1. BEST Survey 2010 City report: Helsinki Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

2. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 Content 1.About the survey 2.How to read the graphs 3.Results Results per index in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 Satisfaction per city/region 2005 – 2010 with: Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort Perception of social image 2005 - 2010 Perception of value for money 2005 - 2010 Citizens stated loyalty to public transport 2005 - 2010 4.Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010 5.Results per subgroup 6.Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency 2

3. BEST 2010 About the survey The following cities participated in the BEST 2010 survey: Stockholm Oslo Helsinki (with additional questions) Copenhagen Vienna Geneva (with additional questions) For all cities 1.000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 600 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2010. All interviews have been done by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 14th 2010. Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area. In 2010 the special topic was transfers. Five questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report. 3 BEST City report 2010

4. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 4 Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used Main occupation Sex Age Post code (geography) 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 Ridership

5. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 Response rates Response rates are calculated as follows: YEAR2001200220032004200520062007200820092010 Copenhagen38 %54 %55 %56 %53 %39 %40 %32 %37 %34 % Geneva50 %47 %50 %49 %47 %56 %43 %40 %38 % Helsinki41 %49 %45 %47 %40 %37 %32 %26 %30 %36 % Oslo37 %44 %48 %45 %40 %39 %28 %27 %28 %27 % Stockholm50 %64 %56 %60 %56 %50 %64 %51 %62 %64 % Vienna39 %57 %58 %61 %58 % 54 %46 %43 %16 % 5 BEST Survey response rate = Number of completed interviews (Total sample ÷ telephone numbers not in use / not in target group)

6. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 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. CitySample 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 Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit Vienna Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit Geneva Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

7. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 7 Mobile interviews* City% mobile interviews 2008% mobile interviews 2009% mobile interviews 2010 Stockholm2,5%**2,3%**2,1%** Oslo40%39%44% Helsinki82%96%98% Copenhagen25%35%36% Vienna7%9%44% Geneva0% * Share of interviews conducted with respondents using a mobile phone ** If mobile callback requested by respondent only

8. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 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.

9. Results 2010 Helsinki

10. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 10 Helsinki Indices 2010 20102009200820072006 7782767981 6768656667 566864 72 4652494857 5958545759 7674727172 62 63 8789848682 51 474950 8081807875

11. Helsinki 2010 Quality dimensions

12. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 12 Helsinki Traffic supply 20102009200820072006 6768656667 6368666865 66656365 8387818384 55544850 8590878889 70686670 5047454349 6362606362

13. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 13 20102009200820072006 566864 72 Helsinki Reliability

14. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 14 Helsinki Information 20102009200820072006 4652494857 7882787780 2425232233 354644 -

15. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 15 Helsinki Staff behaviour 20102009200820072006 5958545759 5149485153 66 606265

16. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 16 Helsinki Security and safety 20102009200820072006 7674727172 6965 64 7469676667 86878384

17. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 17 Helsinki Comfort 20102009200820072006 62 63 727166 6061575957 6670 6870 4038414045 8178767576

18. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 18 Helsinki Social Image 20102009200820072006 8789848682 757968 62 9293929390 9394939593

19. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 19 Helsinki Value for money 20102009200820072006 51 474950 61 5760 424137 40

20. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 20 20102009200820072006 8081807875 Helsinki Loyalty

21. Impact on satisfaction Indicators impact on citizen satisfaction

22. How is the most important areas for improvements determined? 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 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. Overall satisfaction with PT 22

23. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 23 Impact on satisfaction - Helsinki 2009 2010 2008 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.

24. Helsinki 2010 Appendix

25. Helsinki 2010 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

26. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 26 Helsinki Citizen satisfaction- Subgroups

27. Helsinki 2010 Traffic supply in subgroups

28. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 28 Helsinki Traffic supply - Subgroups

29. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 29 Helsinki Good for work/school trips - Subgroups

30. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 30 Helsinki PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups

31. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 31 Helsinki PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups

32. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 32 Helsinki PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups

33. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 33 Helsinki Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups

34. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 34 Helsinki Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups

35. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 35 Helsinki I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups

36. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 36 Helsinki Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups

37. Helsinki 2010 Reliability in subgroups

38. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 38 Helsinki Reliability - Subgroups

39. Helsinki 2010 Information in subgroups

40. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 40 Helsinki Information - Subgroups

41. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 41 Helsinki It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups

42. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 42 Helsinki Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups

43. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 43 Helsinki Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups

44. Helsinki 2010 Staff behaviour in subgroups

45. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 45 Helsinki Staff behaviour - Subgroups

46. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 46 Helsinki Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups

47. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 47 Helsinki Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups

48. Helsinki 2010 Security and safety in subgroups

49. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 49 Helsinki Security and safety - Subgroups

50. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 50 Helsinki I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups

51. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 51 Helsinki I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups

52. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 52 Helsinki I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups

53. Helsinki 2010 Comfort in subgroups

54. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 54 Helsinki Comfort - Subgroups

55. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 55 Helsinki PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups

56. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 56 Helsinki Transfers are easy - Subgroups

57. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 57 Helsinki Busses and trains are modern - Subgroups

58. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 58 Helsinki Busses and trains are clean - Subgroups

59. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 59 Helsinki I normally get a seat when travel with PT - Subgroups

60. Helsinki 2010 Social image in subgroups

61. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 61 Helsinki Social image - Subgroups

62. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 62 Helsinki More people will travel with PT in the future - Subgroups

63. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 63 Helsinki PT is good for the environment - Subgroups

64. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 64 Helsinki PT is beneficial to society - Subgroups

65. Helsinki 2010 Value for money in subgroups

66. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 66 Helsinki Value for money - Subgroups

67. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 67 Helsinki PT gives good value for money - Subgroups

68. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 68 Helsinki PT fares are reasonable - Subgroups

69. Helsinki 2010 Loyalty in subgroups

70. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 70 Helsinki Loyalty - Subgroups

71. Helsinki 2010 Background information

72. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 72 Public transport travel frequency – Helsinki 2010

73. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 73 Life situation – Helsinki 2010

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