Bus Mystery Traveller Survey Half-year results 2010/2011

2

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Methodology 4

3. Key results 5

4. Results, tables and charts 2008/09 7

5. Technical annex - Mystery Traveller Survey 15

3

1. Introduction

Passenger Focus is an independent public body set up by the Government to protect the interests of Britain’s rail passengers and England’s bus passengers outside Lon-don, coach passengers on scheduled domestic services and tram passengers. We are funded by the Department for Transport but our operations and policy-making are inde-pendent of government.

As part of Passenger Focus acquiring the remit for bus passenger representation, Passenger Focus took over management and publication of the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey from the DfT in April 2009.

Each quarter, 1200 journeys are assessed by ‘mystery travellers’. Mystery travellers are researchers trained to assess aspects of the journey objectively and consistently. Ob-jectivity was enhanced by a training video and assessor briefing notes. The work was carried out across nine urban areas: the six Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) areas of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, West Midlands and Tyne and Wear; and three non PTE areas: Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester. The areas of Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester are grouped for reporting under the title of ‘Non PTE’ areas.

The journeys were chosen to give good coverage of the urban centres and outer area journeys and include as many operators and services as possible, particularly the more frequent services.

The DfT first commissioned this work in 2006 to address concerns that the high scores achieved in bus passenger satisfaction research reflected low expectations on the part of bus passengers. Results of the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey have been published annually since 2007-08. In addition to annual results, Passenger Focus will now publish results biannually.

4

2. Methodology

This report presents the key results from the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey for the first half of financial year 2010-2011, comprising two quarters of approximately 1200 journeys each.

Mystery travellers complete a questionnaire for each journey. The questions cover the environment at the bus stop, the bus itself, the punctuality, quality of the journey and the behaviour of the driver. Rating questions have scales from 0 to 10, with defined marking systems to enhance objectivity and consistency across the survey. The 0 to 10 scores are then multiplied by 10 to give a ‘points out of 100’ score. The ‘points out of 100’ score enables comparison with some of the scores from the DfT Bus Satisfaction Survey.

5

3. Key results

Overall (see Table 1)

• Overall scores are largely similar to those achieved in the full year 2009/10.• Assessors rated bus journeys highly, with ‘overall satisfaction’ scoring 78 points out

of 100 compared to 79 in 2009/10.• The highest overall ratings were given for the ‘overall level of graffiti on the bus

exterior’ and the ‘clarity of the route number/destination on the front of the bus’ with scores of 97 points out of 100 for both indicators.

• The composite indicators for ‘exterior cleanliness’ and ‘ease of boarding/alighting’ scored highly at 88 points out of 100 each.

• The lowest rating was given for the ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ at 66 points out of 100, followed by ‘cleanliness of bus stop/shelter’ at 72 points out of 100.

• There were limited differences in ‘overall satisfaction’ across different areas, with scores ranging from 75 points out of 100 to 84 out of 100. Tyne and Wear continues to be the highest scoring area for overall satisfaction.

Bus stop information (see Table 3)

• Across all areas 78 per cent of bus stops had shelters.• The majority of bus stops had timetable information. Where a shelter was present,

95 per cent had a legible timetable. For bus stops without a shelter, 84 per cent had legible timetable information.

• A minority (24%) of bus stops have countdown displays. These countdown displays were working correctly in the majority of cases.

Quality of driving and driver behaviour (see Table 6)

• Scores for ‘appropriateness of speed’ were higher at 80 points out of 100 than those given for ‘general smoothness of ride’ at 74 points out of 100. Scores for both of these indicators do not appear to be greatly affected by the type of weather or by bus type.

• The score for ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ for all areas is 66 points out of 100. The type of question asked of the driver does not appear to noticeable affect this score. The score for ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ is lowest in the West Midlands at 58 points out of 100 and highest in South Yorkshire at 80 points out of 100. These areas were similarly placed in 2009/10.

666

Punctuality

• Overall 81 per cent of buses arrived within the punctuality window of one minute early to five minutes late. This is 1 per cent higher than for the annual 2009/10 results. Overall 10 per cent of buses were early and 10 per cent late. The percentage of buses arriving on time was highest in the Non PTE areas (92 per cent) followed by Tyne and Wear (90 per cent) (see Table 7). The percentage of late running buses was highest during the 3pm to 4.59pm period (see Table 8).

• As with 2009/10, the overall satisfaction scores were lower when buses were late. Scores remained the same regardless of whether the buses were early or on time (see Table 10).

Litter

• The ‘level of litter’ on the bus tended to increase throughout the day, with the average score for all areas decreasing from a score of 90 out of 100 between 07:00-07:59 to a low of 66 out of 100 between 16:00-16:59 (see Table 9). Increasing absence of litter is represented by increasingly higher points out of 100 scores.

4. Results tables and charts for half year - 2010/11

Table 1: Average scores for all indicators by area, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

General measuresYour overall satisfaction with this bus trip 78 77 75 78 84 76 82 75Cleanliness of bus stop / shelter 72 72 77 80 81 64 71 68Helpfulness of driver & consideration for passengers 66 63 62 80 76 58 68 62Appropriateness of Speed 80 79 74 84 83 76 87 83General smoothness of ride 74 72 70 80 80 72 76 73Level of graffiti (bus interior) 87 85 89 96 90 80 88 90Presence of etching on windows (bus interior) 90 93 94 96 90 76 92 96

CrowdingAvailability of lower deck seating 81 84 74 81 76 83 85 83Availability of upper deck seating 93 * * * * 93 * *Crowding - composite measure 83 86 76 81 77 86 88 86

Interior cleanlinessCleanliness of seating 77 76 75 82 84 70 74 81Cleanliness of windows (bus interior) 74 75 80 80 85 63 74 69Level of litter (bus interior) 76 73 76 74 80 73 78 80Interior cleanliness - composite measure 76 75 77 79 83 69 75 77

Clarity of route number / destinationClarity of route number / destination - front 97 99 91 95 97 96 99 98Clarity of route number / destination blinds - back 92 94 85 90 96 89 97 91Clarity of route number / destination - composite measure 94 96 88 93 97 93 98 95

7

Exterior cleanlinessOverall cleanliness of exterior - front, side and back 78 76 83 84 88 73 87 68Overall level of graffiti on bus exterior 97 97 96 100 99 95 96 100Exterior cleanliness - composite measure 88 87 89 92 93 84 91 84

Ease of boarding / alightingCloseness of bus to kerb - boarding 87 86 82 92 92 85 92 84Closeness of bus door to bus stop - boarding 91 86 83 90 92 93 94 95Closeness of bus to kerb - alighting 88 87 83 92 92 87 95 84Ease of boarding / alighting - composite measure 88 86 83 91 92 88 94 88

7

Chart 1: Overall satisfaction scores by area, half year - 2010/11

Chart 2: Average overall scores for selected indicators, half year - 2010/11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All areas Tyne & Wear West Yorks South Yorks Gtr Man West Mids Non PTE Merseyside

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All areas Tyne & Wear West Yorks South Yorks Gtr Man West Mids Non PTE Merseyside

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Your overall satisfaction with

this bus trip

Helpfulness of driver &

consideration for passengers

Interior cleanliness -composite measure

Crowding -composite measure

Exterior cleanliness -composite measure

Ease of boarding / alighting -composite measure

Clarity of route number /

destination -composite measure

8

Table 2: Comparison of scores between BMTS half year 2010-11 and BPSS for the same period

Mystery Traveller Survey (MTS)

Bus Passenger Satisfaction Survey

(BPSS)

Difference (BPSS - BMTS)

Overall satisfaction 78 84 6Cleanliness at the bus stop 72 81 9Driver behaviour and attitude 66 90 24Crowding 83 82 -1Interior cleanliness 76 81 5Exterior cleanliness 88 83 -5Smoothness and freedom from jolting 74 83 9

1. See Technical Appendix.

99

Table 3: Bus stop information, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Bus stops with or without a shelterBus stops without shelters 22% 34% 17% 33% 7% 15% 22% 22%Bus stops with shelters 78% 66% 83% 67% 93% 85% 78% 78%

For bus stops not having a shelterNo timetable available 14% 19% * * * * * *Timetable available 86% 81% * * * * * *

Of which not legible 2% 1% * * * * * *Of which legible 84% 79% * * * * * *

For bus stops having a shelterNo timetable available 4% 4% 1% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3%Timetable available 96% 96% 99% 93% 96% 96% 96% 97%

Of which not legible 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 0%Of which legible 95% 96% 97% 92% 95% 96% 89% 97%

Countdown display information (all bus stops)No countdown display present 76% 97% 85% 64% 83% 71% 54% 75%Present 24% 3% 15% 36% 17% 29% 46% 25%

Present but not working 3% * * * * 4% 3% *Present and working 21% * * * * 25% 43% *

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

Table 4: Ticketing, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Cash faresCorrect ticket issued 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 99% 98% 100%Incorrect ticket issued 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0%

Day pass/ other non cash faresBoarding recorded 91% 83% * 100% 99% 99% 95% 94%Boarding not recorded 9% 17% * 0% 1% 1% 5% 6%

10

Table 5 - Accessibility, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Boarding

Whether the bus stop was obstructed (boarding)The stop was obstructed 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 5% 3% 3%The stop was not obstructed 98% 99% 100% 98% 98% 95% 97% 97%

For obstructed bus stops (boarding)Closeness of bus to kerb * * * * * * * *Closeness of bus door to stop * * * * * * * *

For unobstructed bus stops (boarding)Closeness of bus to kerb 87 86 82 92 92 85 92 84Closeness of bus door to stop 90 86 83 90 92 93 94 95

Alighting

Whether the bus stop was obstructed (alighting)Stop was obstructed 2% 2% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3%Stop was not obstructed 98% 98% 100% 98% 99% 97% 97% 97%

For obstructed bus stops (alighting)Closeness of bus to kerb * * * * * * * *

For unobstructed bus stops (alighting)Closeness of bus to kerb 88 87 83 92 92 87 95 84

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

11

Table 6: Driver behaviour and quality of ride, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

General smoothness of ride (overall) 74 72 70 80 80 72 76 73

By weather conditionsDry 74 72 70 79 80 72 76 73Some rain 75 * * * * * * *Heavy rain * * * * * * * *Other * * * * * * * *

By type of busSingle decker Hoppa Midi 73 70 69 79 77 72 77 71Articulated Bus * * * * * * * *Double Decker 76 78 * * * 72 75 77

Appropriateness of speed (overall) 80 79 74 84 83 76 87 83

By weather conditionsDry 80 79 74 84 83 76 87 84Some rain 81 * * * * * * *Heavy rain * * * * * * * *Other * * * * * * * *

By type of busSingle decker Hoppa Midi 79 76 73 83 80 75 88 82Articulated Bus * * * * * * * *Double Decker 83 83 * * * 77 87 85

Helpfulness of driverand consideration for passengers (overall) 66 63 62 80 76 58 68 62

By type of questionWhat time is the last bus back from......? * * * * * * * *Does this bus go close to ....e.g. station? 63 61 62 81 * 58 59 61Where can I get a bus timetable for this route? 68 * * * * * * *How long will it take to get to...? 67 * * 79 * 55 * *Does this service run on a Sunday? 71 * * * * * * *How much is a day pass? 68 * * * * * * *Other * * * * * * * *

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

Table 7: Punctuality, half year - 2010/11**

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Early 10% 17% 18% 6% 1% 13% 6% 3%On time 81% 73% 79% 79% 90% 77% 79% 92%Late 10% 10% 4% 15% 9% 11% 15% 5%

** on time is defined as between one minute before and five minutes after the time scheduled

12

Chart 3: Punctuality by area, half year - 2010/11

Time of dayPercentage of buses running late - all areas

Time of day Score for litter in bus - all areas

07:00-07:59 7% 07:00-07:59 9008:00 08:59 9% 08:00 08:59 82

Table 8: Percentage of buses running late by time of day, half year - 2010/11

Table 9: Score for litter in bus by time of day, half year - 2010/11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Areas Gtr. Man Merseyside South Yorks Tyne & Wear West Mids West Yorks Non PTE

EarlyOn TimeLate

13

08:00-08:59 9% 08:00-08:59 8209:00-09:59 8% 09:00-09:59 80

10:00-10:59 9% 10:00-10:59 7811:00-11:59 9% 11:00-11:59 7712:00-12:59 6% 12:00-12:59 76

13:00-13:59 10% 13:00-13:59 7414:00-14:59 9% 14:00-14:59 7315:00-15:59 13% 15:00-15:59 72

16:00-16:59 15% 16:00-16:59 6617:00-17:59 10% 17:00-17:59 6818:00-18:59 11% 18:00-18:59 66

13

Table 10: Overall satisfaction, half year - 2010/11

All Areas

Gtr. Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Overall satisfaction with this bus trip 78 77 75 78 84 76 82 75

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops:Without a shelter 77 76 * * * * * *With a shelter 78 77 75 78 83 76 82 76

Overall satisfaction for trips made where the bus arrived:Early 78 * * * * * * *On time 78 77 75 79 84 76 85 76Late 71 * * * * * * *

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops where:A timetable was not available 76 * * * * * * *A timetable was available but illegible * * * * * * * *A timetable was available and legible 78 77 75 78 83 76 82 76

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops where:A countdown display was not present 77 77 74 77 83 76 82 74A countdown display was present but not working * * * * * * * *A countdown display was present and working 79 * * * * 76 82 *

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

14

5. Technical annex

The report produces five composite measures. These are based on the results of the component measures shown in the table below. The composite measure is an arithmetic average of the summated results for the component measures, thus if one component measure has a great number of results, it will have a proportionately greater influence on the average. A detailed technical appendix on how the survey is conducted is available on the Passenger Focus website.

Composite measure Component measures

Crowding Availability of lower deck seatingAvailability of upper deck seating

Interior cleanliness Cleanliness of windows (bus interior)Cleanliness of the seatingLevel of litter (bus interior)

Clarity of route number/destination Clarity of route number/destination - frontClarity of route number/destination blinds - back

Exterior cleanliness Overall cleanliness of exterior - front, side and backOverall level of graffiti on bus exterior

Ease of boarding/alighting Closeness of bus to kerb - boardingCloseness of bus door to bus stop - boardingCloseness of bus to kerb - alighting

Comparison of Mystery Traveller and Bus Passenger Satisfaction Surveys

Some indicators from the Bus Passenger Satisfaction Survey (BPSS) can be usefully compared to the more objective Mystery Traveller Survey (MTS) and a comparison is shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the correspondence between the indicators from the two surveys is not exact:

• Satisfaction with ‘cleanliness at the bus stop’ as measured in the BPSS takes into account any graffiti that may be present. Graffiti is explicitly excluded from the score given by MTS assessors.

• The satisfaction with ‘comfort on the bus’ given by respondents to the BPSS has been compared to the composite indicator for ‘crowding’ taken from the MTS. The MTS measure for ‘crowding’ is based on the scores given for availability of seating on the bus

• The ‘interior cleanliness’ score given for the MTS is a composite, while the score for the BPSS is a single indicator

• The ‘exterior cleanliness’ score for both indicators includes graffiti.

15

777

© 2010 Passenger Focus

Passenger Focus Freepost (RRRE-ETTC-LEET) PO Box 4257 Manchester M60 3AR

0300 123 2350 www.passengerfocus.org.uk info@passengerfocus.org.uk

Passenger Focus is the operating name of the Passengers’ Council