Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport BEST Survey 2009 City report: Geneva

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 20078questionnaire. 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 Geneva

9. Geneva Indices 2009 9

10. Geneva 2009 Quality dimensions

11. Geneva Traffic supply 11

12. Geneva Information 12

13. Geneva Staff behaviour 13

14. Geneva Security and safety 14

15. Geneva Comfort 15

16. Geneva Social Image 16

17. Geneva Value for money 17

18. Impact on satisfaction Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

19. Traffic supply PT is good for school_work trips PT is good for leisure trips PT is good for trips in the city centre PT is good for trips outside the city centre Nearest stop is close to where I live Travel time on PT is reasonable 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 Information is good in stops and terminals 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 PT travel is comfortable Transfers are easy Busses and trains are modern Busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when travel with PT Social image More people will travel with PT in the future PT is good for the environment PT is beneficial to society Value for money PT gives good value for money PT fares are reasonable Loyalty I gladly recommend PT travel How is the most important areas for improvements determined? How is the most important areas for improvements determined? • The highlighted indicators (indicators in bold) 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 percertion 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 2009. Overall satisfaction with PT 19

20. Impact on satisfaction - Geneva 2007 2009 2008 • When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each year is of prime interest. • Comparison of the estimated effects across years must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences. 20

21. Geneva 2009 Appendix

22. Geneva 2009 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

23. Geneva CITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups 23

24. Geneva 2009 Traffic supply in subgroups

25. Geneva Traffic supply - Subgroups 25

26. Geneva Good for work/school trips - Subgroups 26

27. Geneva PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups 27

28. Geneva PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups 28

29. Geneva PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups 29

30. Geneva Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups 30

31. Geneva Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups 31

32. Geneva I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups 32

33. Geneva Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups 33

34. Geneva 2009 Reliability in subgroups

35. Geneva Reliability - Subgroups 35

36. Geneva 2009 Information in subgroups

37. Geneva Information - Subgroups 37

38. Geneva It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups 38

39. Geneva Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups 39

40. Geneva Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups 40

41. Geneva 2009 Staff behaviour in subgroups

42. Geneva Staff behaviour - Subgroups 42

43. Geneva Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups 43

44. Geneva Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups 44

45. Geneva 2009 Security and safety in subgroups

46. Geneva Security and safety - Subgroups 46

47. Geneva I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups 47

48. Geneva I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups 48

49. Geneva I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups 49

50. Geneva 2009 Comfort in subgroups