Table of contents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Table of contents PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Table of contents

play fullscreen
1 / 20
Table of contents
172 Views
Download Presentation
viet
Download Presentation

Table of contents

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

  1. Table of contents Introduction Desk study findings on travel needs of different groups of travellers Experiment and survey design Passenger survey and stakeholders interview results Conclusions

  2. Aims of the deliverable • To identify the variables which can be used to measure the whole journey passenger experience that will impact on increased acceptance and take-up of new terrestrial transport solutions and technologies, and a more inclusive terrestrial transport system with better access for all. • To involve cities/agencies/operators in the process by getting early feedback on the adequacy of the tools and how the information provided will inform sustainable transport policies. • To define the variables that will be measured by the METPEX Tool.

  3. Who travelled in METPEX cities? • Within the cities involved in METPEX: • A relatively balanced proportion of men and women, • A higher proportion of younger individuals, than national average, in Vilnius, Dublin and Coventry, • Coventry also has a higher proportion of minority groups, • Stockholm also has a higher proportion of cyclist than other observed cities, • Students and pupils are a significant part of the population, • Coventry and Valencia have a significant proportion of unemployed travellers, • Valencia and Rome have a significant proportion of tourists/unfamiliar travellers.

  4. Needs for different groups of travellers

  5. Needs for different groups of travellers

  6. The needs of experiment • There is a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different groups of travellers who used different travel modes. • There is a lack of studies that well integrated instrumental and non-instrumental variables and covered the whole (door-to-door) travellers journey. • On the other hand, it is impossible to incorporate all variables and factors of concern in measuring the existing level of service. • A mix of qualitative and quantitative experiment, that involves primary data collections and empirical data analysis, carried out. The variables that matters will be tested statistically, for different socio-demographic groups and travel modes.

  7. Experiment and survey description • Experiment: questionnaire, consisted of five sections: • Individual attributes (socio-demographic, mobility behaviour) • Attitudes (travel preferences, mobility-related opinions) • Contextual variables (temporal, weather conditions, trip purpose, subjective well-being indices) • Underlying travel aspects (familiarity, adaptation, past experience) • Travel experience factors (availability, travel time components, information provision, reliability, way-finding, comfort, appeal, safety and security, customer care, price, connectivity, ride quality, environmental impact and travel time productivity as applicable) • The experiment were carried out at eight METPEX cities: Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia and Vilnius.

  8. Experiment and survey description • To complement the designed questionnaire, a series of interviews with relevant stakeholders were held to discuss which variables are important from their perspectives and also to identify the variables that may be missed / unique from city to city throughout Europe. • The stakeholder interviews survey involved ten cities: Bucharest, Dublin, Grevena, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia, Coventry, Vilnius and Zurich, along with one European body: the European Disability Forum (see http://www.edf-feph.org/)

  9. Passenger survey results • 554 participants, Men (56%); Women (44%) • Elderly and disabled travellers are underrepresented • Majority has access to car (64%), PT card (62%) and bike (61%) • PT travel frequency: daily (55%); 2-3 time a week (16%); seldom or never (13%) • 66% of all trips were multimodal, 2.44 trip stages on average

  10. Passenger survey results • Average satisfaction (1-5 scale)

  11. Car PT Waiting and transfer conditions more prominent than vehicle-related aspects Satisfaction with walking was weakly correlated with aspects included in the questionnaire Walk Bike

  12. The primary trip stage is very strongly correlated with entire trip satisfaction. The impacts of access and egress trip stages is marginal, but each of them is strongly correlated with the satisfaction from the primary trip stage. Travellers that feel more passive are more likely to be satisfied with the service, giving everything else is the same. Current satisfaction is very strongly correlated with the elements of past experience. It is even strongly correlated with the assertion that the chosen mode is the best mean of connection based on traveller’s experience.

  13. Salient findings from regression analyses • Past experience and travellers’ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience • Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience in most cases – with age and income being noticeable exceptions. • Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low income or unemployed travellers have distinctive determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various travel modes. • The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations.

  14. Salient findings from regression analyses • Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated than the factors determining satisfaction on other transport modes. The variables included in this pilot study were not able to explain variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages. • Travellers’ emotional state is an important determinant of travel experience and satisfaction • Travellers’ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of travel satisfaction.

  15. Stakeholders Interviews Different questions were valued differently by different classes of stakeholders. Operators were mostly interested and concerned about the impacts of detailed level-of-service related variables on passenger experience, whilst the planning authorities were more interested with wider general urban and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel patterns. The special interest groups were understandably more interested with their detailed constituent’s interests, where as the government’s research institutes were interested with more detailed trip patterns and behavioural variables that underlie the travellers’ decision making processes.

  16. Variables valued most by stakeholders

  17. Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool

  18. Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool

  19. Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool A MEasurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience D2.3 – Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured by the METPEX tool