Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport BEST Survey 2009 Vienna – Inner City Based on 646interviews

2. About the survey How to read the graphs Results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2009, 2008 and 2007 Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2009 Overall citizen satisfaction 2005 – 2009 Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2009 with: Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort Perception of social image 2005 - 2009 Perception of value for money 2005 - 2009 Citizens statedloyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2009 Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency Content 2

3. About the survey • The following cities participated in the BEST 2009 survey: • Stockholm • Oslo • Helsinki (with additional questions) • Copenhagen • Vienna (with additional question) • Geneva • For all cities 1000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 300 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2009. All interviews have been done by telephone. • The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2009 was conducted between March 2nd and March 15th 2009. • Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area. • The questionnaire used in the survey is an updated version of the 2008questionnaire. Since 2008, two new questions have been added (‘If the use of private cars in _________________ (city/region) became more expensive due to increase in toll fares or other taxes, and the extra income was used to improve public transport, would you consider this to be a: _____ ‘ and ‘We would like you to think of the travels you regularly perform in _________________ (city/region). Which modes of transport do you normally use on these travels?’ 3

4. Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used (NEW 2007) Main occupation Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey 7. Social image • Traffic Supply • Reliability • Information • Staff behaviour • Personal security/safety • Comfort Satisfaction Loyalty Ridership 8. Value for money • Sex • Age • Post code (geography) 4

5. Response rates • Calculation of response rate • Response rate: • Response rate = 100 x Number of completes(1000) = % • Total valid sample* • *Total sample minus invalid numbers such as number not in use/not in target group 5

6. Mobile interviews and sampling • Sampling procedures varies from country to country. • In Norway, Denmark and Finland samples are drawn from databases covering both mobile and fixed line telephones. • In Sweden, Austria and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed line telephones. • By mistake information was provided last year that the Swedish sample covered both mobile and fixed lines. The Swedish sample has been drawn from a database covering fixed lines for all years from 2007. Wheter mobile sample was included before 2007 has not been determined. • In all instances it is estimated that approximatelly 85-95% of the adult population in all included countries can be reached by telephone. • The primary sampling unit varies across countries (see table on right hand side). • The secondary sampling unit for fixed line phone numbers are the person in the household who last had a birthday. For mobile telephone numbers the secondary sampling unit are the individuals uses the particular mobile phone. • There are no single, clear answer to what the best sampling method and procedure is. In case of the BEST survey there is little reason to believe that there should be a strong correlation between attitudes towards the public transport system and telephone usage, fixed line or mobile. • From Norway and other countries we know that there is a relatively strong correlation between age and mobile subscription. The younger people are the more likely they are to be using mobile telephones. In the BEST survey the completed data are weighted with respect to age, and hence adjusted for this possible skewness. 6

7. How to read the graphs The graphs show the proportion of the respondents who agrees (partially agrees or fully agrees) to the different statements in blue columns. The red columns shows the proportion who disagrees (hardly agrees or not agree at all) to the statements. Respondents with a neutral position are not displayed in the graphs. The graphs also include results from previous surveys, shown in the table to the right as the proportion of the respondents who agrees to the statement in question. Development per index in the different cities are also shown as time lines. All graphs are standard PowerPoint-graphs where different categories can be hidden and value labels displayed at ones own preference. 7

8. Results 2009 Vienna – Inner City

9. Vienna Inner City Comparison - All indices 2009 9

10. Vienna – Inner City 2009 Quality dimensions

11. Vienna Inner City Traffic supply 11

12. Vienna Inner City Information 12

13. Vienna Inner City Staff behaviour 13

14. Vienna Inner City Security and safety 14

15. Vienna Inner City Comfort 15

16. Vienna Inner City Social Image 16

17. Vienna Inner City Value for money 17

18. Vienna Inner City 2009 Appendix

19. Vienna Inner City 2009 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

20. Vienna Inner City CITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups 20

21. Vienna Inner City 2009 Traffic supply

22. Vienna Inner City Traffic supply - Subgroups 22

23. Vienna Inner City Good for work/school trips - Subgroups 23

24. Vienna Inner City PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups 24

25. Vienna Inner City PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups 25

26. Vienna Inner City PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups 26

27. Vienna Inner City Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups 27

28. Vienna Inner City Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups 28

29. Vienna Inner City I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups 29

30. Vienna Inner City Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups 30

31. Vienna Inner City 2009 Reliability in subgroups

32. Vienna Inner City Reliability - Subgroups 32

33. Vienna Inner City 2009 Information in subgroups

34. Vienna Inner City Information - Subgroups 34

35. Vienna Inner City It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups 35

36. Vienna Inner City Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups 36

37. Vienna Inner City Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups 37

38. Vienna Inner City 2009 Staff behaviour in subgroups

39. Vienna Inner City Staff behaviour - Subgroups 39

40. Vienna Inner City Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups 40

41. Vienna Inner City Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups 41

42. Vienna Inner City 2009 Security and safety in subgroups

43. Vienna Inner City Security and safety - Subgroups 43

44. Vienna Inner City I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups 44

45. Vienna Inner City I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups 45

46. Vienna Inner City I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups 46

47. Vienna Inner City 2009 Comfort in subgroups

48. Vienna Inner City Comfort - Subgroups 48

49. Vienna Inner City PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups 49

50. Vienna Inner City Transfers are easy - Subgroups 50