710 likes | 864 Views
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport. BEST Survey 2010 City report: Vienna - Inner city Based on 600 interviews. About the survey How to read the graphs Results Results per index in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2010 with: Traffic supply
E N D
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport BEST Survey 2010 City report: Vienna - Inner city Based on 600 interviews
About the survey How to read the graphs Results Results per index in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2010 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 2005 - 2010 Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010 Results per subgroup Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency Content 2
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
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
Response rates Response rates are calculated as follows: 5
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
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
Results 2010 Vienna - Inner city
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Quality dimensions
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Appendix
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Traffic supply in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city Good for work/school trips - Subgroups 26
Vienna - Inner city PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups 27
Vienna - Inner city PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups 28
Vienna - Inner city PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups 29
Vienna - Inner city Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups 30
Vienna - Inner city Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups 31
Vienna - Inner city I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups 32
Vienna - Inner city Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups 33
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Reliability in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Information in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups 38
Vienna - Inner city Information is good when traffic problems occure- Subgroups 39
Vienna - Inner city Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups 40
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Staff behaviour in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups 43
Vienna - Inner city Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups 44
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Security and safety in subgroups
Vienna - Inner city I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups 47
Vienna - Inner city I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups 48
Vienna - Inner city I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups 49
Vienna - Inner city 2010 Comfort in subgroups