An Integrated Approach to Measuring the Whole Journey Traveller Experience STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril 2014 Oded Cats a, Yusak O. Susilo a, Rodica Hrin b, Andree Woodcock c,Marco Diana d, Egle Speicyte e, Eileen O’Connell f, Chiara Di Majo g, Virginie Tolio h, Patricia Bellver i and Merja Hoppe j a KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden b Integral Consulting R&D, Romania c Coventry University, United Kingdom d Politecnico di Torino, Italy e Smart Continent Ltd, Lithuania f Interactions Ltd, Ireland g RSM – Roma Mobility Agency, Italy h FIA – Federation Internationale de I’Automobile i ITENE- Instituto Tecnológico del Embalaje, Transporte y Logística, Spain j Zurich University of Applied Science, Switzerland

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Importance of Understanding What Really Matters  Providing an accessible transport service for all  Different travellers have different needs and priorities → influence their appreciations and satisfactions on various different quality factors of the provided services. STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril GroupsSpecial CharacteristicsMain Important Factors Full-time employed workers Regularly incur more temporal constraints than monetary expenditures Punctuality, reliability, cost Female travellers Travel shy, reassurance seeker and cautious planner. Has a complex scheduling of activities in both time and space and is likely to bring luggage Safe, reliable, affordable and comprehensive access Parents with small children Likely to be a female than a male, travelling with buggies and luggages Accessible vehicle and station, on-board space and supportive attitudes Low income travellers Tend to be captive with the cheapest mode alternative and spent a significant proportion of his/her income for travel Availability, adequacy, cost and safety Children and young travellers Smaller children highly dependent on their parents' decisions and preferences. For many young teens, travel represents a gateway to adulthood, enabling independence, socialisation and a recognition of maturity. Practicalities (such as cost and speed of journey), flexibility and safety Elderly travellers Tend to have more limited ability and strength to move. The feeling of able to travel indepedently is closely linked with his/her sense of self-worth. They have increased difficulty in identifying signs, in reading timetables, listening to loudspeakers and to execute responses. Physical and emotional barriers, affordability, flexibility, reliability and support facilities Disabled travellers Has physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his/her ability to travel. Lack confidence when travelling, experience a lack of flexibility in their travel choices and difficult to be spontaneous. Physical accessibility and availability, support facilities (including information availabilities), cost, certainty and security and supportive attitudes Tourists and unfamiliar travellers Suffer lost-in-translation problem. Have a high mobility needs, but limited spatial and language knowledge A simpler system, more information provisions and more helpful and tolerant staff

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Research Gaps  Complex interactions between instrumental and non- instrumental variables  There is a lack of knowledge on what really valued more and less by different group of travellers.  Most (if not all) of previous studies ignored the impacts of the access and egress legs to the overall travellers’ journey satisfactions. This may actually undermined the impacts of the quality of interchanges and last-mile facilities in influencing passenger overall travel satisfactions.  Relativity of experience measurements and impacts of the past. STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril 20143

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Aims  To investigate what really matters in influencing individual travel experience and how the satisfactions of access and egress stages correlate with the overall satisfactions of the trips.  Door-to-door, multimodal, at individual trip stage level  The impact of various aspects of travel experience and trip stages on the overall satisfaction  Variations among user groups (by gender, age, income, mobility)  Consulting the stakeholders and identify factors that valued by different stakeholders STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril 20144

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Survey Design  Experiment: questionnaire, consisted of five sections:  Individual attributes (socio-demographic, mobility behaviour)  Attitudes (travel preferences, mobility-related opinions)  Contextual variables (temporal, weather conditions, trip purpose, subjective well-being indices)  Underlying travel aspects (familiarity, adaptation, past experience)  Travel experience factors (availability, travel time components, information provision, reliability, way-finding, comfort, appeal, safety and security, customer care, price, connectivity, ride quality, environmental impact and travel time productivity as applicable) STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril 20145

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Survey Results  554 participants  Men (56%); Women (44%)  Elderly and disabled travellers are under represented  Majority has access to car (64%), PT card (62%) and bike (61%)  PT travel frequency: daily (55%); 2-3 time a week (16%); seldom or never (13%)  66% of all trips were multimodal, 2.44 trip stages on average STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril 20146

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Satisfaction by Modes STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril Waiting and transfer conditions more prominent than vehicle-related aspects Satisfaction with walking was weakly correlated with aspects included in the questionnaire

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Overall Journey Satisfaction STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril The primary trip stage is very strongly correlated with entire trip satisfaction. The impacts of access and egress trip stages is marginal, but each of them is strongly correlated with the satisfaction from the primary trip stage. Travellers that feel more passive are more likely to be satisfied with the service, giving everything else is the same. Current satisfaction is very strongly correlated with the elements of past experience. It is even strongly correlated with the assertion that the chosen mode is the best mean of connection based on traveller’s experience.

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Satisfaction determinants by travellers’ group STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril VariablesWomen Youth (-24) Disabled Low income or unemployed All travellers Public Transport Station environment +++ NA +++(+) Waiting safety +++ Ease of transfer +++ Frequency +++ On-board comfort + Travel time reliability +++ Car Reliability (+) NA Relative time +++ Safety +++ Parking price +++ Bicycle Prioritised on the street +++ NA Absence of disturbances +++ Ride quality +++ Information +++ Walking Proper design +++ (+) Absence of disturbances +++(+) +++ Smoothness (+) +++ Past experience and travellers’ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience in most cases – with age and income being noticeable exceptions. Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low income or unemployed travellers have distinctive determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various travel modes.

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Results from Stakeholders interviews and discussons  Operators were mostly interested and concerned about the impacts of detailed level-of- service related variables on passenger experience.  Planning authorities were more interested with wider general urban and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel patterns.  The special interest groups were understandably more interested with their detailed constituent’s interests.  The government’s research institutes were interested with more detailed trip patterns and behavioural variables that underlie the travellers’ decision making processes. STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril CitiesOperatorsAuthorities Non-governmental’s special interest groups Others (including universities and national research institutes) Total Bucharest211 4 Coventry Dublin111 3 Grevena 11 Rome 11 Stockholm21227 Turin33 28 Valencia21 3 Vilnius121 4 Zurich 112 EDF (Brussels) 1 1 Total

Variables that are Valued by Stakeholders Most OperatorAuthoritiesSpecial Needs GroupsOther Subjective Well-Being Attitudes and opinions towards mode-specific preferences, social norm, transfer preference, traffic congestions and pollutions and safe and secure feelings whilst travelling The main purpose of the trip Trip arrival constraint The use of pre-trip information Carrying heavy or bulk item whilst travelling Familiarity with the trip Satisfaction level towards to the current choice The occurrence of disruption events and its impacts Detailed trip stages, including waiting and on-vehicle time and speed, travel time, punctuality Detailed time reliability perception Detailed trip stages, including waiting and on-vehicle time and speed, travel time, punctuality Information acquisition Time utilisation on-board and at stops Overall satisfaction in general and compared to the his/her expectation and towards other mode alternatives and possible modify the choice Passenger satisfaction on: service availability (frequency and stop location), travel speed (both subjective and relative speeds), information at stations and on-board, information about ticketing, comfort (quality on on-board, fellow travellers, seat availability, seat comfort, easiness to buy ticket, crowding both at stops and on-board, station facilities), appeal (physical environment, vehicle quality, cleanliness both at stations and on-board), safety (at stops and on-board), overall reliability (including regularity and punctuality), personnel availability at stops and on-board, price (value-for-money and fairness), connectivity (network-wise and easy transfer), travel sickness, and environment issue. Parking price and easiness to find parking spot Travel experiences among car travellers, which include the reliability, travel time, speed and information provision, parking provisions and fees. Travel experiences among cyclists, which include the feeling of safe and being prioritised on the road, availability of the relevant information, route connectivity and the availability of bicycle parks at the destinations Travel experiences among pedestrians, which include the quality and design of the pedestrian paths, feeling secure and safe while walking and the availability of relevant information Open Suggestions to improve travel experience Gender, Age, Disability information, household composition, income and education information Special group needs, include way- finding, accessibility, stress, travel information and lighting availabilities. Access to public transport card

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Summary of the Findings  Different user groups have distinctive determinants of satisfaction  Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience in most cases – with age and income being noticeable exceptions.  A large share of the variation is explained well by a limited set of factors – except for walking.  Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated than any other transport modes.  Past experience, expectations, attitudes and emotional states are significant explanatory variables of travel satisfaction  Variability on trip stages is important STS N°12TRA2014 Paris avril 2014 VariableDefinitionComments Primary variables Travel timeActual time components including access, waiting, in- vehicle/moving and egress times (as applicable). Could be measured directly from traveller’s position data Subjective travel timePerceived time componentsDirect questioning could be contrasted against measured travel time Station environmentThe appeal and safety of the physical waiting environment Relevant for public transport Safety and security are particularly relevant for women travellers PersonnelAvailability and responsiveness of personnel at stops and on-board Relevant for public transport Subjective satisfaction levels Ease of transferringQuality of interchange (coordination, transfer design, accessibility, connectivity) A complex notion that requires a more detailed investigation of interchange quality factors Physical designThe presence of physical hindrances, appropriate and thoughtful design and the surface quality. Relevant for active modes Requires an inventory for classifying design quality Secondary variables InformationThe availability and quality of pre-trip and en-route information Relevant for all modes except walking. Requires a careful classification of information sources (type, trip stage, comprehensiveness) AvailabilityService frequency and span, service coverageCould be derived from the respective public transport agencies and GIS analysis ReliabilityService punctuality/regularity and travel time predictability Relevant for public transport and car Could be derived empirically from data on travel time distribution Comfort and appealSeat availability and comfort, availability of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness at stops and on-board and travel sickness Relevant for public transport A combination of subjective satisfaction levels and an inventory of characteristics Safety and securityThe perceived risk of being exposed to traffic-related or an intentional act of hostility Relevant for all travel modes Subjective risk levels that could be contrasted against reported safety and security incidents Parking availabilityEase of finding an available parking placeRelevant for car. Could be measured empirically through the parking search time. Way-finding and vehicle accessibility Physical and mental barriers associated with travelling – in particular, vehicle design (low floor, priority seat) and way-finding (orientation) Relevant for special mobility groups Accessibility could be checked against fleet allocation and composition

Please insert here your affiliation logo Cats, Susilo, et al., 2014 Next Steps In METPEX project itself:  Selecting the key variables (together with results from stakeholder interview)  Developing a prototype to measure real-time travel experience (smartphone app)  EU-wide benchmarking  Autumn 2014: Large scale survey in Stockholm and 7 other European cities STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril

An Integrated Approach to Measuring the Whole Journey Traveller Experience STS N°TRA2014 Paris avril Acknowledgement: The data that used this is study was collected as a part of the on-going EU FP7 METPEX (MEasurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger EXperience) Project ( FP7-SCP2-GA ). There are also partners from several institutions which involves in data collection activities. This includes teams that led by: Andree Woodcock (Coventry University), Gabriela Rodica (Integral Consulting R&D), Marco Diana (Politecnico di Torino), Egle Speicyte and Ieva Markuceviciute (Smart Continent Ltd), John Poter and Eileen O’Connell (Interaction Ltd), Chiara Dimajo (RSM), Laurianne Krid and Virginie Tolio (FIA), Dolores Herrero (ITENE) and Merja Hoppe (Zurich University of Applied Science).