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

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 87

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport. BEST Survey 2012 City report: Helsinki. About the survey How to read the graphs Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport BEST Survey 2012 City report: Helsinki

    2. About the survey How to read the graphs Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008 Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2012 Main results per city from 2008 to 2012 Overall citizen satisfaction Satisfaction per city/region with: Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort Perception of social image 2008 - 2012 Perception of value for money 2008 - 2012 Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2008 to 2012 Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency Content Best City report 2012 2

    3. About the survey • The following cities participated in the BEST 2012 survey: • Stockholm • Oslo • Helsinki • Copenhagen • Geneva (with additional questions) • Vienna (VOR) • For all cities 1.000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. In Vienna 600 respondents was interviewed in an area west of the city center. An additional 900 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2012. All interviews have been done by telephone. • The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 13th 2012. • Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area. • In 2012 the special topic was comfortvstravel time. Four questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report. Best City report 2012 BEST Main Report 2012 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 Best City report 2012 4

    5. Response rates Response rates are calculated as follows: Best City report 2012 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. Best City report 2012 6

    7. Mobile interviews* Best City report 2012 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. Best City report 2012 8

    9. Results 2012 Helsinki

    10. The sample: Sipoo included in the Helsinki region in 2012 10

    11. Significant changes in results per index or quality elements are shown as follows Index – increase more than + 3 % points Quality element – increase more than + 4 % points Index – decrease more than - 3 % points Quality element – decrease more than - 4 % points 11

    12. HelsinkiIndices 2012 12

    13. Helsinki 2012 Quality dimensions

    14. HelsinkiTraffic supply 14

    15. Traffic supply – benchmark 2012

    16. HelsinkiReliability 16

    17. Reliability – Benchmark 2012

    18. HelsinkiInformation 18

    19. Information – Benchmark 2012

    20. HelsinkiStaff behaviour 20

    21. Staff behaviour – Benchmark 2012

    22. HelsinkiSecurity and safety 22

    23. Security and safety – Benchmark 2012

    24. HelsinkiComfort 24

    25. Comfort – Benchmark 2012

    26. HelsinkiSocial Image 26

    27. Social image – Benchmark 2012

    28. HelsinkiValue for money 28

    29. Social image – Benchmark 2012

    30. HelsinkiLoyalty 30

    31. Loyalty – Benchmark 2012

    32. Impact on satisfaction Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

    33. 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 33

    34. Impact on satisfaction - Helsinki 2010 2011 2012 • 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. 34

    35. Helsinki - impact on satisfaction Indicatorsranked by importance: 35

    36. Helsinki 2012 – compared with BEST average 36

    37. Helsinki 2012 Appendix

    38. Helsinki 2012 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

    39. HelsinkiCITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups 39

    40. Helsinki 2012 Traffic supply in subgroups

    41. HelsinkiTraffic supply - Subgroups 41

    42. HelsinkiGood for work/school trips - Subgroups 42

    43. HelsinkiPT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups 43

    44. HelsinkiPT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups 44

    45. HelsinkiPT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups 45

    46. HelsinkiNearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups 46

    47. HelsinkiTravel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups 47

    48. HelsinkiWaiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups 48

    49. HelsinkiI am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups 49

    50. Helsinki 2012 Reliability in subgroups