Suggestions for Improvement

Page 31 Confidential & ProprietaryCopyright © 2009 The Nielsen Company

Suggestions for Improvement

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Research Program — Total Queensland Report (Quarter 4), August 2009


12%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

16%

21%

9%

2%

2%

1%

6%

1%

22%

3%

6%

5%

More frequent services

Should run on time

Cheaper fares/tickets

Better security/safety

Increased bus routes

Better service/user friendly

Facilities at stops need

improving

Deal with overcrowding

Nothing/no improvements

QLD Overall (Q43) Bus

Suggestions for ImprovementSuggestions for Improvement

Q43. Thinking now about public transport as a whole, do you have any suggestions on how TransLink/qconnect can improve the public transport services it provides to you? Base: Total Interviews (online only) n=3547. Note: Not all responses shown.Q44. Now thinking more specifically, do you have any suggestions on how <INSERT MODE > services can be improved for you? (online and F2F)Base: Total Bus Interviews n=2581; Note: Responses less than 3% not shown



12%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

16%

9%

1%

4%

7%

0%

4%

5%

9%

13%

3%

6%


Should run on time






improving



QLD Overall (Q43) Train


Q43. Thinking now about public transport as a whole, do you have any suggestions on how TransLink/qconnect can improve the public transport services it provides to you? Base: Total Interviews (online only) n=3547. Note: Not all responses shown.Q44. Now thinking more specifically, do you have any suggestions on how <INSERT MODE > services can be improved for you? (online only)Base: Total Train Interviews n=376; Note: Responses less than 3% not shown



12%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

16%

18%

2%

4%

0%

4%

4%

1%

0%

21%

3%

6%


Should run on time






improving



QLD Overall (Q43)

CityFerry/CityCat


Q43. Thinking now about public transport as a whole, do you have any suggestions on how TransLink/qconnect can improve the public transport services it provides to you? Base: Total Interviews (online only) n=3547. Note: Not all responses shown.Q44. Now thinking more specifically, do you have any suggestions on how <INSERT MODE > services can be improved for you? (online only)Base: Total Ferry Interviews n=154; Note: Responses less than 3% not shown



12%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

16%

4%

4%

13%

2%

2%

3%

0%

0%

18%

3%

6%


Should run on time






improving



QLD Overall (Q43) Taxi


Q43. Thinking now about public transport as a whole, do you have any suggestions on how TransLink/qconnect can improve the public transport services it provides to you? Base: Total Interviews (online only) n=3547. Note: Not all responses shown.Q44. Now thinking more specifically, do you have any suggestions on how <INSERT MODE > services can be improved for you? (online only)Base: Total Taxi Interviews n=286; Note: Note: Responses less than 3% not shown



Predisposition towards PT



Likelihood to Recommend to OthersLikelihood to Recommend to Others

24%

54%

17%

2%

7%

48%

26%

16%

2%

2%

I would voluntarily speak

positively and strongly

recommend public transport

I would recommend public

transport when asked

I would give a fair opinion, but

would not recommend public

transport

I would not give any opinion or

recommend

I would warn people not to

travel on public transport

PT Users

Non-Users

Q45. Using the scale below, how likely are you to recommend public transport to a visitor to Queensland? [SA]Base: Total PT User Interviews n=3111; Total Non-User Interviews n=948;



Likelihood to Use PT AgainLikelihood to Use PT Again

50%

30%

18%

0%

7%

55%

14%

14%

10%

1%

I will definitely continue to use public

transport

I will continue to use public transport if

it is convenient

I will continue, but only because I

have no choice

I am unlikely to continue - it’s just a

matter of time

I will definitely not continue to use

public transport

PT Users

Non-Users

Q46. Using the scale below, how likely are you to use public transport again? [SA]Base: Total PT User Interviews n=3111; Total Non-User Interviews n=948;



Mode Share



Proportion of Mode ShareProportion of Mode Share

Public

Transport, 8

Car/ Private

vehicle, 77

Taxi, 6Cycling,

1

Walking, 8

Q49. Thinking about the various ways you travel over a typical month, what proportion of each mode would you say make up the total time you spend travelling? Base: Total Interviews Qtr 4 ’09 (Apr) n=3547



Demographic Profile



Summary of Demographic ProfileSummary of Demographic Profile -- PT UsersPT Users

Student10%

Unemployed5%

Other4%

Retired9%

Home duties7%

Working65%

Empty Nesters8%

Family41%

Couple w/o kids17%

Group household16%

Single person15%

Female52%

Male48%

55+ yrs23%

35-54 yrs37%

18-34 yrs35%

16-17 yrs5%

Live within 400m of bus stop, train station or ferry terminal72%

Avg. no. of private vehicles2.01

Rest of Queensland15%

South East Queensland85%

Avg. household size3.16

*Results are weighted



Summary of Demographic ProfileSummary of Demographic Profile –– PT NonPT Non--UsersUsers

Student4%

Unemployed3%

Other3%

Retired12%

Home duties16%

Working62%

Empty Nesters8%

Family55%

Couple w/o kids18%

Group household8%

Single person8%

Female51%

Male49%

55+ yrs21%

35-54 yrs47%

18-34 yrs31%

16-17 yrs1%

*Results are weighted

Live within 400m of bus stop, train station or ferry terminal

55%

Avg. no. of private vehicles2.09

Rest of Queensland35%

South East Queensland65%

Avg. household size3.19



Appendix I



Overall Indicators of PerformanceOverall Indicators of Performance(eQ Scores)(eQ Scores)� In order to gain a more strategic understanding of overall performance of the public transport

system in Queensland, based on all performance attributes measured, each attribute was allocated to one of the ten KPI’s (see diagram overleaf).

� Within each KPI, a statistical analysis was undertaken to ascertain the importance of each attribute relative to others grouped within that KPI - that is, the relative impact they have on the performance of that particular KPI.

� A weighted average was then calculated based on the mean performance scores (out of 10), and rescaled to an index out of 100.

� These KPI scores are then similarly indexed to an overall performance (or eQ) score, based on their relative importance or impact on overall performance.



eQ Flow CharteQ Flow ChartOverall eQ Index = 60Overall eQ Index = 60

Safety & Safety & SecuritySecurity

= 63= 63

Reliability & Reliability & FrequencyFrequency

= 52= 52

Comfort Comfort of rideof ride= 60= 60

Ease of Ease of UseUse= 60= 60

ProximityProximity= 60= 60

EfficiencyEfficiency= 62= 62

Info.Info.= 58= 58

AccessibilityAccessibility= 69= 69

StaffStaff= 65= 65

AffordabilityAffordability= 55= 55

•Safety of

vehicle at

stops/

stations

•Safety at

stops &

stations

•Safety

on board

• Running of

trains

outside

peak

• Running of

trains

inside peak

• Advise if

train late/

cancelled

• Frequency

of ferry,

train, bus

• Departure

times

• Number of

taxis off

peak and

peak

• Crowding

during peak

times

• Facilities at

stops &

stations

• Avail. of seats

• Comfort of

ride

• Cleanliness

of station, on

board

• Rubbish &

graffiti

around tracks

• Maintenance

of station,

train

• Temperature

on board

• Mechanical

reliability of

taxis

• Ability to

transfer

tickets betw.

modes/opera

tors

• Ease of

using &

understandi

ng tickets

• Connections

with other

modes

• Ease of

using touch

screens

• Ease of

booking taxi

• Distance

to end

destinatio

n from

leaving

the ferry,

train, bus

• Convenien

ce of

routes and

stops

• Distance

to stop or

station

• Convenien

ce of taxi

rank

locations

• Travel

time

door-

to-door

• Not

paying

for

parking

• Dealing

with

traffic

• Waiting

time

for

immedi

ate hire

and pre

booked

trips

• Availability of

info. about

catching PT

• Accuracy of

info.

• Signage of

directions

• Info. onboard

about routes

& stops

• Info. at stops

& stations

• Ease of

understandin

g timetables

• Public

announceme

nts

• Method of

handling

complaints

• Consideration of

passengers when

stopping/ driving off

• Drivers ability to

handle PT

• Drivers knowledge of

routes/ stops

• Conduct of ferry staff

• Helpfulness of staff

• Drivers conduct

• Drivers leaving

passengers waiting

• Drivers smoking or

using mobiles

• Drivers set down of

passengers

• Drivers provide

correct change, ticket

• Driver’s willingness to

help

• Presentation of

drivers

• Ability

to buy

multi-

trip

tickets

• Range

of

tickets

avail.

• Cost of

ticket

• Ease of

use for

people

with

mobility

difficulti

es

• Ease of

getting

on / off

platfor

m and

vehicle



WeightingWeighting

� In order to ensure that data collected represents the population of Queensland according to both demographics and usage of public transport, a complex system of weighting is undertaken.

� In the first instance, data is weighted within each of the fifteen geographic regions (seven in SEQ and eight in rest of Qld) to reflect age, gender and PT user/non-user profile within that region. Age and gender population estimates are based on the most current forecasts available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and PT user/non-user estimates are based on the comprehensive profiling research undertaken in late 2006 on behalf of TransLink, and the 2007 KPI research undertaken on behalf of Queensland Transport. Regions are then weighted relative to each other to reflect relativities in population size of each region.

� The second stage of weighting ensures that modal usage (bus, train, ferry, and taxi and all combinations of multi modal users) are accurately reflected. These usage statistics are based on the 2006 profiling research and 2007 KPI research.

� The final stage accounts for the over-sampling of particular bus operators undertaken in some SEQ regions (multi-operator regions). This ensures that users of a particular operator are not under or over emphasised based on the sample design.



CATI (Phone)

AdvantagesAdvantages99

DrawbacksDrawbacks889Can sample non-users

9Good geographic coverage

8 Costly to find users

8 No visual stimulus

8 Quality of sample (cost)

Online

9Convenient for respondents

9Able to ask more detailed survey

9Sample users & non-users

9Visual stimuli

8 More effort required to find

users / maintain panel

8 May not be representative of

some segments of pop.

• Over the past 11 years the KPI research has been undertaken via telephone interviewing. This method of interviewing is rapidly being superseded by online surveys based on the advantages and drawbacks detailed below. While neither method is perfect, and at this point in time either would fulfil the needs of the research, the balance will continue to tip towards online interviewing over the coming years. Therefore in a situation such as this, where change is being made, it is beneficial to set the survey up to be more robust over time.

Methodology ChangeMethodology Change



Comparability to Previous KPI ResearchComparability to Previous KPI Research

• This survey is a major shift in both the questions asked and the method of interviewing. As such, it is not possible to make direct comparisons of current results against the previous KPI results.

• However, we can draw some conclusions by comparing key information captured in the TransLink survey undertaken in SEQ in the last quarter of 2007, at the same time as the KPI research. Detailed below are results for similar questions. KPI results have been converted from a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) to a scale of 0 to 10, to allow comparison with the scale used in the TransLink research.

Ease of use - to get to where you want to go when you want to go

5.45.4Meets transport needs

Reliable, that is, turning up when it’s meant to 5.26.0Well run and reliable

Efficient, that is including travel time door to door, connections and frequency of services

5.05.6Well co-ordinated

Overall4.84.7Overall

TransLink research: SEQ results Oct-Dec 2007KPI research: SEQ results November 2007

• This suggests that results for overall satisfaction can be directly compared over time, as can results for meeting transport needs (utilising the new “ease of use” KPI). However, historical results for being well co-ordinated and being well run and reliable need to be adjusted downwards prior to any comparison over time.


Page 50 Confidential & ProprietaryCopyright © 2009 The Nielsen CompanyConfidential & Proprietary • Copyright © 2007 The Nielsen Company


Date post:	15-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Suggestions for Improvement

Documents