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 / 71
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport
132 Views
Download Presentation
valmai
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: Vienna - Inner city Based on 600 interviews

  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 Vienna - Inner city

  10. Vienna - Inner city Indices 2010 10

  11. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Quality dimensions

  12. Vienna - Inner city Traffic supply 12

  13. Vienna - Inner city Reliability 13

  14. Vienna - Inner city Information 14

  15. Vienna - Inner city Staff behaviour 15

  16. Vienna - Inner city Security and safety 16

  17. Vienna - Inner city Comfort 17

  18. Vienna - Inner city Social Image 18

  19. Vienna - Inner city Value for money 19

  20. Vienna - Inner city Loyalty 20

  21. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Appendix

  22. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

  23. Vienna - Inner city Citizen satisfaction - Subgroups 23

  24. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Traffic supply in subgroups

  25. Vienna - Inner city Traffic supply - Subgroups 25

  26. Vienna - Inner city Good for work/school trips - Subgroups 26

  27. Vienna - Inner city PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups 27

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

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

  30. Vienna - Inner city Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups 30

  31. Vienna - Inner city Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups 31

  32. Vienna - Inner city I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups 32

  33. Vienna - Inner city Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups 33

  34. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Reliability in subgroups

  35. Vienna - Inner city Reliability - Subgroups 35

  36. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Information in subgroups

  37. Vienna - Inner city Information - Subgroups 37

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

  39. Vienna - Inner city Information is good when traffic problems occure- Subgroups 39

  40. Vienna - Inner city Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups 40

  41. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Staff behaviour in subgroups

  42. Vienna - Inner city Staff behaviour - Subgroups 42

  43. Vienna - Inner city Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups 43

  44. Vienna - Inner city Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups 44

  45. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Security and safety in subgroups

  46. Vienna - Inner city Security and safety - Subgroups 46

  47. Vienna - Inner city I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups 47

  48. Vienna - Inner city I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups 48

  49. Vienna - Inner city I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups 49

  50. Vienna - Inner city 2010 Comfort in subgroups