Deliverable 2.3 Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured by the METPEX tool Publishable summary Coordinator: Professor Andree Woodcock, Coventry University Tel.: +44 (0) Author: Dr, Yusak O. Susilo, KTH Royal Institute of Technology tel.: +46(0) , Duration of Research: Project Duration Nov 2012 – October 2015 Deliverable Duration : Feb 2013 – Aug 2013 WEBSITE Grant Agreement no: Project Full Title ‘A Measurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience’

Table of contents 1.Introduction 2.Desk study findings on travel needs of different groups of travellers 3.Experiment and survey design 4.Passenger survey and stakeholders interview results 5.Conclusions

Aims of the deliverable To identify the variables which can be used to measure the whole journey passenger experience that will impact on increased acceptance and take-up of new terrestrial transport solutions and technologies, and a more inclusive terrestrial transport system with better access for all. To involve cities/agencies/operators in the process by getting early feedback on the adequacy of the tools and how the information provided will inform sustainable transport policies. To define the variables that will be measured by the METPEX Tool.

Who travelled in METPEX cities? Within the cities involved in METPEX: A relatively balanced proportion of men and women, A higher proportion of younger individuals, than national average, in Vilnius, Dublin and Coventry, Coventry also has a higher proportion of minority groups, Stockholm also has a higher proportion of cyclist than other observed cities, Students and pupils are a significant part of the population, Coventry and Valencia have a significant proportion of unemployed travellers, Valencia and Rome have a significant proportion of tourists/unfamiliar travellers.

Needs for different groups of travellers 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

Needs for different groups of travellers GroupsSpecial CharacteristicsMain Important Factors Elderly travellers Tend to have more limited ability and strength to move. The feeling of able to travel independently 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

The needs of experiment There is a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different groups of travellers who used different travel modes. There is a lack of studies that well integrated instrumental and non-instrumental variables and covered the whole (door-to-door) travellers journey. On the other hand, it is impossible to incorporate all variables and factors of concern in measuring the existing level of service. A mix of qualitative and quantitative experiment, that involves primary data collections and empirical data analysis, carried out. The variables that matters will be tested statistically, for different socio-demographic groups and travel modes.

Experiment and survey description 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) The experiment were carried out at eight METPEX cities: Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia and Vilnius.

Experiment and survey description To complement the designed questionnaire, a series of interviews with relevant stakeholders were held to discuss which variables are important from their perspectives and also to identify the variables that may be missed / unique from city to city throughout Europe. The stakeholder interviews survey involved ten cities: Bucharest, Dublin, Grevena, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia, Coventry, Vilnius and Zurich, along with one European body: the European Disability Forum (see

Passenger survey results 554 participants, Men (56%); Women (44%) Elderly and disabled travellers are underrepresented 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

Passenger survey results Average satisfaction (1-5 scale)

Waiting and transfer conditions more prominent than vehicle-related aspects Satisfaction with walking was weakly correlated with aspects included in the questionnaire

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.

Salient findings from regression analyses 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. The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations.

Salient findings from regression analyses Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated than the factors determining satisfaction on other transport modes. The variables included in this pilot study were not able to explain variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages. Travellers’ emotional state is an important determinant of travel experience and satisfaction Travellers’ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of travel satisfaction.

Stakeholders Interviews 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 Different questions were valued differently by different classes of stakeholders. Operators were mostly interested and concerned about the impacts of detailed level-of-service related variables on passenger experience, whilst the 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, where as the government’s research institutes were interested with more detailed trip patterns and behavioural variables that underlie the travellers’ decision making processes.

Variables valued most by stakeholders 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

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool 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 time Perceived time componentsDirect questioning could be contrasted against measured travel time Station environment The 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 transferring Quality 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

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool VariableDefinitionComments 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 coverage Could 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 place Relevant 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

Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be measured by the METPEX Tool A MEasurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience D2.3 – Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured by the METPEX tool VariableDefinitionComments 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 coverage Could 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 place Relevant 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