spontan: Keinen Einfluss

EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2

Total 'Une influence positive'

Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

8 13 63 1615 48 12 4

10 6 65 199 56 16 3

6 16 71 720 51 5 2

7 8 77 821 56 7 1

6 11 66 1714 52 15 2

10 10 65 1516 49 13 2

9 19 65 79 56 6 1

5 17 66 1218 48 8 4

7 8 77 824 53 6 2

4 20 56 2018 38 15 5

9 17 53 219 44 15 6

6 7 76 1121 55 9 2

10 20 59 119 50 9 2

9 19 65 711 54 6 1

11 15 51 238 43 19 4

11 13 65 1114 51 8 3

15 11 40 344 36 26 8

12 6 70 1222 48 10 2

10 15 60 1514 46 10 5

10 19 61 1011 50 8 2

5 16 68 1117 51 8 3

12 7 77 426 51 3 1

8 8 74 1017 57 9 1

10 12 62 1611 51 14 2

6 6 55 337 48 28 5

7 14 60 1910 50 13 6

QC6.1 Veuillez me dire si vous pensez que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence en (NOTRE PAYS) aura ... sur ....

La façon dont sont gérées les compagnies ferroviaires


The way railways companies are managed

T10


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Häufigkeit der Zugverbindungen



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

9 9 68 1417 51 11 3

10 4 67 198 59 16 3

7 15 71 726 45 5 2

6 3 85 624 61 5 1

10 7 67 1614 53 14 2

9 6 70 1517 53 14 1

8 11 75 611 64 5 1

8 17 66 919 47 6 3

4 3 87 632 55 5 1

6 9 69 1624 45 12 4

9 13 61 1712 49 11 6

6 6 78 1024 54 8 2

12 13 67 812 55 7 1

9 16 70 514 56 4 1

15 9 63 1310 53 11 2

13 5 72 1016 56 8 2

18 8 45 294 41 23 6

12 3 77 826 51 7 1

10 10 71 917 54 8 1

10 15 66 913 53 7 2

7 13 71 919 52 7 2

9 5 81 527 54 4 1

5 5 83 721 62 7 0

9 5 68 1812 56 16 2

8 5 63 248 55 20 4

10 14 59 1712 47 13 4


La fréquence des trains


Frequency of trains

T11


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Ticketpreise



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

6 7 72 1524 48 11 4

7 2 67 2412 55 20 4

5 15 69 1131 38 8 3

4 2 85 935 50 8 1

7 4 77 1223 54 10 2

6 4 77 1326 51 10 3

7 11 70 1212 58 11 1

3 18 65 1427 38 8 6

5 5 76 1429 47 11 3

2 9 68 2130 38 16 5

5 8 71 1624 47 10 6

6 5 78 1127 51 9 2

8 11 68 1317 51 11 2

6 12 75 720 55 5 2

14 8 60 1814 46 14 4

10 6 67 1718 49 14 3

15 4 57 249 48 18 6

7 2 82 935 47 7 2

11 9 71 920 51 7 2

7 14 67 1215 52 9 3

5 11 69 1525 44 10 5

7 4 85 441 44 3 1

5 6 73 1620 53 14 2

4 5 79 1224 55 10 2

8 3 70 1914 56 16 3

6 10 61 2316 45 15 8


Le coût des billets de train


Ticket prices

T12


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Qualität von Dienstleistungen für Bahnreisende



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

7 8 71 1418 53 11 3

11 4 67 189 58 15 3

5 11 79 534 45 4 1

3 2 91 437 54 4 0

9 6 66 1912 54 17 2

6 4 75 1519 56 13 2

8 12 77 312 65 3 0

6 17 66 1120 46 8 3

5 3 86 633 53 5 1

6 9 69 1622 47 12 4

10 13 57 2012 45 14 6

4 5 81 1025 56 8 2

9 11 74 615 59 4 2

7 13 75 515 60 4 1

18 10 56 167 49 13 3

6 4 82 821 61 6 2

14 5 53 284 49 22 6

7 2 83 830 53 7 1

9 8 74 918 56 8 1

11 15 66 811 55 7 1

6 10 75 925 50 6 3

6 3 89 234 55 1 1

4 3 89 426 63 4 0

7 5 72 1611 61 14 2

9 4 63 248 55 20 4

8 10 65 1712 53 13 4


La qualité du service à bord des train


The quality of services to the passengers in the trains

T13


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Pünktlichkeit der Züge



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

11 9 66 1417 49 11 3

12 3 65 2010 55 17 3

6 16 73 531 42 3 2

8 4 83 528 55 4 1

10 4 74 1217 57 11 1

13 5 70 1217 53 11 1

10 12 72 611 61 5 1

8 18 65 920 45 6 3

8 4 85 329 56 3 0

8 10 66 1622 44 13 3

11 14 54 2114 40 15 6

7 6 76 1124 52 9 2

17 12 62 911 51 7 2

13 13 68 613 55 5 1

20 11 50 198 42 15 4

13 4 74 920 54 7 2

21 5 45 294 41 22 7

17 3 71 924 47 8 1

14 10 67 917 50 7 2

13 16 63 810 53 7 1

9 14 68 921 47 7 2

14 4 78 427 51 3 1

8 4 83 521 62 5 0

14 6 60 2014 46 18 2

14 5 50 319 41 24 7

13 11 61 1512 49 11 4


La ponctualité des trains


The punctuality of trains

T14


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Anzahl der Haltestellen oder Fahrtstrecken, die bedient werden



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

11 10 62 1715 47 14 3

15 4 54 276 48 22 5

9 24 64 325 39 3 0

9 4 79 821 58 7 1

14 7 55 2410 45 21 3

12 7 61 2014 47 18 2

10 12 73 510 63 5 0

6 20 63 1117 46 7 4

6 4 83 729 54 6 1

6 11 64 1923 41 15 4

12 14 50 2410 40 16 8

11 6 71 1218 53 10 2

18 13 60 911 49 8 1

9 15 70 613 57 4 2

23 9 52 166 46 12 4

15 7 67 1114 53 9 2

22 6 37 353 34 27 8

19 5 67 923 44 8 1

12 12 69 716 53 6 1

11 16 63 1011 52 8 2

10 18 61 1117 44 8 3

13 5 75 724 51 5 2

8 9 76 716 60 7 0

12 6 61 218 53 19 2

8 5 51 366 45 29 7

12 13 55 209 46 16 4


Le nombre de gares ou d’itinéraires desservis


The number of stations or routes which will be served

T15


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf die Sicherheit des Schienennetzes



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

15 10 55 2014 41 16 4

16 3 49 326 43 27 5

7 22 66 530 36 4 1

12 6 71 1120 51 10 1

23 7 42 287 35 24 4

21 8 47 2412 35 20 4

10 17 61 1210 51 11 1

9 20 60 1118 42 8 3

11 5 76 826 50 6 2

9 12 60 1919 41 14 5

15 15 41 297 34 20 9

11 7 71 1122 49 10 1

14 15 59 128 51 10 2

12 16 62 1012 50 8 2

23 10 39 285 34 24 4

17 4 66 1317 49 11 2

25 5 21 492 19 39 10

26 3 59 1221 38 10 2

15 11 59 1513 46 12 3

17 16 59 810 49 7 1

10 15 65 1020 45 6 4

16 5 70 924 46 7 2

13 6 69 1216 53 11 1

17 6 48 299 39 25 4

14 6 34 465 29 39 7

14 11 52 2310 42 17 6


La sécurité du réseau ferroviaire


The safety of the railway network

T16


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK



Une influence

très négative




Auf den Komfort und die Sauberkeit der Züge



EB77.2




EB77.2



EB77.2

Une influence

très positive


EB77.2

No influence

(SPONTANEOUS)


EB77.2

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Aucune Influence

(SPONTANE)

Gesamt 'Einen

negativen Einfluss'

EB77.2


Total 'A positive

influence'

Gesamt 'Einen

positiven Einfluss'

EB77.2

10 8 70 1218 52 10 2

16 3 61 207 54 17 3

5 15 78 237 41 2 0

3 3 91 336 55 2 1

12 6 60 2211 49 20 2

10 4 74 1219 55 11 1

7 11 79 313 66 3 0

8 19 64 916 48 6 3

5 2 89 434 55 3 1

9 11 65 1521 44 12 3

14 14 55 1711 44 12 5

5 5 80 1025 55 8 2

11 9 75 517 58 4 1

8 12 76 417 59 3 1

20 11 53 167 46 13 3

6 2 85 725 60 5 2

21 6 45 285 40 23 5

11 2 79 828 51 7 1

10 8 76 618 58 5 1

15 15 61 99 52 7 2

6 11 74 925 49 6 3

9 4 85 232 53 1 1

5 3 88 426 62 4 0

12 4 68 1610 58 14 2

12 3 60 257 53 21 4

11 11 64 1412 52 11 3


Le confort et la propreté des trains


The comfort and cleanliness of trains

T17


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

QC7a.1 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence sera une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ? Les passagers

QC7a.1 Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for…? Passengers

QC7a.1 Glauben Sie, dass mehr Wettbewerb im Schienenverkehr gut oder schlecht sein wird für...? die Fahrgäste

Très bonPlutôt

mauvaiseNSP

Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

Very good

Total 'Une bonne chose'

Total 'Good'Fairly bad

Sehr gut

EB77.2

Plutôt une bonne chose

Fairly good

Eine ziemlich gute Sache

EB77.2

Ziemlich schlecht

EB77.2

Très mauvaise

Very bad

Sehr schlecht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Gut'

EB77.2

Total 'Bad'

Gesamt 'Schlecht'

EB77.2

25 53 11 2 9 78 13

1 11 83 6

2014 62 18 2

78 16

41 52

4 76

40 43 5

3 934 0 4

28 50 15 1 6

6

25 57 11 1 6 82 12

8 3 14 75

22 59 5 1 13 81

11

39 48 8 1 4 87 9

34 41

17

19 53 13 5 10 72 18

24 48

8 1

11 7214 3

8 83 9

28 51 6 2 13 79 8

29 54

6

13 57 17 2 11 70 19

25 53

9 2

16 784 2

6 83 11

10 46 31 6 7 56 37

21 62

10

17 59 9 2 13 76 11

38 48

7 1

4 869 1

17 75 8

33 48 8 2 9 81 10

11 64

4

29 62 5 0 4 91 5

52 40 4 923 1

5 78

67 28

25 53 14 3 17

18 49 23 5 5

T18


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

QC7a.2 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence sera une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ? Les opérateurs ferroviaires privés

QC7a.2 Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for…? Private rail operators

QC7a.2 Glauben Sie, dass mehr Wettbewerb im Schienenverkehr gut oder schlecht sein wird für...? private Bahnunternehmen

Très bonPlutôt

mauvaiseNSP

Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

Very good



Sehr gut

EB77.2


Fairly good


EB77.2

Ziemlich schlecht

EB77.2

Très mauvaise

Very bad

Sehr schlecht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Gut'

EB77.2

Total 'Bad'

Gesamt 'Schlecht'

EB77.2

18 50 15 3 14 68 18

1 27 65 8

2612 56 23 3

72 21

24 53

6 68

26 39 7

6 7715 2 17

23 49 18 3 7

20

19 54 17 1 9 73 18

12 4 19 65

9 48 19 1 23 57

16

36 53 5 1 5 89 6

19 46

23

18 48 15 4 15 66 19

21 40

9 2

16 6117 6

13 76 11

8 40 23 3 26 48 26

19 57

22

12 44 24 3 17 56 27

7 44

15 3

27 5118 4

13 69 18

10 40 30 7 13 50 37

15 54

15

11 52 14 2 21 63 16

24 51

10 1

10 7513 2

22 67 11

22 46 11 2 19 68 13

7 60

18

18 62 10 1 9 80 11

22 50 10 7214 4

9 71

71 22

16 55 17 3 20

20 51 20 2 7

T19


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

QC7a.3 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence sera une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ? Les employés des opérateurs de transports ferroviaires

QC7a.3 Do you think that more competition in the rail market will be good or bad for…? Employees of rail transport operators

QC7a.3 Glauben Sie, dass mehr Wettbewerb im Schienenverkehr gut oder schlecht sein wird für...? die Angestellten von Bahnunternehmen

Très bonPlutôt

mauvaiseNSP

Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

Very good



Sehr gut

EB77.2


Fairly good


EB77.2

Ziemlich schlecht

EB77.2

Très mauvaise

Very bad

Sehr schlecht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Gut'

EB77.2

Total 'Bad'

Gesamt 'Schlecht'

EB77.2

12 43 26 6 13 55 32

2 27 64 9

476 42 41 6

50 43

19 53

5 48

24 40 7

9 7216 3 19

10 40 37 6 7

18

7 35 42 7 9 42 49

17 6 22 55

10 53 17 1 19 63

23

22 48 16 6 8 70 22

16 39

32

8 34 33 9 16 42 42

14 40

12 3

14 5424 8

12 73 15

8 44 20 3 25 52 23

18 55

21

6 32 42 8 12 38 50

9 44

20 3

26 5317 4

14 63 23

5 28 47 11 9 33 58

11 52

30

8 50 17 3 22 58 20

15 44

15 1

11 5926 4

21 63 16

20 46 12 3 19 66 15

6 57

33

15 56 19 2 8 71 21

17 42 8 5926 7

6 52

46 47

9 43 32 10 42

6 40 40 7 7

T20


%

TOTAL

UK

Les passagers

QC7b.1 Do you think that more competition in the rail market is good or bad for…? Passengers

25

22

EB77.2

53

51

NSP

EB77.2

QC7b.1 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence est une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ?

Très bonPlutôt une

bonne chosePlutôt

mauvaiseTrès mauvaise

Very good Fairly good Fairly bad Very bad DK Total 'Good'

11 2 9 78 13


Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

Total 'Bad'

12 5 10 73 17

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

T21


%

TOTAL

UK

QC7b.2 Do you think that more competition in the rail market is good or bad for…? Private rail operators


Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

15

50

45


bonne chose

18

QC7b.2 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence est une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ? Les opérateurs ferroviaires privés

Fairly bad Very bad DK Total 'Good'

Plutôt mauvaise

Très mauvaise NSP

Total 'Bad'

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

Very good Fairly good

15 3 14 68

20 4 16 60 24

EB77.2

18

T22


%

TOTAL

UK

QC7b.3 Do you think that more competition in the rail market is good or bad for…? Employees of rail transport operators


Total 'Une mauvaise

chose'

13

43

43


bonne chose

12

QC7b.3 Pensez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence est une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose pour … ? Les employés des opérateurs de transports ferroviaires

Fairly bad Very bad DK Total 'Good'

Plutôt mauvaise

Très mauvaise NSP

Total 'Bad'

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

Very good Fairly good

26 6 13 55

21 7 16 56 28

EB77.2

32

T23


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

Diminuera

Will decrease

wird abnehmen

EB77.2

19 34

Vont augmenter

Will increase

Werden/ wird zunehmen

EB77.2

30 17

NSP

DK

WN

EB77.2

Restera le même

Will stay the same

wird gleich bleiben

EB77.2

25 15 18 42

19 48 29 4

15 43 36 6

23 31 38 8

17 35 25 23

13 45 31 11

25 42 22 11

16 32 23 29

22 36 26 16

15 35 27 23

19 36 26 19

19 27 37 17

22 31 32 15

19 28 29 24

24 39 25 12

16 44 28 12

16 24 35 25

32 24 35 9

23 23 28 26

11 26 27 36

23 33 35 9

19 41 26 14

24 39 30 7

14 44 31 11

QC8a Pensez-vous que le financement public du secteur ferroviaire augmentera, diminuera ou restera le même avec l’ouverture à la concurrence du marché ferroviaire ? Le financement public du secteur ferroviaire …

QC8a Do you think that public funding of the rail sector will increase, decrease or remain the same if there is more competition in the rail market? Public funding of the rail sector…

QC8a Glauben Sie, dass die staatliche finanzielle Förderung des Schienenverkehrs zunehmen, abnehmen oder gleich bleiben wird, wenn es mehr Wettbewerb im Schienenverkehr gibt? Die staatliche finanzielle Förderung des Schienenverkehrs…

T24


%

TOTAL

UK

EB77.2

19

23

QC8b Pensez-vous que le financement public du secteur ferroviaire a augmenté, diminué ou est resté le même avec l’ouverture à la concurrence du marché ferroviaire ? Le financement public du secteur ferroviaire …

QC8b Do you think that public funding of the rail sector increased, decreased or remained the same as a result of more competition in the rail market? Public funding of the rail sector…

A augmenté A diminué Est resté le même NSP

Increased Decreased Stayed the same DK

29 22 26

EB77.2

EB77.2

EB77.2

34 30 17

T25


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

QC9.1 Dans quelle mesure souhaitez-vous que l’ouverture du marché ferroviaire à la concurrence ait les effets suivants ?

Une offre low-cost / offre à service réduit dans les trains similaire aux offres de certaines compagnies aériennes


Low cost/ "no frills" rail service similar to that provided by some airlines

QC9.1 Inwieweit wünschen Sie sich, dass mehr Wettbewerb zu folgenden Veränderungen führt?

Zugreisen zu Niedrig- bzw. Discountpreisen, ähnlich zum Angebot mancher Fluggesellschaften

Beaucoup Pas tellement NSP Total 'Non'

Very much

Total 'Oui'

Total 'Yes'Not much

Sehr stark

EB77.2

Assez

Quite a lot

Ziemlich

EB77.2

Nicht sehr stark

EB77.2

Pas du tout

Not at all

Überhaupt nicht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Ja'

EB77.2

Total 'No'

Gesamt 'Nein'

EB77.2

26 44 15 6 9 70 21

5 16 70 14

3713 46 28 9

74 19

17 53

4 59

34 36 9

13 7015 2 17

35 39 13 6 7

20

30 41 17 8 4 71 25

16 9 17 58

17 46 16 4 17 63

25

36 48 11 2 3 84 13

23 35

19

30 40 11 7 12 70 18

29 45

13 4

7 7414 5

7 76 17

26 33 18 10 13 59 28

25 51

14

22 29 24 20 5 51 44

29 40

16 6

17 699 5

3 75 22

11 43 24 15 7 54 39

30 45

20

23 50 11 4 12 73 15

36 43

10 4

1 7913 7

22 64 14

25 33 11 4 27 58 15

17 47

23

21 55 12 4 8 76 16

40 32

47 17 5

5 7217 6

4 74

8

22

21 42 23 8 6 63 31

27

11 64 2525 39 17

T26


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK


Un service ferroviaire Premium qui serait plus cher mais incluerait davantage de services optionnels (repas, films, journaux,etc.)


A premium offer which would be more expensive but would include additional services (meals, films, newspapers, etc.)


Premium-Angebote, die teurer wären, aber zusätzliche Dienstleistungen enthalten (Mahlzeiten, Filme, Zeitungen usw.)


Very much

Total 'Oui'

Total 'Yes'Not much

Sehr stark

EB77.2

Assez

Quite a lot

Ziemlich

EB77.2

Nicht sehr stark

EB77.2

Pas du tout

Not at all

Überhaupt nicht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Ja'

EB77.2

Total 'No'

Gesamt 'Nein'

EB77.2

11 32 29 18 10 43 47

15 19 43 38

646 27 44 20

47 45

12 45

3 33

16 27 23

6 5730 7 37

14 33 30 15 8

36

10 27 36 22 5 37 58

26 19 19 36

9 38 28 8 17 47

45

16 39 29 14 2 55 43

11 25

45

9 25 29 23 14 34 52

12 34

26 14

9 4630 15

8 52 40

11 27 27 21 14 38 48

11 41

30

12 20 32 32 4 32 64

15 38

34 21

17 5317 13

4 41 55

4 21 38 31 6 25 69

10 31

47

11 42 22 9 16 53 31

16 34

22 15

3 5030 17

24 39 37

15 29 23 9 24 44 32

5 34

47

8 41 29 16 6 49 45

17 31

38 36 15

5 4832 15

3 46

25

51

10 35 35 15 5 45 50

8

12 36 5210 26 27

T27


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK


Plus de façons d’acheter des billets (p. ex., en ligne, par smartphone ou au guichet)


More ways of buying tickets (e.g. online, via smartphones, or onboard)


Mehr Möglichkeiten Tickets zu kaufen (z.B. online, per Smartphone oder im Zug)


Very much

Total 'Oui'

Total 'Yes'Not much

Sehr stark

EB77.2

Assez

Quite a lot

Ziemlich

EB77.2

Nicht sehr stark

EB77.2

Pas du tout

Not at all

Überhaupt nicht

DK

WN

EB77.2

EB77.2

Gesamt 'Ja'

EB77.2

Total 'No'

Gesamt 'Nein'

EB77.2

23 42 17 8 10 65 25

10 21 55 24

3614 46 27 9

71 22

32 50

4 60

24 31 14

6 829 3 12

36 35 12 10 7

16

27 41 17 10 5 68 27

14 10 21 55

20 48 11 5 16 68

24

27 50 14 6 3 77 20

20 35

23

20 35 20 12 13 55 32

23 45

15 5

9 6817 6

7 73 20

26 36 18 8 12 62 26

24 49

14

28 34 20 12 6 62 32

27 41

18 9

18 687 7

5 68 27

20 42 22 11 5 62 33

24 44

36

20 46 15 6 13 66 21

23 39

17 8

2 6221 15

24 51 25

20 34 18 5 23 54 23

8 43

20

23 52 13 7 5 75 20

38 37

45 25 9

5 7514 6

3 63

11

34

32 38 16 9 5 70 25

18

12 60 2822 38 17

T28


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Ja, es ist Ihnen einigermaßen

wichtig

EB77.2

Oui, cela vous importe beaucoup

Yes, it matters to you a lot

Ja, es ist Ihnen sehr wichtig

EB77.2

Oui, cela vous importe un peu

Yes, it matters to you somewhat

EB77.2

Non, cela ne vous importe pas

vraiment

No, it does not really matter to

you

Nein, es ist Ihnen nicht wirklich

wichtig

EB77.2

Non, cela ne vous importe pas du

tout

No, it does not matter to you at all

Pas pertinent (SPONTANE)

Not relevant (SPONTANEOUS)

Trifft nicht zu (SPONTAN)

EB77.2

641 30 12 6

Nein, es ist Ihnen überhaupt nicht

wichtig

340 26 21 8

818 25 17 19

335 46 9 4

283 10 3 1

658 21 8 4

936 30 11 6

1519 26 20 15

618 40 22 13

1219 31 20 13

453 30 6 2

427 43 16 4

547 29 9 3

926 27 13 12

558 20 10 4

637 34 14 6

459 19 11 5

517 43 22 11

945 31 8 2

716 55 9 2

524 30 17 14

346 31 10 8

529 42 14 6

9 3

175 11 6 5

945 22 11 8

464 19

QC10 Dans le cas où il serait nécessaire d’utiliser plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires pour effectuer un seul trajet, dans quelle mesure vous importe-t-il ou non de pouvoir acheter des billets et obtenir des informations valables pour l’ensemble du trajet à un seul endroit, plutôt que de devoir les obtenir auprès de plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires différents ?

QC10 Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?

QC10 Wenn Sie eine Bahnreise machen, bei der sie mit verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen unterwegs sind: Ist es Ihnen da wichtig oder nicht wichtig, Tickets sowie Informationen für die gesamte Reise aus einer Hand erhalten zu können, im Vergleich zum Erhalt von Tickets und Informationen von den verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen jeweils einzeln?

T29


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK 67 19

QC10 Dans le cas où il serait nécessaire d’utiliser plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires pour effectuer un seul trajet, dans quelle mesure vous importe-t-il ou non de pouvoir acheter des billets et obtenir des informations valables pour l’ensemble du trajet à un seul endroit, plutôt que de devoir les obtenir auprès de plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires différents ?

QC10 Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?

QC10 Wenn Sie eine Bahnreise machen, bei der sie mit verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen unterwegs sind: Ist es Ihnen da wichtig oder nicht wichtig, Tickets sowie Informationen für die gesamte Reise aus einer Hand erhalten zu können, im Vergleich zum Erhalt von Tickets und Informationen von den verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen jeweils einzeln?

5

83 12

2 86 11

1

77 18

4 71 20

2

71 11

10 54 31

11

60 33

5 76 10

2

71 20

2 78 16

3

53 25

3 78 14

13

70 20

7 76 12

6

50 33

5 83 8

5

45 35

1 58 35

5

79 12

8 66 17

3

81 13

1 93 4

3

66 29

13 43 36

2

EB77.2

EB77.2

5 71 18

EB77.2

Total 'Yes' Total 'No'

WN Gesamt 'Ja' Gesamt 'Nein'

DK

NSP Total 'Oui' Total 'Non'

T30


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Ja, es ist Ihnen einigermaßen

wichtig

EB77.2

Oui, cela vous importe beaucoup

Yes, it matters to you a lot

Ja, es ist Ihnen sehr wichtig

EB77.2

Oui, cela vous importe un peu

Yes, it matters to you somewhat

EB77.2

Non, cela ne vous importe pas

vraiment

No, it does not really matter to

you

Nein, es ist Ihnen nicht wirklich

wichtig

EB77.2

Non, cela ne vous importe pas du

tout

No, it does not matter to you at all

Pas pertinent (SPONTANE)

Not relevant (SPONTANEOUS)

Trifft nicht zu (SPONTAN)

EB77.2

043 32 13 7

Nein, es ist Ihnen überhaupt nicht

wichtig

041 27 22 8

020 27 19 21

036 47 9 4

085 10 3 1

061 22 9 5

040 33 11 7

022 31 23 18

019 43 23 14

021 36 23 14

055 31 6 3

028 45 16 5

049 31 9 3

029 30 14 13

061 21 10 5

039 36 15 7

061 19 12 6

018 45 23 12

049 34 9 2

017 59 10 2

025 31 18 15

047 32 10 9

031 45 14 6

10 3

076 11 6 5

050 24 11 9

067 19

QC10T Dans le cas où il serait nécessaire d’utiliser plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires pour effectuer un seul trajet, dans quelle mesure vous importe-t-il ou non de pouvoir acheter des billets et obtenir des informations valables pour l’ensemble du trajet à un seul endroit, plutôt que de devoir les obtenir auprès de plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires différents ?

QC10T Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?

QC10T Wenn Sie eine Bahnreise machen, bei der sie mit verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen unterwegs sind: Ist es Ihnen da wichtig oder nicht wichtig, Tickets sowie Informationen für die gesamte Reise aus einer Hand erhalten zu können, im Vergleich zum Erhalt von Tickets und Informationen von den verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen jeweils einzeln?

T31


%

TOTAL

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK 74 20

QC10T Dans le cas où il serait nécessaire d’utiliser plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires pour effectuer un seul trajet, dans quelle mesure vous importe-t-il ou non de pouvoir acheter des billets et obtenir des informations valables pour l’ensemble du trajet à un seul endroit, plutôt que de devoir les obtenir auprès de plusieurs opérateurs ferroviaires différents ?

QC10T Where rail journeys use different rail operators, does it matter or not to you to be able to buy tickets and get information which covers the whole journey through a single point, compared to these being provided by the different rail operators separately?

QC10T Wenn Sie eine Bahnreise machen, bei der sie mit verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen unterwegs sind: Ist es Ihnen da wichtig oder nicht wichtig, Tickets sowie Informationen für die gesamte Reise aus einer Hand erhalten zu können, im Vergleich zum Erhalt von Tickets und Informationen von den verschiedenen Bahnunternehmen jeweils einzeln?

6

86 13

2 87 11

1

79 19

4 76 20

2

76 12

11 56 33

12

63 35

6 83 11

2

75 22

2 80 18

3

59 27

3 82 15

14

73 21

8 80 12

6

57 37

5 86 9

6

53 41

1 62 37

6

83 14

9 73 18

3

83 13

1 95 4

4

68 30

13 47 40

2

EB77.2

EB77.2

5 75 20

EB77.2

Total 'Yes' Total 'No'

WN Gesamt 'Ja' Gesamt 'Nein'

DK

NSP Total 'Oui' Total 'Non'

T32

Date post:	04-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

European Commission - Special Eurobarometer 388 · 2017-11-30 · Special Eurobarometer 388 RAIL...

Documents