best survey 2009 city report: helsinki benchmarking in european service of public transport

BEST Survey 2009City report: Helsinki

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

BEST 2009

BEST City report 20092

Content

1) About the survey

2) How to read the graphs

3) Results Best performing city/region per index

Results per index and city/region in 2009, 2008 and 2007

Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2009

Overall citizen satisfaction 2005 – 2009

Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2009 with:

Traffic supply

Reliability

Information

Staff behaviour

Security and safety

Comfort

Perception of social image 2005 - 2009

Perception of value for money 2005 - 2009

Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2009

4) Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency

BEST 2009


About the survey

The following cities participated in the BEST 2009 survey:

Stockholm

Oslo

Helsinki (with additional questions)

Copenhagen

Vienna (with additional question)

Geneva

For all cities 1000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 300 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2009. All interviews have been done by telephone.

The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2009 was conducted between March 2nd and March 15th 2009.

Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area.

The questionnaire used in the survey is an updated version of the 2007/8questionnaire. In 2009, two new questions have been added (‘If the use of private cars in _________________ (city/region) became more expensive due to increase in toll fares or other taxes, and the extra income was used to improve public transport, would you consider this to be a: _____ ‘ and ‘We would like you to think of the travels you regularly perform in _________________ (city/region). Which modes of transport do you normally use on these travels?’

BEST 2009


Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey

Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport

PT modes most often used (NEW 2007)

Main occupation

Loyalty

8. Value for money

7. Social image

Satisfaction

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

Sex

Age

Post code (geography)

Ridership

BEST 2009


Response rates

Calculation of response rate Response rate:

Response rate = 100 x Number of completes(1000) = %

Total valid sample* *Total sample minus invalid

numbers such as number not in use/not in target group

YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEST 2009


Mobile interviews and 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, Austria and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed line telephones.

By mistake information was provided last year that the Swedish sample covered both mobile and fixed lines. The Swedish sample has been drawn from a database covering fixed lines for all years from 2007. Wheter mobile sample was included before 2007 has not been determined.

In all instances it is estimated that approximatelly 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% mobile

interviews 2008% mobile

interviews 2009

Stockholm 2,5%* 2,3%*

Oslo 40% 39%

Helsinki 82% 96%

Copenhagen 25% 35%

Vienna 7% 9%

Geneva 0% 0%

* If mobile callback requested by respondent only

CitySample base and primary sampling unit

% mobile in sample 2009

StockholmFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

0%

OsloFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit

40%

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

89%

CopenhagenFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit

21%

ViennaFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

0%

GenevaFixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

0%

BEST 2009


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.

Results 2009Helsinki

BEST 2009


Helsinki Indices 2009

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

82 76 79 81 76

68 65 66 67 65

68 64 64 72 75

52 49 48 57 52

58 54 57 59 56

74 72 71 72 72

62 63 63 63 64

89 84 86 82 81

51 47 49 50 48

81 80 78 75 76

Helsinki 2009

Quality dimensions

BEST 2009


Helsinki Traffic supply

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

68 65 66 67 65

68 66 68 65 66

65 63 65 65 64

87 81 83 84 80

54 48 50 50 46

90 87 88 89 88

68 66 70 70 68

47 45 43 49 50

62 60 63 62 60

BEST 2009


Helsinki Reliability

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

68 64 64 72 75

BEST Survey 2009 – page 12

BEST 2009


Helsinki Information

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

52 49 48 57 52

82 78 77 80 77

25 23 22 33 26

46 44 44 - -

BEST 2009


Helsinki Staff behaviour

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

58 54 57 59 56

49 48 51 53 51

66 60 62 65 61

BEST 2009


Helsinki Security and safety

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

74 72 71 72 72

65 65 64 64 64

69 67 66 67 69

87 83 84 84 83

BEST 2009


Helsinki Comfort

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

62 63 63 63 64

63 72 71 66 68

61 57 59 57 59

70 70 68 70 71

38 41 40 45 45

78 76 75 76 74

BEST 2009


Helsinki Social Image

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

89 84 86 82 81

79 68 68 62 60

93 92 93 90 90

94 93 95 93 91

BEST 2009


Helsinki Value for money

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

51 47 49 50 48

61 57 60 60 60

41 37 37 40 37

BEST 2009


Helsinki Loyalty

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

81 80 78 75 76

BEST Survey 2009 – page 19

Impact on satisfaction

Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

BEST 2009


How is the most important areas for improvements determined? Traffic supply

PT is good for school_work trips PT is good for leisure trips PT is good for trips in the city centre PT is good for trips outside the city centre Nearest stop is close to where I live Travel time on PT is reasonable 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 Information is good in stops and terminals

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 PT travel is comfortable Transfers are easy Busses and trains are modern Busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when travel with PT

Social image More people will travel with PT in the future PT is good for the environment PT is beneficial to society

Value for money PT gives good value for money PT fares are reasonable

Loyalty I gladly recommend PT travel

The highlighted indicators (indicators in bold) 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 percertion 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 2009.

How is the most important areas for improvements determined?

Overall satisfaction

with PT

21

BEST 2009


Impact on satisfaction - Helsinki

2008 20092007

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.

Helsinki 2009

Appendix

Helsinki 2009

Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki CITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Traffic supply in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Traffic supply - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Good for work/school trips - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Reliability in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Reliability - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Information in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Information - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Staff behaviour in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Staff behaviour - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Security and safety in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Security and safety - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Comfort in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Comfort - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Transfers are easy - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Busses and trains are modern - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Busses and trains are clean - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki I normally get a seat when travel with PT - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Social image in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Social image - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki More people will travel with PT in the future - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT is good for the environment - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT is beneficial to society - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Value for money in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Value for money - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT gives good value for money - Subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki PT fares are reasonable - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Loyalty in subgroups

BEST 2009


Helsinki Loyalty - Subgroups

Helsinki 2009

Background information

BEST 2009


Public transport travel frequency – Helsinki 2009

BEST 2009


Life situation – Helsinki 2009

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

http://best2005.net/

best survey 2009 city report: helsinki benchmarking in european service of public transport

Documents

best city report

oslo sporveier best

total sample

mobile interviews

swedish sample

fixed lines

overall citizen satisfaction

g p i g v c