Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

benchmarking in european service of public transport n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

play fullscreen
1 / 74
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport
114 Views
Download Presentation
gordy
Download Presentation

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport BEST Survey 2010 City report: Helsinki

  2. 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

  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. Results 2010 Helsinki

  10. Helsinki Indices 2010 10

  11. Helsinki 2010 Quality dimensions

  12. Helsinki Traffic supply 12

  13. Helsinki Reliability 13

  14. Helsinki Information 14

  15. Helsinki Staff behaviour 15

  16. Helsinki Security and safety 16

  17. Helsinki Comfort 17

  18. Helsinki Social Image 18

  19. Helsinki Value for money 19

  20. Helsinki Loyalty 20

  21. Impact on satisfaction Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

  22. 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 22

  23. Impact on satisfaction - Helsinki 2008 2009 2010 • 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. 23

  24. Helsinki 2010 Appendix

  25. Helsinki 2010 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

  26. Helsinki Citizen satisfaction- Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1572> 26

  27. Helsinki 2010 Traffic supply in subgroups

  28. Helsinki Traffic supply - Subgroups 28

  29. Helsinki Good for work/school trips - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1414> 29

  30. Helsinki PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1558> 30

  31. Helsinki PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1488> 31

  32. Helsinki PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1500> 32

  33. Helsinki Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1595> 33

  34. Helsinki Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1577> 34

  35. Helsinki I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1561> 35

  36. Helsinki Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1488> 36

  37. Helsinki 2010 Reliability in subgroups

  38. Helsinki Reliability - Subgroups 38

  39. Helsinki 2010 Information in subgroups

  40. Helsinki Information - Subgroups 40

  41. Helsinki It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1565> 41

  42. Helsinki Information is good when traffic problems occure- Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1463> 42

  43. Helsinki Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: NNN> 43

  44. Helsinki 2010 Staff behaviour in subgroups

  45. Helsinki Staff behaviour - Subgroups 45

  46. Helsinki Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1472> 46

  47. Helsinki Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1565> 47

  48. Helsinki 2010 Security and safety in subgroups

  49. Helsinki Security and safety - Subgroups 49

  50. Helsinki I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups <TOTAL BASE: 1583> 50