benchmarking in european service of public transport (best) main results of the best 2010 survey

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)

Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey

BEST 2010

BEST City report 20102

Content

1. About the survey

2. How to read the graphs

3. Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2010,

2009, 2008 and 2007

4. Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010

5. Main results per city from 2005 to 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction

Satisfaction per city/region 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 from 2005 to 2010

6. Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency

BEST 2010

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 2010


Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey

Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used Main occupation Sex Age Post code (geography)

Loyalty

8. Value for money

7. Social image

Satisfaction

1. Traffic Supply2. Reliability3. Information4. Staff behaviour5. Personal security/safety6. Comfort

Ridership

BEST 2010


Response rates

Response rates are calculated as follows:

YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Copenhagen 38 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 53 % 39 % 40 % 32 % 37 % 34 %

Geneva 50 % 47 % 50 % 49 % 47 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 38 %

Helsinki 41 % 49 % 45 % 47 % 40 % 37 % 32 % 26 % 30 % 36 %

Oslo 37 % 44 % 48 % 45 % 40 % 39 % 28 % 27 % 28 % 27 %

Stockholm 50 % 64 % 56 % 60 % 56 % 50 % 64 % 51 % 62 % 64 %

Vienna 39 % 57 % 58 % 61 % 58 % 58 % 54 % 46 % 43 % 16 %

5

BEST Survey response rate =

Number of completed interviews

(Total sample ÷ telephone numbers not in use / not in target group)

BEST 2010


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.

City Sample base and primary sampling unit

Stockholm Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

Oslo Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit

HelsinkiFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit, priority to mobile telephone numbers

Copenhagen Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit

Vienna Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit

Geneva Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

BEST 2010


Mobile interviews*

City % mobile interviews 2008 % mobile interviews 2009 % mobile interviews 2010

Stockholm 2,5%** 2,3%** 2,1%**

Oslo 40% 39% 44%

Helsinki 82% 96% 98%

Copenhagen 25% 35% 36%

Vienna 7% 9% 44%

Geneva 0% 0% 0%

* Share of interviews conducted with respondents using a mobile phone

** If mobile callback requested by respondent only

BEST 2010


How to read the graphs

Time series

4449 47

51

58 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CITIZEN SATISFACTION

<TOTAL BASE: NNN>

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.

BEST 2006

10 Citizens Satisfaction Survey 2006

BEST Survey 2007Citizen satisfaction

80

79

76

73

67

66

58

-5

-3

-3

-6

-10

-10

-11

Vienna

Helsinki

Prague

Berlin

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all<TOTAL BASE: NNN>

5852585658

4751585866

6764666567

..637373

..80.76

8078768179

7875757480

20032004200520062007

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 performing city/region perindex 2006 - 2010

BEST 2010

Citizen satisfaction

Traffic supply

Reliability

Information

Staff behaviour

Security and safety

Comfort

Value for money

Social image

Loyalty

-6

-15

-11

-11

-7

-5

-11

-24

-4

-6

77

68

73

71

74

84

67

51

88

80

Partly/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Citizen satisfaction Helsinki (77)

Geneva (84)

Geneva(78)

Vienna(80)

Helsinki(81)

Traffic supply Geneva (68)

Geneva (71)

Berlin(86)

Berlin(84)

Berlin(70)

Reliability Geneva (73)

Geneva (76)

Berlin(84)

Berlin(84)

Geneva(79)

Information Geneva (71)

Geneva (75)

Geneva(71)

Geneva(71)

Geneva(66)

Staff behaviour Geneva (74)

Geneva (78)

Geneva(74)

Geneva(75)

Geneva(76)

Security and safety Oslo (84)

Oslo (82)

Oslo(82)

Vienna(87)

Vienna(81)

Comfort Geneva (67)

Geneva (71)

Berlin(78)

Berlin(77)

Geneva(67)

Value for money Helsinki (51)

Helsinki (51)

Berlin(56)

Vienna(53)

Helsinki(50)

Social image Oslo(90)

Geneva (90)

Oslo(87)

Oslo(89)

Geneva(85)

Loyalty Helsinki (80)

Helsinki (81)

Helsinki(80)

Vienna(81)

Vienna(75)

Best performing city per index

BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 10

Results per index and city/region

BEST 2010

Results per index and city/region in 2010

Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Citizen satisfaction 72 77 77 67 60 60

Traffic supply 64 67 68 60 59 56

Reliability 53 56 73 40 39 43

Information 53 46 71 40 44 45

Staff behaviour 56 59 74 55 67 65

Security & safety 74 76 74 69 84 71

Comfort 60 62 67 57 56 56

Social image 81 87 87 85 88 71

Value for money 42 51 36 39 37 28

Loyalty 72 80 75 62 60 47


BEST 2010



Citizen satisfaction 61 82 84 76 62 56

Traffic supply 68 68 71 63 57 54

Reliability 65 68 76 50 39 43

Information 61 52 75 52 46 46


Security & safety 72 74 79 70 82 68

Comfort 61 62 71 59 53 58

Social image 84 89 90 86 88 73

Value for money 40 51 40 36 38 28

Loyalty 65 81 75 63 61 47


BEST 2010


Vienna Helsinki Geneva Berlin Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen

Citizen satisfaction 68 76 78 73 64 62 50

Traffic supply 60 65 68 86 59 59 55

Reliability 56 64 79 84 41 48 41

Information 54 49 71 70 48 46 48

Staff behaviour 54 54 74 72 54 69 65

Security & safety 76 72 77 68 64 82 69

Comfort 60 63 68 78 56 52 55

Social image 79 84 86 80 80 87 69

Value for money 33 47 33 56 26 38 27

Loyalty 70 80 73 75 56 63 42


BEST 2010



Citizen satisfaction 80 79 79 73 67 66 58

Traffic supply 72 66 69 84 58 62 57

Reliability 72 64 83 84 36 52 40

Information 64 48 71 67 49 47 43

Staff behaviour 71 57 75 71 55 74 66

Security & safety 87 71 80 72 65 83 70

Comfort 69 63 71 77 55 54 54

Social image 85 86 87 80 80 89 70

Value for money 53 49 31 53 46 34 35

Loyalty 81 78 75 71 61 65 49


BEST 2010

Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010


Citizen satisfaction 11 -4 -6 -9 -2 4

Traffic supply -4 -1 -3 -3 2 1

Reliability -13 -12 -3 -9 0 0

Information -8 -6 -4 -11 -2 -1

Staff behaviour -4 1 -3 -3 -4 -3

Security & safety 2 3 -5 -2 2 3

Comfort -1 0 -4 -2 3 -2

Social image -3 -2 -3 -1 0 -2

Value for money 2 0 -4 3 -1 -1

Loyalty 7 -1 0 -2 -1 0


BEST 2010



Citizen satisfaction -6 6 6 13 -1 6

Traffic supply 8 3 3 4 -2 -1

Reliability 9 4 -3 9 -9 2

Information 8 3 4 4 1 -2


Security & safety -3 2 2 7 0 -1

Comfort 1 -1 3 4 1 3

Social image 4 4 4 6 0 4

Value for money 7 4 8 10 0 1

Loyalty -5 1 3 8 -1 5


BEST 2010



Citizen satisfaction -12 -3 -1 0 -3 -4 -8

Traffic supply -12 -1 -1 2 1 -3 -2

Reliability -16 0 -4 0 5 -4 1

Information -10 1 0 3 -1 -1 5

Staff behaviour -17 -3 -1 1 -1 -5 -1

Security & safety -11 1 -3 -4 -1 -1 -1

Comfort -9 0 -3 1 1 -2 1

Social image -6 -2 -1 0 0 -2 -1

Value for money -20 -2 2 3 -20 4 -8

Loyalty -11 2 -2 4 -5 -2 -7


Which improvements matter most?

Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction

BEST 2010

How is the most important areas for improvements determined?

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

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


BEST 2010

I am satisfied with the number of departures

Public transport mostly runs on schedule

Waiting time is short at trans-fers

Transfers are easy

The staff answers my ques-tions correctly

0.24

0.19

0.13

0.12

0.10

CopenhagenI am satisfied with the number of departures

Waiting time is short at transfers

I normally get a seat when I travel with public trans-

port

The information is good when traffic problems

occur

The staff behaves nicely and correctly

0.24

0.14

0.12

0.12

0.11

GenevaI am satisfied with the number of departures

Transfers are easy


I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using

public transport

The busses and trains are clean

0.23

0.19

0.14

0.10

0.08

Helsinki



I feel secure at stations and bus stops

The busses and trains are modern


0.30

0.25

0.10

0.09

0.09

OsloPublic transport mostly runs

on schedule


The staff behaves nicely and correctly


The busses and trains are clean

0.25

0.17

0.17

0.15

0.12

StockholmI am satisfied with the number of departures


Nearest stop is close to where I live

It is easy to get the informa-tion needed when planning a

trip

I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using pub-

lic transport

0.20

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.09

Vienna

Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport?

When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each city is of prime interest. Comparison of the estimated effects across cities must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.


Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2005 - 2010

BEST 2010

Overall citizen satisfaction

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Oslo

-6

-7

-6

-10

-13

-15

77

77

72

67

60

60

Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

77 82 76 79 81

77 84 78 79 76

72 61 68 80 74

67 76 64 67 65

60 56 50 58 56

60 62 62 66 58


BEST 2010

Overall citizen satisfaction

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

% satisfied citizens


Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Traffic supply

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-15

-12

-16

-16

-22

-21

68

67

64

60

59

56


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

68 71 68 69 68

67 68 65 66 67

64 68 60 72 66

60 63 59 58 57

59 57 59 62 55

56 54 55 57 56


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Traffic supply




Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Reliability

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Copenhagen

Stockholm

Oslo

-11

-21

-19

-26

-29

-37

73

56

53

43

40

39

Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

73 76 79 83 79

56 68 64 64 72

53 65 56 72 68

43 43 41 40 38

40 50 41 36 38

39 39 48 52 43


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Reliability




Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Information

Geneva

Vienna

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Oslo

Stockholm

-11

-20

-28

-27

-32

-33

71

53

46

45

44

40


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

71 75 71 71 66

53 61 54 64 64

46 52 49 48 57

45 46 48 43 48

44 46 46 47 42

40 52 58 49 51


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Information




Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Staff behaviour

Geneva

Oslo

Copenhagen

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

-7

-9

-8

-12

-11

-10

74

67

65

59

56

55


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

74 78 74 75 76

67 71 69 74 65

65 68 65 66 65

59 58 54 57 59

56 60 54 71 67

55 58 54 55 59


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Staff behaviour




Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Security and safety

Oslo

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Copenhagen

Stockholm

-5

-8

-10

-9

-10

-9

84

76

74

74

71

69


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

84 82 82 83 80

76 74 72 71 72

74 79 77 80 74

74 72 76 87 81

71 68 69 70 70

69 70 64 65 63


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Security and safety




Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Comfort

Geneva

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-11

-11

-10

-13

-15

-14

67

62

60

57

56

56


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

67 71 68 71 67

62 62 63 63 63

60 61 60 69 64

57 59 56 55 53

56 53 52 54 48

56 58 55 54 54


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Comfort




Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Social image

Oslo

Helsinki

Geneva

Stockholm

Vienna

Copenhagen

-4

-3

-3

-2

-5

-9

88

87

87

85

81

71


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

88 88 87 89 81

87 89 84 86 82

87 90 86 87 85

85 86 80 80 81

81 84 79 85 81

71 73 69 70 68


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Social image




Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Value for money

Helsinki

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Geneva

Copenhagen

-24

-29

-29

-37

-39

-44

51

42

39

37

36

28


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

51 51 47 49 50

42 40 33 53 49

39 36 26 46 40

37 38 38 34 34

36 40 33 31 25

28 28 27 35 32


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Value for money




Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2010

BEST 2010

Loyalty

Helsinki

Geneva

Vienna

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

-6

-8

-7

-12

-17

-23

80

75

72

62

60

47


2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

80 81 80 78 75

75 75 73 75 67

72 65 70 81 75

62 63 56 61 57

60 61 63 65 53

47 47 42 49 45


BEST 2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

Copenhagen

Geneva

Helsinki

Oslo

Stockholm

Vienna

Loyalty




Background information

BEST 2010

Gender

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

48.4180022123591

49.3842332373874

48.4676979679708

47.5257509224384

48.2460763193953

49.4373762641506

47.0000742050901

51.5819977876382

50.6157667626122

51.5323020320295

52.474249077561

51.7539236806043

50.5626237358495

52.9999257949096

Man

Woman


BEST 2010

Life situation

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

52.9660971732981

64.272515264563

63.3224407233084

53.3863410070534

54.0319214489873

39.7498869888893

43.0760950201183

9.66567255013258

9.6605440887341

5.41173185899434

4.84301414196578

8.45183592432019

12.1156227359617

20.5327585472363

10.4115274998893

7.35408596446853

9.39008117157792

12.0926415469222

11.1294368096071

12.5434753269427

8.79674345660109

21.0669017714497

15.593098674877

18.4653939799513

22.8287879163589

21.4915376339934

26.3034176202166

20.4587934732322

5.72840102405961

3.11975600735736

3.23786316311156

6.73326916930523

4.89526818309182

8.99019966805159

6.73257185442918

Working, fulltime

Working, part time

Student

Retired

Others


BEST 2010

Public transport travel frequency

Total

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Vienna

Geneva

34.5346378126786

34.756889607314

35.5540551189134

43.6056344502989

19.9213653866499

33.4170117356801

34.4639142245157

25.4307079660184

26.4350819727655

24.7148414828243

21.4480828836509

26.5433670382628

28.07432857083

27.9798194156118

21.8683620250321

20.4175254718945

23.2127592936516

21.0053535884956

26.2303445966877

18.0262670035138

22.5212749594622

16.025777972407

15.547145197583

14.6311039182596

12.3346838843125

24.0041972327383

18.6748991953525

13.2730205292082

2.05773183746442

2.72639817497174

1.78724070634833

1.5437842664548

3.3007257456608

1.68641843313859

1.64874310377691

Daily

A few times per week

A few times per month

Less than monthly

Never


For more information and other reports see our web site http://best2005.net or https://report.scandinfo.se/best/

http://best2005.net/

benchmarking in european service of public transport (best) main results of the best 2010 survey

Documents

best survey

best city report

best sampling method

best performing cityregion

sampling sampling procedures

secondary sampling unit

primary sampling unit

mobile telephone numbers