BEST Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport - BEST
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
BEST Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport
BEST
Benchmarking in European
Service of public Transport
Results of the 2004 survey
Barcelona
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
ViennaIndex
Foreword......................................................................................................................... 3
About the survey and the results .................................................................................... 5
BEST Scores 2004 ......................................................................................................... 6
Citizen’s Satisfaction....................................................................................................... 8
Traffic Supply................................................................................................................ 10
Reliability ...................................................................................................................... 12
Information.................................................................................................................... 14
Staff Behaviour ............................................................................................................. 16
Personal Security and Safety ....................................................................................... 18
Comfort ......................................................................................................................... 20
Social Image ................................................................................................................. 22
Value for Money............................................................................................................ 24
Loyalty .......................................................................................................................... 26
Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency .................................................................... 28
Background information................................................................................................ 32
TEMO Summary - About the survey............................................................................. 34
TEMO Summary - General comments on the results................................................... 35
How to read the graphs ................................................................................................ 36
12
Foreword
The fifth survey of BEST was conducted during March 2004 in seven European
regions: Barcelona, Copenhagen, Geneva, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm and Vienna.
1000 telephone interviews concerning questions on perceived quality of the public
transport of the region, where answered by the citizens of each region.
The results in this report offer a platform for our further process of systematic
benchmarking. The objective is to identify role models, to decide on Common Interest
Groups (CIG) and to compare processes of work: “how do you manage to get such a
high share of satisfied citizens?”
At the moment there are 4 CIGs in the following dimensions of public transport quality:
- To strengthen the influence of customers (to be started)
- Revenue protection
- What effects demand?
- Priority measures to promote accessibility of buses
We believe that learning from colleagues is an efficient way to improving quality of
public transport services. We are also convinced that there is a positive relation
between good quality and high demand – to increase travel with public transport is our
common task. To create a stimulating network of European public transport colleagues
is another goal for BEST. Communicating the process of BEST and its results inside
as well as outside our regions should be a positive promotion of public transport and
our efforts to improve ourselves to meet the challenges of future.
This working paper contains the results from the common survey completed with short
comments from each region. The paper will be used as our platform for external
communication. A short summary of the progress of the BEST process will be
presented at our seminar November 29 -30 in Oslo.
Stockholm 2004-10-22
Bo Tengblad Björn Dalborg
Chairman BEST Project Manager
BEST Organising Committee
Participating companies/authorities
Transports de Barcelona, TMB, Barcelona, Spain
Greater Copenhagen Authority, HUR, Copenhagen, Denmark
DSB S-train A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
DSB, Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen Metro, ØSS, Copenhagen, Denmark
Helsinki City Transport, HKL, Helsinki, Finland
Oslo Public Transport Inc., OS, Oslo, Norway
Greater Oslo Public Transport, Oslo, Norway
AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, SL, Stockholm, Sweden
Wiener Linien and Verkehrsverbund Ostregion (VOR), Vienna, Austria
Office des Transports et de la Circulation, OTC, Geneva, Switzerland
34
About the survey and the results
The response rate of this survey is slightly better than last year’s but not completely
satisfying. The somewhat better respond rates are the results of the thorough
discussions we have had with TEMO, the organiser of the survey that was conducted
by local interviewing companies. The means and measures taken have resulted in
some improvements of the respond rates:
2001 2002 2003 2004
Barcelona 23% 36 % 38 % 38 %
Copenhagen 38 % 54 % 55 % 56 %
Geneva 50 % 47 % 50 %
Helsinki 41 % 49 % 45 % 47 %
London 35 % 34 % -
Manchester 34 % 29 % -
Oslo 37 % 44 % 48 % 45 %
Stockholm 50 % 64 % 56 % 60 %
Vienna 39 % 57 % 58 % 61 %
For technical comments from TEMO see page 30.
5BEST Scores 2004
Below the BEST scores are presented for each of the parameters used in the survey.
Parameters Best Scores
Citizen Satisfaction -11 82 Barcelona
Traffic Supply -12 67 Helsinki, Vienna
Reliability -8 79 Geneva
Information -13 69 Geneva
Staff Behaviour -7 76 Geneva
Personal Security -7 82 Vienna
Comfort -11 65 Geneva, Vienna
Social Image -5 82 Geneva, Helsinki
Value for Money -29 44 Helsinki
Loyalty -6 76 Helsinki
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Topbox - Partially/Fully agree
Bottombox - Hardly/Not at all agree
Obs! If two regions or more have the same topboxvalue, the best score goes to the region with the lowest bottomboxvalue.
General comments: Geneva has the best scores in five dimensions, more than other
regions. Last year Geneva scored highest in four dimensions. Helsinki has the best
scores in four dimensions, up from two last year.
General comments from Barcelona: The study of the results of BEST 2004
demonstrates that the results are very similar to the ones of last year, suffering only a
small decrease. All the aspects suffer small reductions with exception of the Social
Image and the global satisfaction index of the citizens.
The reduction in 2002 was very important (more than 8 points average) and in 2003
was notorious (4 points average) and the reduction in 2004 of 2 points shows a
restraint of satisfaction reductions and a trend to steadiness of the same.
The explanation of these small reductions of the satisfaction levels could be given as
an analogy of last year’s arguments when the public transport increased with 40 M.
trips. This year it increases more (possibly still as a consequence of tariff integration of
operators) causing, despite of the offer regulations, a situation of more congestion at
stops of buses and trains which originate a lower level of service quality (waiting times,
comfort, temperature, free seats, …) making evident the lower satisfaction levels.
General comments from Copenhagen: Generally speaking the results from
Copenhagen this year are not very impressive. However, it is very important to state
that the overall reason for this lowered image is the increase in the fare level of 12%
6that was carried out in January 2004. This has had an effect on the overall impression
of public transport.
General comments from Geneva: We notice lower scores on several dimensions,
which can be explained by public transport networks changes, as well as tariffs’
increase at the beginning of the year 2004.
General comments from Helsinki: Despite the fact that traffic supply has been cut
down the citizen satisfaction is on the same level as the previous year.
General comments from Oslo: The results show a general improvement in the level
of customer satisfaction over the last two years, which is similar to results from our own
surveys. Also objective registrations (by traffic inspectors) shows that the public
transport in Oslo in fact have become more reliable, and has improved the quality
during the years 2001- 2004. Still, 51% satisfaction is a weak result. But the
benchmarking process, including the common interest groups, is one way to deal with
quality improvements. Which lead us to the next question: Should we end the BEST
project now? Or what should be the next step?
General comments from Stockholm: In BEST 2004 Stockholm scores higher in three
dimensions and lower in six. Better experienced reliability is encouraging although still
at too low a level. Lower scores (in six dimensions) value for money and personal
security and safety being the most obvious, are most disquieting. Increased fare just
before the survey and widespread negative press coverage during the fieldwork period
have affected the scores. The remaining lower scores are less significant but
nevertheless something to be taken seriously.
General comments from Vienna: The slight decrease of top figures 2004 can be
attributed to a very high level of passenger expectations. In areas with generally high
scores, even the slightest changes can cause immediately detectable reactions.
7Citizen’s Satisfaction
• A measurement that describes the satisfaction with public transport in general
General comments: This dimension contains the answer of one question. As last
year, Barcelona has the most pleased citizens with an unchanged level. Most regions
show small changes but Copenhagen is down 10% and Oslo is up 9%. Very
encouraging is that daily travellers, all regions combined, are 14% more satisfied than
last year.
Barcelona: This year happens the same paradox as in 2003 when Barcelona had no
maximum points in the different dimensions (not even the second position) but
obtained again maximum points in citizens’ satisfaction and to explain this fact we can
only repeat the same explanation as in 2003. The fact is difficult to explain but it could
be that the citizen of Barcelona is satisfied with the public transport as a whole but
when asked about the different aspects they are more critical. Another explanation of
this index, at general level, could be that the citizen of Barcelona sees with illusion and
hope the advancements of the works of PDI (Infrastructure Director Plan) –construction
of the tunnel of the new line 9, inauguration of the Trambaix and Trambesós-.
Copenhagen: As mentioned in the general comments, the image of public transport in
Copenhagen has suffered from the increasing fare level. Fares rose by 12% in early
2004. During the spring there was some media attention on the fact that petrol prices
had not increased to the same extent throughout the last 20 years.
At the same time, the Metro had a tough autumn with a number of operational
problems, with severe service effects for the passengers, at the end of 2003. 2004 has
been much better. Public bus operations have been cut down. Greater Copenhagen
Authority has reduced the number of bus hours by around 10%.
However, the ratings carried out on-board public transport have improved slightly
during spring.
Geneva: The global citizen satisfaction is declining. The reason must be mainly due to
the tariff increase, which took place on January 1st 2004. The important PT network
increase which occurs every year (+20 % of seat-km between 2003 and 2006) seems
to be less perceived than this tariff increase by the citizens.
8Helsinki: Large regional differences in the results of Helsinki have been found. In the
Helsinki area the citizen satisfaction has improved but in the neighbouring municipals it
has significantly decreased. This is the reason why the satisfaction in the whole area
has decreased.
Oslo: The results show a general improvement in the level of customer satisfaction
over the last two years, which is similar to results from our own surveys. Also objective
registrations (by traffic inspectors) shows that public transport in Oslo in fact has
become more reliable, and has improved quality during the years 2001- 2004. Still,
51% satisfaction is a weak result. But the benchmarking process, including the
common interest groups, is one way to deal with quality improvements. Which lead us
to the next question: Should we end the BEST project now? Or what should be the next
step?
Stockholm: The Stockholm score is lower than 2003 and higher than 2002. Daily
travellers, those who travel a few times per week and specifically those who travel a
few times per month are less satisfied. At the same time those who never travel are
much more satisfied than last year. One hypothesis could be that the fare increase has
influenced these results. We still have considerable distance to cover to reach our goal,
75% satisfied citizens.
Vienna: All in all, there has been a slight decrease since 2003. When comparing the
city of Vienna and its surroundings, one can find that the figures are significantly higher
in Vienna and significantly lower for the surroundings. This could be attributed to the
fact that the amenities of the inner city are much denser and more developed,
particularly in the evening hours.
9Traffic Supply
• Good for work/school trips and other trips e.g. shopping, leisure (2 questions)
• Good for trips in and outside the city centre (2 questions)
• Nearest stop close to home
• Travel time
• Waiting time at transfers
• Frequency of departures
General comments: This dimension contains the answers of eight questions. The
overall results show small changes, mostly decreased satisfaction with one exception,
Oslo.
1. “Public transport is good for work/school trips” – Oslo improved 11% from 2003.
2. “Public transport is good for other trips e.g. shopping, leisure” – The
improvement for Oslo is 7% from 2003.
3. “Public transport is good for trips in the city centre” – Small improvement in
Oslo.
4. “Good for trips outside the city centre” – No improvements.
5. “Nearest stop is close to where I live” No region has made any improvement
over the last year.
6. “Travel time on public transport is reasonable” Oslo has improved 5% since
2003.
7. “Waiting time is short at transfers” – The improvement in Oslo was 15% since
last year.
8. “Satisfied with the number of departures” – No significant improvements since
last year.
Barcelona: Traffic supply, decreased 2 points, from 67 (2003) to 65 (2004):
The decrease is significant at the aspects of “Public transport is good for trips outside
the city centre” and of waiting and trip time due to, as commented before, the increase
of agglomerations consequence of the increase of passengers.
Copenhagen: The number of bus hours has been cut back by 10% according to a
politically approved plan. The plan has been implemented step-wise and will be fully
implemented by October this year. The metro has suffered from track works every
Sunday evening where alternating legs have been closed for operations. DSB trains
have also been exposed to delays because of track works.
On the positive side, the Metro now has a very high reliability of service.
10Geneva: Main decreases are on leisure’s trips and outside city centre trips. Timetable
in off peak hours and outside city centre network remain subjects of complains from
citizen. This is mainly due to economical restrictions. Operating a high level of public
transport network outside of city centre and in off peak hours is much more expensive.
Trips in the city centre remain appreciated, which is also due to the important network
increase. For example a new tramway line was running in 2004 in the centre. The short
stops distances are always well appreciated.
Helsinki: Despite the fact that traffic supply has been cut down the citizen satisfaction
is on the same level as the previous year.
Oslo: No significant change in the results from 2003 to 2004.
The traffic supply has been quite stable in the same period of time. Opening of the first
part of the new metro circle line in August 2003 was a big event, but will probably not
affect the traffic supply in general before opening of the whole ”circle” in 2006.
There has been an expansion in the bus network in some areas of the city. But some of
the new routes have replaced earlier ones, which leads to a quite stable traffic supply
in general.
Stockholm: The scores show little change since last year. The improvements since
2001 and 2002 seem stable but the level is still to low.
Vienna: This figure shows a slight downward development. The wide gap between the
city and its surroundings can be seen in this parameter as well. As in the previous
question, the denser transportation network and the variety of amenities are decisive
factors.
11Reliability
• Capability to run on schedule
General comments: One question was asked. Stockholm has improved 22% but the
level is still low. That is also true for Oslo witch has improved 14%.
Barcelona: Reliability decreased 1 point, from 58 (2003) to 57 (2004):
The steadiness of the distribution of goods (small trucks and vans), due to the “just in
time” to the small stores of the city has a negative influence on the surface network and
moreover the increase of passengers at the stops of trains and buses explains partly
the decrease of satisfaction in this aspect.
Data TMB: the Satisfaction Index of Customers of bus here increased 3,3 points (ISC feb’03 = 56,4; ISC
feb’04 = 59,7)
Copenhagen: Copenhagen has fallen 4% points. This may stem from the fact that
regularity especially on the metro has been low last autumn. In the fall the metro
experienced a regularity rate of 85% - today it is at 98%. Also the regional trains have
been exposed to delays last year. In general, buses are affected by the increasing
number of cars which has reduced the reliability rate.
Geneva: The regional PT network (trains mainly) has an excellent reliability, because
more than 95% of trains are less than 5 minutes late. In urban network, most PT has
high frequencies.
Helsinki: Reliability has improved from the previous year. This comes from the
decrease of disruptions from the big construction sites.
Oslo: From Spring 2003 a new fare structure was introduced on city busses and trams,
which includes price differentiation between ticket sales onboard, and the pre-paid
tickets. We observe a strong positive effect on travel time and higher reliability on the
trams (+8% increase in reliability in 2003) and on city busses (+5%). The price system
has mainly been accepted in a positive way by the customers.
The reliability on metro, regional busses and commuter trains has been stable from
2003 to 2004.
Stockholm: The situation keeps improving. This years result is better than 2003 which
was better than 2002. That reflects improved punctuality in all our systems over the
period.
12Vienna: Virtually no change to the previous year – a constant figure. The evaluations
as regards keeping operation on schedule were equally well evaluated in the city as
well as in the surroundings.
13Information
• Access to information needed when planning a trip
• Information during traffic interruptions
General comments: The Geneva citizens are still the most pleased with reliability.
Oslo has improved 10% since last year. Other changes are quite small.
The dimension contains two questions.
1. “Easy to get the information needed when planning a trip” – Oslo improved
12%, Helsinki 7% and Geneva 6% since 2003.
2. “Information is good when traffic problems occur”. In many regions the
satisfaction level leaves a lot to be desired.
Barcelona: Information decreased 2 points, from 46 (2003) to 44 (2004):
Basically due to the decrease of the aspect “Is easy to get the information needed
when planning a trip”. The aspect of disruption information “The information is good
when traffic problems occur” is steady but with a very low figure.
Data TMB: the ISC of buses in information of break-offs increased 1, 9 points from Feb ’03 to Feb ’04
(59,5 to 61,4), the ISC of Metro increased more, 4,0 points (60,8 to 64,8).
Copenhagen: This is an area where Copenhagen traditionally has had a rather good
rating. It is almost at the same level as last year. The Web based Travel Planner is still
popular and DSB has introduced an information system on some stations which is able
to communicate traffic disruptions – an area where we traditionally have been rated low
by the citizens.
Geneva: Operators introduced a phone number dedicated to urban network
information. Web information is available since several years.
Helsinki: Disruption information has become better with mobile phones and
announcements and this has improved satisfaction a bit.
Oslo: The result shows - like last year - that information when planning a trip is our
strength and information during traffic interruptions is our weakness. The information
centre (Trafikanten, www.trafikanten.no) is continuously working improving the traffic
information through services like the route planner on the Internet, SMS and wap. A
real time information system is under implementation at tram and bus stops, and a
similar system at metro and trains has become more reliable since last year. It will be
interesting to see the effect on customer satisfaction scores in the future, based on
these actions.
14Stockholm: The score on information needed when planning a trip has improved a
little since last year. But the score on information when traffic problems occur has not
improved and is still at much to low a level. We are working hard to improve this
situation.
Vienna: The level of expectations is rather high – particularly in this area. It will require
considerable efforts in the next couple of years to uphold this level or to further raise
the level of satisfaction. Again, figures for Vienna are higher than those for the
surroundings. A great number of stops and stations of the underground lines, trams
and buses in the city have been equipped with real-time information systems. The
electronic schedule information system, which provides information for mobility-
impaired passengers as well as P & R information, is used, for the most part, for
journeys in Vienna. This is despite the fact that the information is already accessible for
the entire area of the transport association.
15Staff Behaviour
• Ability to answer questions
• General behaviour of staff
General comments: Geneva is still the region with the most pleased citizens
concerning staff behaviour. Except for a small improvement in Oslo the level is mostly
lower than last year. The dimension contains two questions.
1. “The staff answers my questions correctly” – Very slight improvement in Vienna
since last year.
2. “The staff behaves nicely and correctly” – very slight improvement in Oslo. In
the other regions unchanged level at best.
Barcelona: Staff behaviour, decreased 5 points, from 71 (2003) to 66 (2004):
Difficult to explain.
Data TMB: the ISC of Metro increased 3,4 points, 59,9 in febr’03 to 63,3 in febr’04 and the ISC of buses
decreased 0,9 points, from 72,7 to 71,8.
Copenhagen: Increased number of ticketing checks by controllers on the train. The
changes may have had an effect on how people look at the service level.
On regional trains passengers now have to pay additional 40 DKR (5 €) if they want to
buy a ticket on board.
The decreasing figure stems undoubtedly also from the lowered image of public
transport by virtue of the increased fares.
Geneva: Results are stable.
Helsinki: The score has decreased from the previous year. The cause is unknown and
is being studied.
Oslo: The satisfaction on this parameter is quite high, compared to the other BEST
cities.
SL has introduced a “Customer Service and General Staff Training Program”, which
has resulted in improved staff behaviour.
The results from our own customer satisfaction surveys show a higher satisfaction with
our staff’s behaviour, and especially the respect for employees working in the ticket
control.
16Stockholm: The score on correct answers by staff has not improved since last year.
The score on nice and correct behaviour is slightly down. This puts emphasis to the
need for continued and strengthened cooperation with the operators for example in the
field of contract incentives. Several important sub-goals have been achieved and we
have taken the first steps towards more service-minded personnel in the metro and
commuter train systems.
Vienna: Good evaluations can be attributed to continuous staff training programmes
and awareness-raising activities in relation to a high level of service quality. The result
for passenger satisfaction with staff is traditionally slightly higher in the surroundings,
since the drivers there are often personally known to the passengers – particularly on
the regional bus lines.
17Personal Security and Safety
• Safety at stations and bus stops
• Safety on board buses and trains
• Safe traffic
General comments: Vienna has the most pleased citizens also this year. Only one
region, Oslo has improved since last year. This quality dimension contains three
questions.
1. “I feel secure at stations and bus stops” – Oslo has improved 8% since last
year. The other regions have either a decrease or the changes are not
statistically significant.
2. “I feel secure on board busses and trains” – Oslo has improved 7% since last
year. The other regions all have decreases.
3. “I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using public transport” – The changes
since last year are either not statistically significant or decreases.
Barcelona: Personal security and safety, decreased 3 points, from 69 (2003) to 66
(2004):
Also difficult to explain taking in consideration that, as you can observe below, the
satisfaction level of the customers of Metro and buses increased in 2004.
Data TMB: the ISC of personal security increased on buses 2,3 points, from 70,2 to 72,5; and Metro
increased more (4,4 points), from 54,2 to 58,6.
Copenhagen: DSB has introduced CCTV on a number of stations and on the trains to
reduce the number of assaults on the passengers. Since March 2004 the metro has
also been equipped with video surveillance on board the trains in addition to the
stations.
Geneva: Results are stable. But operators and Authority are very concerned by this
issue. Some improvements were decided, such as cameras in vehicles running or
social workers approaching groups in the evenings.
Helsinki: No comments.
Oslo: Oslo, like other cities, has a number of smaller accidents in the public transport
system during a year. However, in general Oslo is considered a safe and peaceful city,
and public transport is still considered a relative safe way of travelling.
18Stockholm: The scores on all three questions are significantly lower than last year.
Widespread negative press coverage concerning graffiti, vandalism, ticket fraud and
beggars in the system may have affected the result. That is also the case with the
public discussion on late night improved and increased staff presence in the metro due
to experienced low security level. This change will probably improve the score ahead.
Vienna: Several activities could help maintain the high level safety feeling despite the
increasingly difficult general conditions. The downward trend in the region is probably
due to the fact that stations are increasingly unstaffed.
19Comfort
• Comfortable to travel with public transport
• Easy to change routes
• Modern busses and trains
• Clean busses and trains
• Access to a seat when travelling
General comments: Vienna and Geneva are still the regions where the citizens are
most pleased with comfort although the score is slightly lower than last year. Only one
region, Oslo, has improved since last year. This quality dimension contains five
questions.
1. “Travelling with public transport is comfortable – Oslo has improved 6% since
last year. The changes in the other regions are small and insignificant.
2. “Transfers are easy” – Oslo has improved 13% since last year. In Helsinki there
is no change. The others regions show decreased satisfaction.
3. “The busses and trains are modern” – Oslo has improved 13% and Stockholm
11% since last year. Vienna and Copenhagen have slightly and the others
either show no changes or decreases.
4. “The busses and trains are clean” – Oslo has improved 17% and Stockholm
8%. The other regions show no change or decreases.
5. “I normally get a seat when I travel” – Oslo has improved 5% since last year.
The other regions have small changes or decreases.
Barcelona: Comfort, decreased 4 points, from 60 (2003) to 56 (2004):
As mentioned before, the increase of passengers due to the extension of the fare
integration increased the level of agglomeration on trains and buses and explains why
the aspect “I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport” obviously has
decreased.
Copenhagen: HUR has lowered its standards of the buses by allowing older rolling
stock to decrease the price per vehicle hour. However, standards are still very high.
The metro has until today not received one single complaint about the comfort
onboard. By 2006, all S-trains have been replaced by a new generation of trains.
Geneva: The decrease is mainly due to customer’s congestion in PT in peak hours. As
population is growing fast, congestion is increasing, as well as PT travellers
dissatisfaction.
20Helsinki: The new low-floor trams have improved the comfort but in the same time the
rate of renewing the busses has been retarded.
Oslo: There have been large investments in infrastructure and rolling stock over the
last years:
Tendering in the SL area (region bus lines) has led to new bus operators and a newer
bus fleet.
The National State Railway (NSB) has introduced a new generation of commuter
trains.
Introduction of a new generation of 32 Italian built trams.
Bus operators on city bus lines has bought and put into traffic a number of new
articulated or 15-meter busses. All equipped with low-floor entry, air condition,
electronic systems for customer information, etc.
Heavy maintenance and upgraded infrastructure on the largest metro lines.
After all these investments, we can finally see a positive trend in the long term on the
comfort parameter.
Stockholm: The scores have not changed significantly except for the improvement of
the score for modern trains and busses. This probably reflects the big number of new
metro cars and also the light rail as well as a number of new modern busses.
Vienna: As before, a modernized vehicle fleet has positively influenced the results for
the urban area. There are no differences between the city of Vienna and its
surroundings. All expectations regarding cleanliness, state-of-the-art rolling stock and
seating could be met.
21Social Image
• Positive development of public transport
• Good for the environment
• Beneficial to society
General comments: Geneva (again) and Helsinki are the regions where the citizens
give the highest score on social image. The scores have not been changed much in
this dimension although in two regions there is a decrease. This quality dimension
contains three questions.
1. “Positive development of public transport” – Oslo improved 22% since last year.
The other regions show no change or decreases.
2. “Good for the environment” – Stable results since last year or in one case a
decrease.
3. “Beneficial to society” – Very small changes or a decrease since last year.
Barcelona: Social image remains as before, from 81 (2003) to 81 (2004):
Difficult to explain.
Copenhagen: There is not much to write. The decreasing figures are outcomes of the
lowered image because of the raising fares.
Geneva: PT is well appreciated in general.
Helsinki: The score has decreased a bit, which comes probably from the increase of
the ticket prices.
Oslo: According to the results, people in Greater Oslo are remarkably aware of the
benefits of public transport for society. 92% of the respondents agree with the
statement “Public transport is beneficial to society”. Saying that, it is somewhat
alarming that only 50% say they agree with the statement “More people will travel with
public transport in the future” (an increase from 41% last year). People agree that
public transport is beneficial, but do not believe in an increased number of travellers in
the future. These questions are probably influenced by peoples’ general attitudes to the
public transport, created by media.
22Stockholm: The scores on benefit for the environment and society are stable. There is
decreased belief that more people will travel with public transport in the future. This
probably reflects widespread negative press coverage and increased fares the weeks
before the survey was conducted.
Vienna: This figure has remained the same for the last four years, which shows that
the image has been constantly high, despite several parameter changes. It is also quite
pleasing to see that a growing number of people anticipate growth for the public
transport sector.
23Value for Money
• Public transport gives value for money
• Public transport fares are reasonable
General comments: Helsinki and Vienna are the regions where the citizens give the
highest score on value for money. Vienna is up 13%. But the level is disquietingly low
and with the exceptions of Vienna and Oslo deteriorating in some cases substantially.
This quality dimension contains two questions.
1. “Public transport gives value for money” – Vienna improved 20% since 2003.
2. “Public transport fares are reasonable” – Vienna improved 8% since 2003.
Barcelona: Value for money, decreased 2 points, from 37 (2003) to 35 (2004):
The situation of congestion, mentioned before, at great part of the public transport
system is at the origin of the important decrease in the relation quality/price and
consequently originates a lower satisfaction level of the Barcelona citizen.
Copenhagen: Please see the preceding comment.
Geneva: The global raised fare was 8% in average. Tariffs have not been changed
since 1996. And, tariff reduction for customers over 65 was abolished. But, on the other
hand no reduction of travellers occurred. We even noticed an increase!
Helsinki: The ticket prices increased about 10% 2004 which did reduce the amount of
passengers. It did cause transfers to the use of cars e.g. Since in the same time the
traffic supply had been cut down the citizens have reacted strongly to the changes
which can be seen as decrease of the citizen satisfaction too.
Oslo: There is no increase in public transport fares over the last years, except an
annual change to compensate for the inflation rate.
During the last year, we have focused even more on information regarding the price
per journey, to help the individual customer choose the ”correct” period card or
multiride ticket (and not only focus on the price for a period or ticket).
A slightly higher number of people find our fares reasonable, which might indicate that
more aggressive information campaigns regarding different discounts also have been
effective. More customers have knowledge of different products, such as discount for
families, youths, students, etc.
24Stockholm: The score of value for money is disturbingly low and has decreased
heavily since 2003. It is now at its lowest level since the start of BEST. This is true for
both questions in this dimension. The main reason is the big fare increase at the time
of 2004 survey. Again this raises the question on how to handle fare increases in the
future. There are signs that small regular increases rather than big and not so frequent
ones are more acceptable to the customer.
Vienna: After a decrease in 2003 as a result of the price rise in the year 2002,
customer satisfaction figures have recovered.
25Loyalty
• Willingness to recommend others to use public transport
General comments: The dimension contains one question. Helsinki has the most loyal
citizens. Oslo has improved 10% since last year. The other regions have decreases.
Barcelona: Loyalty – recommend travelling, decreased 2 points, from 66 (2003) to 64
(2004):
Difficult to explain.
Copenhagen: Please see the preceding comment.
Geneva: PT is still well recommended.
Helsinki: The increase of the ticket prices has probably reflected this too.
Oslo: There is normally a close connection between loyalty and customer satisfaction.
Loyalty increases, like this year, when customer satisfaction increases.
Stockholm: The score on willingness to recommend others to use public transport is
down since last year from a level that already was too low. It can be assumed that the
fare increases and widespread negative press coverage have influenced also this
dimension.
Vienna: The preparedness to recommend public transportation is closely correlated
with changes in the other parameters. Factors such as unhappiness about schedule
reductions – even if only in parts – and the subjective feeling of a slightly decreasing
safety level do seem to have an immediate impact on word-of-mouth recommendation.
2627
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency
The graphs below show the correlation between the citizen satisfaction and travel
frequency. Our hypothesis that satisfied citizen’s travel more with Public Transport
seems to be correct. Those who travel most with public transport are less satisfied than
those who are our customers a few times a week. The explanation is probably that the
number of ”captive riders” (customers with no alternatives) are higher among the daily
customers.
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – all regions
2004 2004 2003 2002 2001
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Barcelona
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Copenhagen
28Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Geneva
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Helsinki
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Oslo
29Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Stockholm
Citizen’s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Vienna
3031
Background information
The graphs below show travel frequency, life situation, age and sex distribution for
each participating region in the survey. The figures are weighted according to sex and
age.
Travel Frequency
Helsinki
Stockholm
Barcelona
Geneva
Vienna
Oslo
Copenhagen
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Daily A few times/week or more seldom Never
Life Situation
Oslo
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Geneva
Vienna
Barcelona
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Work fulltime Work part time Student Retired Other No answer
The Nordic regions have a larger amount of people working full or part time than the
other participating regions.
32Age
Helsinki
Barcelona
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Geneva
Oslo
Vienna
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
16-24 25-44 45-64 65-79 80+
Sex
Oslo
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Vienna
Geneva
Helsinki
Barcelona
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Men Women
33TEMO Summary - About the survey
As responsible for managing the survey in all participating regions we have outlined the most
important actions taken compared to the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 surveys.
• A more clarified selecting process (was done before the 2002 survey)
This is a citizen survey and in order to make as many as possible of the non-travellers
participate, we improved the selecting process in the questionnaire. In the introduction the
interviewers more clearly have explained that this is a citizen survey and that the local
authorities also are interested to find out what the non-travelling citizen think about public
transport. In general this action has small but negative influence on the results, since there is a
correlation between travel frequency and satisfaction.
• Actions taken in handling the sample (was done before the 2002 survey)
In order to improve the response rate the local institutes have received target levels for the
response rate and a more detailed plan how to work with the sample. The sample used by the
local institutes has been called through, i e the ambition has been to eliminate all ongoing
contacts when reaching 1000 interviews. All numbers has been called at least 7 times before
being classified as unavailable. The highest response rates achieved in the 2002 or 2003
surveys became the target levels for 2004. Six of the regions achieved their response rate
target levels, one region ended up with a lower response rate.
• Weighting has been done regarding sex and age to match the region profile
The conducted interviews shall correspond with the demographic profile in each region
according to sex and age. In all regions the results have been weighted according to the
demographic profile for the region. This was introduced before the 2002 where profiles didn’t
match and it was fully implemented in the 2003 and 2004 surveys.
No weight matrix was used 2001. Since some differences in Helsinki and Vienna were
significant when comparing weighted and unweighted results, the results for 2001 were adjusted
using the weighted results.
• Drop out analysis (was done before the 2002 survey)
In BEST 2002, 2003 and 2004 we have also asked those who did not want to participate in the
survey how often they travel with public transport. The conclusion is that the main part of the
refusals, do not travel regularly with public transport.
• The questionnaire
No changes were done from 2002, 2003 or 2004. Between 2001 and 2002 some minor changes
in questionnaire were done.
The local institutes have been responsible for the translation of the English questionnaire into
the local language. The questionnaire has also been back translated (i.e. verified by a
translation agency) in Sweden by Temo. The local public transport authorities have been given
the possibility to go through the questionnaire to confirm that the content of the questionnaire is
suitable for the local public transport authorities of the region. The scale in the English
questionnaire has been translated into the most similar and suitable used scale for this kind of
surveys in each region.
• Fieldwork
The fieldwork 2004 was conducted from March 8 to March 26. Most of the interviews (70-90%)
have been conducted on weekdays (Monday through Friday) between 17.00 and 21.00.
• Margin of error
Margin of error, due to different proportions in answers
5-95% 10-90% 15-85% 20-80% 25-75% 30-70% 35-65% 40-60% 45-55% 50-50%
1000 int ±1, 4% ±1, 9 ±2, 3 ±2, 5 ±2, 7 ±2, 9 ±3, 0 ±3, 1 ±3, 1 ±3, 2
When comparing two surveys you have two margins of errors. This means significant
differences when the difference is approx 1, 5 at the margin of error. For example, if you have
50% satisfied customers, you must reach almost 55% satisfied customer in the next survey to
have a significant difference.
34TEMO Summary - General comments on the results
The results are quite stable compared with 2003. In general, with some exceptions
(especially Value for Money), the differences for the regions are within the margin of
error.
Barcelona: The overall satisfaction is the same as for 2003, also the fact that the result
for this question is higher than the other indexes. This pattern has been almost the
same in every survey since 2001, and it was thoroughly commented last year. The
results are in general somewhat lower, but they are within the margin of error.
Copenhagen: The overall satisfaction is somewhat lower compared with 2003 (-6%).
This would probably mostly depend on raised fares that have a negative influence on
the Value for money aspect (-15%) and on loyalty (-7%). All indexes have decreased,
but not all decreases are significant.
Geneva: The overall satisfaction this year is somewhat lower compared with 2003 and
this should mostly depend on a large decrease for Value for money (-28%). Still,
Geneva has reached high scored in 3 out of 10 question areas.
Helsinki: The overall results are quite stable compared with 2003 and 2002, with one
big exception. Due to raised fares the result for Value for money is effected (-15%). In
spite of the decrease Helsinki reaches the highest score of all regions in that area.
Helsinki has the highest score in 4 out of 10 question areas.
Oslo: The overall results indicate no major changes from last year (2003). The results
are in general somewhat higher, but the differences are within the margins of error.
Stockholm: The overall satisfaction has not significantly changed. As for some of the
other participants, Stockholm has raised their fares, which influences Value for Money
(-19%). Also Personal Security and Safety has decreased (-9%). The positive aspect is
that Reliability has increased (+8%).
Vienna: The overall results are quite stable compared with 2003. Vienna has the
highest score in 2 out of 10 question areas.
35How to read the graphs
Name of each region
Grade 3 is left out in all the graphs,
in this graph’s first statement 18% of Blue, Top-box =
In this base the respondents the respondents gave grade 3 Grade 4 and 5
that have answered ”don’t - 73% agree to
know” are excluded the statement
Red, Bottom-box = grade 1 and 2, e.g
9% don’t agree to the statement ” in Dark Grey /Light Dark Grey /Light The region (among all 7)
BEST 2004 for this region Grey, Bottom -box = Grey, Top-box = who had the highest
Grade 1 and 2 from Grade 4 and 5 score had 74%
2003/2002 for this for earlier for respondents who gave
region this region. grade 4 or 5 for this
statement
36You can also read
