Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2009 Survey

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 2 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 Perception of value for money Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to )Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 3 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 All interviews have been done by telephone. The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2009 was conducted between March 2nd and March 15th 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 20078questionnaire. Since 2008, 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 Survey 2009 – main report – page 4 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 Supply 2.Reliability 3.Information 4.Staff behaviour 5.Personal security/safety 6.Comfort Sex Age Post code (geography) Ridership

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 5 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 Copenhagen38 %54 %55 %56 %53 %39 %40 %32 %37% Geneva50 %47 %50 %49 %47 %56 %43 %40% Helsinki41 %49 %45 %47 %40 %37 %32 %26 %30% Oslo37 %44 %48 %45 %40 %39 %28 %27 %28% Stockholm50 %64 %56 %60 %56 %50 %64 %51 %62% Vienna39 %57 %58 %61 %58 % 54 %46 %43%

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 6 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 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 Stockholm2,5%*2,3%* Oslo40%39% Helsinki82%96% Copenhagen25%35% Vienna7%9% Geneva0% * If mobile callback requested by respondent only City Sample base and primary sampling unit % mobile in sample 2009 Stockholm Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit 0% Oslo Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit 40% Helsinki Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit, priority to mobile telephone numbers 89% Copenhagen Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit 21% Vienna Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit 0% Geneva Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit 0%

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 7 How to read the graphs 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. 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 per index

Citizen satisfaction Geneva (84) Geneva (78) Vienna (80) Helsinki (81) Barcelona (83) Traffic supply Geneva (71) Berlin (86) Berlin (84) Berlin (70) Prague (73) Reliability Geneva (76) Berlin (84) Berlin (84) Geneva (79) Prague (82) Information Geneva (75) Geneva (71) Geneva (71) Geneva (66) Geneva (64) Staff behaviour Geneva (78) Geneva (74) Geneva (75) Geneva (76) Geneva (72) Security and safety Oslo (82) Oslo (82) Vienna (87) Vienna (81) Vienna (81) Comfort Geneva (71) Berlin (78) Berlin (77) Geneva (67) Geneva (66) Value for money Helsinki (51) Berlin (56) Vienna (53) Helsinki (50) Prague (60) Social image Geneva (90) Oslo (87) Oslo (89) Geneva (85) Oslo (82) Loyalty Helsinki (81) Helsinki (80) Vienna (81) Vienna (75) Vienna (79) BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 9 Best performing city per index

Results per index and city/region in 2009 and 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 11 Results per index and city/region in 2009 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 12 Results per index and city/region in 2008 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 13 Results per index and city/region in 2007 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 14 Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 15 Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty

Which improvements matter most? Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 17 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 How is the most important areas for improvements determined? Overall satisfaction with PT

18 CopenhagenGenevaHelsinki OsloStockholmVienna 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

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 20 Overall citizen satisfaction TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 21 Overall citizen satisfaction TOTAL BASE: Replied grade % satisfied citizens

Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 23 Traffic supply TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 24 Traffic supply % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 26 Reliability TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 27 Reliability % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 29 Information TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 30 Information % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 32 Staff behaviour TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 33 Staff behaviour % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 35 Security and safety TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 36 Security and safety % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 38 Comfort TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 39 Comfort % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 41 Social image TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 42 Social image % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 44 Value for money TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 45 Value for money % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2008

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 47 Loyalty TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 48 Loyalty % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade

Background information

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 50 Gender

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 51 Life situation

BEST Survey 2009 – main report – page 52 Public transport travel frequency

For more information and other reports see our web site or