1 / 40

BEST 2010 Results of the survey

BEST 2010 Results of the survey. Kjetil Vrenne BEST Project Manager May 27 th , 2010. Main results and City reports. BEST Results of the 2010 survey. Summary report – per city. Change in index. Top 5 drivers of satisfaction. Quality element score compared.

adeola
Download Presentation

BEST 2010 Results of the survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BEST 2010Results of the survey Kjetil Vrenne BEST Project Manager May 27th, 2010

  2. Main results and City reports

  3. BEST Results of the 2010 survey

  4. Summary report – per city Change in index Top 5 drivers of satisfaction Quality element score compared

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

  6. SPECIAL TOPIC TRANSFER

  7. Additional questions included in the 2010 survey

  8. Additional background question

  9. Frequent users transfers more often

  10. The drivers of satisfaction with transfers • I feel secure at stations and bus stops • 0,11 • It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip • 0,10 • The information is good when traffic problems occur • 0,12 • Transfers are easy • The information is good in stops and terminals • 0,11 • Waiting time is short at transfers • 0,28 • Walking distances are short at transfers • 0,23

  11. Drivers of satisfaction with transfers – per city

  12. Satisfaction with transfer does not affect preference

  13. PT travel frequency does not affect preference

  14. And even transfer frequency has a little impact

  15. Not a strong belief in guaranteed correspondence?

  16. Main findings • Frequent users of PT transfer more often than less frequent users • Citizens prefer not to transfer, even if they: • Transfer frequently • Finds transfers easy to make • Reduced waiting time and walking distances, are the main drivers of satisfaction with transfers • More than 50 % of the citizens would transfer more often if correspondence was guaranteed: • But a weak correlation with transfer frequency suggests that the citizens are sceptical to the idea of guaranteed correspondence

  17. 70761432433 BEST Results 2010 Index – increase more than + 3 % points Index – decrease more than - 3 % points

  18. Six participating cities/regions The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2010 was conducted in March (from the 1st to the 14th) 1.000 telephone interviews with persons aged 15 years or older (except Helsinki with 1.600 interviews) Weighted for sex and age The BEST Survey 2010

  19. PT travel frequency 2010

  20. Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction and loyalty included in the survey 7. Social image • Traffic Supply • Reliability • Information • Staff behaviour • Personal security/safety • Comfort 9. Satisfaction 10. Loyalty Ridership 8. Value for money

  21. Traffic supply TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  22. Reliability

  23. Information TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  24. Staff behaviour TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  25. Security and safety TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  26. Comfort TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  27. Value for money TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  28. Social image TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  29. Loyalty TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

  30. Which improvements will have the greatest impact on satisfaction? Copenhagen Geneva Helsinki Oslo Stockholm Vienna • When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each city is of prime interest. • Comparison of the estimated effects across cities must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.

  31. Results per index and city/region in 2010

  32. Results per index and city/region – changefrom 2009 to 2010

  33. Thank you for your attention!

More Related