1. Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)
Main results of the
BEST 2012 Survey

2. Content About the survey How to read the graphs Main results
Best performing city/region per index
Results per index and city/region in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008
Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2012
Main results per city from 2008 to 2012
Overall citizen satisfaction
Satisfaction per city/region 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 to 2012
Background information
Gender
Age
Life situation
PT travel frequency 2

3. About the survey
The following cities participated in the BEST 2012 survey:
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copenhagen
Geneva (with additional questions)
Vienna (VOR)
For all cities residents in defined areas have been interviewed. In Vienna 600 respondents was interviewed in an area west of the city center. An additional 900 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in All interviews have been done by telephone.
The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 13th 2012.
Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area.
In 2012 the special topic was comfort vs travel time. Four questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report. 3
BEST Main Report 2012

4. Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey
7. Social image
Traffic Supply
Reliability
Information
Staff behaviour
Personal security/safety
Comfort
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Ridership
8. Value for money
Background variables:
Travel frequency by public transport
PT modes most often used
Main occupation
Sex
Age
Post code (geography) 4

5. Response rates
YEAR
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Copenhagen
38 %
54 %
55 %
56 %
53 %
39 %
40 %
32 %
37 %
34 %
38%
36%
Geneva
50 %
47 %
49 %
43 %
37%
35%
Helsinki
41 %
45 %
26 %
30 %
36 %
26%
28%
Oslo
44 %
48 %
28 %
27 %
27%
29%
Stockholm
64 %
60 %
51 %
62 %
51%
52%
Vienna
57 %
58 %
61 %
46 %
16 %
17%
Response rates are calculated as follows:
BEST Survey response rate =
Number of completed interviews
(Total sample ÷ telephone numbers not in use / not in target group) 5

6. 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 and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed line telephones.
In all instances it is estimated that approximately 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
Sample base and primary sampling unit
Stockholm
Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
Oslo
Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
Helsinki
Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit, priority to mobile telephone numbers
Copenhagen
Geneva
Vienna 6

7. Mobile interviews* City 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Stockholm 2,5%**
2,3%**
2,1%**
1,4%**
0,7%**
Oslo
40%
39%
44%
48%
51%
Helsinki
82%
96%
98%
92%
89%
Copenhagen
25%
35%
36%
Geneva 0%
Vienna 7% 9%
41%
* Share of interviews conducted with respondents using a mobile phone
** If mobile callback requested by respondent only 7

8. 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. 8

9. BEST performing city/region per index 2008 - 2012

10. Best performing city per index
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
Citizen satisfaction
Helsinki (81)
Helsinki (78)
Helsinki (79)
Geneva (84)
Geneva
(78)
Traffic supply
Helsinki (73)
Helsinki (68)
Geneva (68)
Geneva (71)
Berlin
(86)
Reliability
Vienna (66)
Geneva (69)
Geneva (73)
Geneva (76)
(84)
Information
Geneva (63)
Geneva (67)
Geneva (75)
(71)
Staff behaviour
Oslo
(74)
Geneva (74)
Geneva (78)
Security and safety
(85)
(82)
Comfort
Vienna (69)
Value for money
Helsinki (58)
Helsinki (55)
Helsinki (52)
Helsinki (51)
(56)
Social image
(91)
(89)
(90)
Geneva (90)
(87)
Loyalty
Helsinki (83)
Helsinki
(80)
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 10

11. Results per index and city/region

12. Results per index and city/region in 2012
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 69 81 64 77 56
Traffic supply 63 73 61 66
Reliability 65 60 45 59 47
Information 55 52 54 48
Staff behaviour 68 74 67
Security & safety 84 79 70 85
Comfort 58
Social image 88 82 91 71
Value for money 25 37 35 23
Loyalty
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 12

13. Results per index and city/region in 2011
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 78 75 72 67 57
Traffic supply 68 62 61 58
Reliability 54 69 41 48 49
Information 52 45 50
Staff behaviour 59 73 63 71
Security & safety 74 86 76
Comfort 60
Social image 87 85 89
Value for money 55 34 44 37 24
Loyalty 81 65 64 46
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 13

14. Results per index and city/region in 2010
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 72 79 77 67 60
Traffic supply 64 68 59 56
Reliability 53 58 73 40 39 43
Information 47 71 44 45
Staff behaviour 74 55 65
Security & safety 69 84
Comfort 62 57
Social image 81 87 85 88
Value for money 42 52 36 37 28
Loyalty 75
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 14

15. Results per index and city/region in 2009
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 61 82 84 76 62 56
Traffic supply 68 71 63 57 54
Reliability 65 50 39 43
Information 52 75 46
Staff behaviour 60 58 78
Security & safety 72 74 79 70
Comfort 59 53
Social image 89 90 86 88 73
Value for money 40 51 36 38 28
Loyalty 81 47
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 15

16. Results per index and city/region in 2008
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Berlin
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 68 76 78 73 64 62 50
Traffic supply 60 65 86 59 55
Reliability 56 79 84 41 48
Information 54 49 71 70 46
Staff behaviour 74 72 69
Security & safety 77 82
Comfort 63 52
Social image 80 87
Value for money 33 47 26 38 27
Loyalty 75 42
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 16

17. Results per index and city/region – change from 2011 to 2012
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction - 3
-12 5 -1
Traffic supply -6 2 4 -2
Reliability 11 -9
Information -5 7
Staff behaviour 1
Security & safety -4
Comfort 6
Social image -3
Value for money -7
Loyalty
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 17

18. Results per index and city/region – change from 2010 to 2011
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction -1 -2 5 7 -3
Traffic supply 2 3
Reliability -4 8
Information 6
Staff behaviour 4
Security & safety
Comfort
Social image 1
Value for money
Loyalty
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 18

19. Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 11 -3 -6 -9 -2 4
Traffic supply -4 2 1
Reliability
-13
-10
Information -8 -5
-11 -1
Staff behaviour
Security & safety 3
Comfort
Social image
Value for money
Loyalty 7
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 19

20. Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction -6 6 13 -1
Traffic supply 8 3 4 -2
Reliability 9 -3 -9 2
Information 1
Staff behaviour
Security & safety 7
Comfort
Social image
Value for money 10
Loyalty -5 5
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 20

21. Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008
Vienna
Helsinki
Geneva
Berlin
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction
-12 -3 -1 -4 -8
Traffic supply 2 1 -2
Reliability
-16 5
Information
-10 3
Staff behaviour
-17 -5
Security & safety
-11
Comfort -9
Social image -6
Value for money
-20 4
Loyalty -7
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 21

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

23. How is the most important areas for improvements determined?
Description of the analysis:
The indicators shown to the left 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 perception 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 2010.
Traffic supply
Nearest stop is close to where I live
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
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
Transfers are easy
Busses and trains are modern
Busses and trains are clean
I normally get a seat when travel with PT
Overall satisfaction with PT
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 23

24. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 24
Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport?
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
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.
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 24

25. Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2008 - 2012

26. Overall citizen satisfaction
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 81 78 79 82 76 77 72 67 64 69 - 61 68 60 62 75 84 56 57 50
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 26

27. Overall citizen satisfaction
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 27

28. Citizen satisfaction – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
Citizen satisfaction 77 69 81 56 64
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 28

29. Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2008 to 2012

30. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 30
Traffic supply
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 73 68 65 66 61 59 57 64 62 60 63 - 67 71 56 58 54 55
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 30

31. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 31
Traffic supply
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 31

32. Traffic supply – benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
PT is good for school/work trips 62 60 73 51 69
PT is good for leisure trips 65 66 71 39 44 47
PT is good for trips in the city centre 81 85 88 82 92 80
PT is good for trips outside the city centre 40 59 38 46
Nearest stop is close to where I live 87 89 83
Travel time on PT is reasonable 70 74 72 55
Waiting time is short at transfers 48 54 57 41 58
I am satisfied with the number of departures 61
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 32

33. Satisfaction with reliability from 2008 to 2012

34. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 34
Reliability
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 66
-   53 65 56 54 58 68 64 60 69 73 76 79 59 48 39 47 49 43 41 45 40 50
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 34

35. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 35
Reliability
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 35

36. Reliability – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
Capability to run on schedule 45 59 65 47 66 60
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 36

37. Satisfaction with information from 2008 to 2012

38. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 38
Information
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 63 67 71 75 56 - 53 61 54 55 52 47 49 50 44 46 45 40 48
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 38

39. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 39
Information
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 39

40. Information – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip 76 77 86 72 68 67
Information is good when traffic problems occur 27 26 28 30 37 44
Information is good in stops and terminals 52 56 48 41 61
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 40

41. Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2008 to 2012

42. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 42
Staff behaviour
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 74 71 67 69 73 78 68 - 56 60 54 65 63 55 58 59
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 42

43. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 43
Staff behaviour
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 43

44. Staff behaviour – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
Staff answers my questions correctly 61 70 53 60 74
Staff behaves nicely and correctly 64 77 72 65 75
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 44

45. Satisfaction with security and safety from 2008 to 2012

46. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 46
Security and safety
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 85 86 84 82 74 72 76 79 71 68 69 75 77 73 70 64
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 46

47. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 47
Security and safety
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 47

48. Security and safety – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
I feel secure at stations and bus stops 62 83 72 68 76 53
I feel secure on board busses and trains 74 87 77 81 88 70
I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 82 85 89 86
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 48

49. Satisfaction with comfort from 2008 to 2012

50. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 50
Comfort
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 69 60 61 67 62 63 56 53 52 59 57 71 68 58 55
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 50

51. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 51
Comfort
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 51

52. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 52
Comfort – Benchmark 2012
COMFORT
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
PT travel is comfortable 62 58 68 57 69 67
Transfers are easy 66 46
Busses and trains are modern 59 65 70 63 74 79
Busses and trains are clean 40 48 45 64 61
I normally get a seat when travel with PT 56 83 72 39
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 52

53. Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2008 to2012

54. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 54
Social image
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 91 89 88 87 84 85 86 80 82 90 81 - 79 71 73 69
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 54

55. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 55
Social image
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 55

56. Social image – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
More people will travel with PT in the future 73 82 76 51 70 69
PT is good for the environment 85 95 94 77
PT is beneficial to society 97 83 89 93
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 56

57. Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2008 to 2012

58. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 58
Value for money
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 58 55 52 51 47 - 42 40 33 37 44 39 36 26 35 38 25 34 23 24 28 27
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 58

59. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 59
Value for money
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 59

60. Value for money – Benchmark 2012
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
PT gives good value for money 41 47 69 31 49 34
PT fares are reasonable 33 23 15 46
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 60

61. Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2008 to 2012

62. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 62
Loyalty
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 83 81 80 71 72 65 70 69 62 63 56 68 64 60 61 66 74 75 73 46 47 42
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 62

63. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 63
Loyalty
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 63

64. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 64
Loyalty – Benchmark 2012
LOYALTY
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copen-hagen
Vienna
Geneva
I gladly recommend PT travel 69 68 83 46 71 66
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 64

65. Background information

66. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 66
Gender
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 66

67. BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 67
Life situation
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 67

68. Public transport travel frequency
BEST Survey 2012 – main report – page 68

69. For more information and
other reports see our web site or