Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)

1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey

2. About the survey How to read the graphs Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010 Main results per city from 2005 to 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction Satisfaction per city/region with: Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort Perception of social image 2005 - 2010 Perception of value for money 2005 - 2010 Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2010 Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency Content 2

3. About the survey • The following cities participated in the BEST 2010 survey: • Stockholm • Oslo • Helsinki (with additional questions) • Copenhagen • Vienna • Geneva (with additional questions) • For all cities 1.000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 600 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2010. All interviews have been done by telephone. • The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 14th 2010. • Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area. • In 2010 the special topic was transfers. Five questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report. BEST City report 2010 3

4. Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used Main occupation Sex Age Post code (geography) 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 4

5. Response rates Response rates are calculated as follows: 5

6. 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 and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed line telephones. • In all instances it is estimated that approximately 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. Mobile interviews* 7

8. 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. 8

9. BEST performing city/region per index 2006 - 2010

10. Best performing city per index BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 10

11. Results per index and city/region

12. Results per index and city/region in 2010 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 12

13. Results per index and city/region in 2009 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 13

14. Results per index and city/region in 2008 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 14

15. Results per index and city/region in 2007 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 15

16. Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 16

17. Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 17

18. Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 18

19. Which improvements matter most? Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction

20. Traffic supply Nearest stop is close to where I live Waiting time is short at transfers I am satisfied with the number of departures Reliability Capability to run on schedule Information It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip Information is good when traffic problems occur Staff behaviour Staff answers my questions correctly Staff behaves nicely and correctly Security and safety I feel secure at stations and bus stops I feel secure on board busses and trains I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT Comfort Transfers are easy Busses and trains are modern Busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when travel with PT How is the most important areas for improvements determined? • Description of the analysis: • The indicators shown to the left have been used to determine the impact they have on citizens over all satisfaction. • The selected indicators have been chosen as they are independent of each other and describes different phenomenon. I.e. ‘Travel time’ is not included as this element is a function of and covered through ‘Nearest stop is close to where I live’, ‘Number of departures’ and Waiting time is short at transfers’. • As such the indicators included are thought to be the ones who are possible to influence and describes the most concrete properties of the public transport system. • Price has not been included in this analysis, as the perception of price most often is a function of the perception of other properties. • A stepwise regression method has been used in the analysis. • On the following slide the five indicators with strongest significant impact on satisfaction are listed in ranked order for all participating cities in 2010. Overall satisfaction with PT BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 20

21. Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport? 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. BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 21

22. Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2005 - 2010

23. Overall citizen satisfaction TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 23

24. Overall citizen satisfaction % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 24

25. Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2010

26. Traffic supply TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 26

27. Traffic supply % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 27

28. Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2010

29. Reliability TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 29

30. Reliability % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 30

31. Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2010

32. Information TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 32

33. Information % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 33

34. Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2010

35. Staff behaviour TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 35

36. Staff behaviour % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 36

37. Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2010

38. Security and safety TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 38

39. Security and safety % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 39

40. Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2010

41. Comfort TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 41

42. Comfort % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 42

43. Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2010

44. Social image TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 44

45. Social image % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 45

46. Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2010

47. Value for money TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 47

48. Value for money % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 48

49. Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2010

50. Loyalty TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 50