luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ofira
luggage lockers needs and expectation of passengers n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers

play fullscreen
1 / 35
Download Presentation
luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers
0 Views
Download Presentation

luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers

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

  1. luggage lockers - neEds and expectation of passengers Bernhard Rüger, St.Pölten University of Applied Sciences bernhard.rueger@fhstp.ac.at Hans-Christian Graf, Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences Hans-Christian.Graf@fh-steyr.at Burkhard Stadlmann,Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences burkhard.stadlmann@fh-wels.at

  2. Call for sustainable transport • Change of modal split behaviour in favour of the railway • What must be changed for attractive rail transport? •  mobility chain (many desicion criteria)

  3. Modal split - decision criteria luggage transport mobility at the destination costs changing trains travel time comfort level of service etc. summer winter percantage of asked hotelguests costs luggage railconnectionatdestination mobilityatdestination travel time railconnectionathome chaning trains

  4. Mobility chain Positive sensations must be maximized, negative sensations must be minimized! Mobilitätskette Customer satisfaction

  5. Mobility chain Each chain is only as strong as the least chain link! Customer satisfaction is very important along the whole mobility chain

  6. Chain link: Stay at the station • Passengers have to stay more or less long on the station • Before train departure • Changing of trains, transfer time • Waiting time … • has an influence on comfort criteria  modal split • is felt subjectively! • has to be (subjectively) reduced!

  7. station • Stationsaremutatingmoreandmoreintoshoppingandentertainmentcentres • Wehavetocareaboutthebasicneedsofpassengers • shoppingandentertainingpossibilities • conflictwithluggage • itsheardlypossibletouseattractions •  easy shorttermluggagedeposingisnecesary

  8. Some illustrations

  9. shopping – eating/drinking - luggage

  10. Waiting passengers – potential shoppers

  11. Behaviour, needs and expectations • More than 30 minutes waiting time: •  ~ 25% prefere shopping •  ~ 30% prefere going to a bar or restaurant

  12. Impairments because of luggage • About 40% of all passengers who prefere shopping or visiting a bar or restaurant feel impaired because of their luggage

  13. Impairemants because of large luggage • 60% of passengers with heavy luggage feel impaired while waiting

  14. Whish of luggage lockers • 80% whish to have an easy handling luggage storing possibility at the station for doing some shopping etc. without any luggage.

  15. Requirements: costs for short term locking • 1/3 is willing to pay 2€ or more • 1/3 is willing to pay 1€ • 1/3 is not willing to pay

  16. Requirements: costs for short term locking • Inhibition treshold: between paying anything or paying nothing •  even 1€ can be to much •  short term locking (up to two hours) must be offered for free •  benifit because of indirect return • More passengers without lugage •  more shopper •  more spent money •  more benefit for the station operator

  17. Requirements: costs for one day locking • Only 15% are not willing to pay more than 1€ • 1/3 is willing to pay 2€ • 1/3 is willing to pay 2-4€

  18. Requirements: time need for lugagge return • 25% are not willing to wait longer than 1min • 50% are willing to wait between 1min and 3min

  19. Requirements: time need for lugagge return • Problem of luggage return time need: • Subjectively felt time • Passengers in a hurry • Before train departure •  1min can feel like 5min • For technical systems: Counter for seconds

  20. Requirements: comfort / lifting of luggage • Passengers do not want to lift their luggage • 2/3 of female passengers want to store at floor level • 50% of female passengers are not able or do not want to lift luggage  Storing at floor level is a must!

  21. Max. dimensions:85 x 65 x 35 cm  UIC Leaflet 562:70 x 50 x 30 cm !! trolley upright 35 cm large suitcase < 35 cm < 35 cm < 85 cm < 65 cm 85 cm 29 cm < 65 cm 65 cm < 85 cm 50 cm medium suitcase basic knowledge about luggage - size cross-section

  22. Max. dimensions:100 x 43 x 43 cm  UIC Leaflet 562:70 x 50 x 30 cm !! < 43 cm < 85 cm 43 cm < 43 cm < 100 cm 37 cm 43 cm 37 cm < 30 cm < 35 cm medium carpetbag basic knowledge about luggage - size large carpetbag large rucksack cross-section

  23. Luggage deposits – status quo • Only a limited number of lockers is offered • Luggage has to be lift • Doors close automaticaly (they should keep open) • Dimensions are too small for large luggage items • No possibility for storing „unusual“ luggage items • Very expensive for a short time use (e.g.; familiy with 3 suitcases has to pay 12 EUR, also for 30min)

  24. Limited number – often no lockers available closed!

  25. Higth of lockers – luggage has to be lift

  26. Doors close automaticaly!

  27. Dimensions are often too small 33cm 33cm 33cm 43cm 95cm 65cm

  28. 43 cm 37 cm 35 cm 43 cm 85 cm 65 cm 37 cm actual luggage – size vs. locker size width! 33cm 33cm D10cm 43cm 65cm D2cm 50 cm profile

  29. No space for „extra sized“ luggage

  30. Very expensive No rates for 1 hour No change!

  31. Example of a good solution + Central deposing + no lifting of luggage - Problem: dimensions to small - price - no extra sized luggage

  32. Conclusions • Luggage deposit at the stations is necessary • Passengers have the whish of storing luggage, also for a short term • Short term locking must be offered for free • Storing must be as easy as possible • No lifting of the luggage! • Benifit for railway and station operators • more shopper  more benefit for the station operator • More satisfied customers

  33. Thank you for your attention • Bernhard Rüger, St.Pölten University of Applied Sciences bernhard.rueger@fhstp.ac.at • Hans-Christian Graf, Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences Hans-Christian.Graf@fh-steyr.at • Burkhard Stadlmann,Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences burkhard.stadlmann@fh-wels.at