1. BEST Survey 2009 City report: Helsinki Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

2. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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 2005 - 2009 Perception of value for money 2005 - 2009 Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2009 4)Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency

3. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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 2009. All interviews have been done by telephone. The fieldwork for BEST Survey 2009 was conducted between March 2nd and March 15th 2009. 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 2007/8questionnaire. In 2009, 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?’

4. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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

5. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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 YEAR200120022003200420052006200720082009 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%

6. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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 2007. 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%

7. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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.

8. Results 2009 Helsinki

9. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 9 Helsinki Indices 2009 20092008200720062005 8276798176 6865666765 6864 7275 5249485752 5854575956 74727172 6263 64 8984868281 5147495048 8180787576

10. Helsinki 2009 Quality dimensions

11. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 11 Helsinki Traffic supply 20092008200720062005 6865666765 6866686566 656365 64 8781838480 544850 46 9087888988 686670 68 4745434950 6260636260

12. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 Helsinki Reliability 20092008200720062005 6864 7275 BEST Survey 2009 – page 12

13. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 13 Helsinki Information 20092008200720062005 5249485752 8278778077 2523223326 4644 --

14. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 14 Helsinki Staff behaviour 20092008200720062005 5854575956 4948515351 6660626561

15. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 15 Helsinki Security and safety 20092008200720062005 74727172 65 64 6967666769 878384 83

16. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 16 Helsinki Comfort 20092008200720062005 6263 64 6372716668 6157595759 70 687071 38414045 7876757674

17. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 17 Helsinki Social Image 20092008200720062005 8984868281 7968 6260 93929390 9493959391

18. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 18 Helsinki Value for money 20092008200720062005 5147495048 615760 4137 4037

19. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 Helsinki Loyalty 20092008200720062005 8180787576 BEST Survey 2009 – page 19

20. Impact on satisfaction Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

21. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 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 2009. How is the most important areas for improvements determined? Overall satisfaction with PT 21

22. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 22 Impact on satisfaction - Helsinki 2008 20092007 When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each year is of prime interest. Comparison of the estimated effects across years must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.

23. Helsinki 2009 Appendix

24. Helsinki 2009 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

25. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 25 Helsinki CITIZEN SATISFACTION - Subgroups

26. Helsinki 2009 Traffic supply in subgroups

27. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 27 Helsinki Traffic supply - Subgroups

28. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 28 Helsinki Good for work/school trips - Subgroups

29. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 29 Helsinki PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups

30. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 30 Helsinki PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups

31. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 31 Helsinki PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups

32. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 32 Helsinki Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups

33. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 33 Helsinki Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups

34. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 34 Helsinki I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups

35. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 35 Helsinki Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups

36. Helsinki 2009 Reliability in subgroups

37. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 37 Helsinki Reliability - Subgroups

38. Helsinki 2009 Information in subgroups

39. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 39 Helsinki Information - Subgroups

40. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 40 Helsinki It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups

41. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 41 Helsinki Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups

42. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 42 Helsinki Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups

43. Helsinki 2009 Staff behaviour in subgroups

44. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 44 Helsinki Staff behaviour - Subgroups

45. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 45 Helsinki Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups

46. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 46 Helsinki Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups

47. Helsinki 2009 Security and safety in subgroups

48. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 48 Helsinki Security and safety - Subgroups

49. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 49 Helsinki I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups

50. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 50 Helsinki I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups

51. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 51 Helsinki I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups

52. Helsinki 2009 Comfort in subgroups

53. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 53 Helsinki Comfort - Subgroups

54. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 54 Helsinki PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups

55. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 55 Helsinki Transfers are easy - Subgroups

56. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 56 Helsinki Busses and trains are modern - Subgroups

57. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 57 Helsinki Busses and trains are clean - Subgroups

58. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 58 Helsinki I normally get a seat when travel with PT - Subgroups

59. Helsinki 2009 Social image in subgroups

60. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 60 Helsinki Social image - Subgroups

61. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 61 Helsinki More people will travel with PT in the future - Subgroups

62. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 62 Helsinki PT is good for the environment - Subgroups

63. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 63 Helsinki PT is beneficial to society - Subgroups

64. Helsinki 2009 Value for money in subgroups

65. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 65 Helsinki Value for money - Subgroups

66. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 66 Helsinki PT gives good value for money - Subgroups

67. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 67 Helsinki PT fares are reasonable - Subgroups

68. Helsinki 2009 Loyalty in subgroups

69. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 69 Helsinki Loyalty - Subgroups

70. Helsinki 2009 Background information

71. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 71 Public transport travel frequency – Helsinki 2009

72. BEST 2009 BEST City report 2009 72 Life situation – Helsinki 2009

73. For more information and other reports see our web site http://best2005.net orhttp://best2005.net https://report.scandinfo.se/best/