Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

BEST Survey 2011 City report: Stockholm Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.

Published byShanon Bates Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "BEST Survey 2011 City report: Stockholm Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport."— Presentation transcript:

1 BEST Survey 2011 City report: Stockholm Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

2 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 Content 1.About the survey 2.How to read the graphs 3.Results Results per index in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 Satisfaction per city/region 2007 – 2011 with: Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort Perception of social image 2007 - 2011 Perception of value for money 2007 - 2011 Citizens stated loyalty to public transport 2007 - 2011 4.Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2011 5.Results per subgroup 6.Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency 2

3 BEST 2011 About the survey 3 BEST City report 2011 The following cities participated in the BEST 2011 survey: Stockholm Oslo Helsinki (with additional questions) Copenhagen Geneva (with additional questions) For all cities 1.000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 700 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2011. All interviews have been done by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 1 st and March 13 th 2011. Interviews in Geneva was completed on March 17 th. Due to the World Ski Championship in Oslo field work there took place from March 7 th to March 13 th. Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area. In 2011 the special topic was frequency vs walking distances. Five questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report.

4 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 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 2011 BEST City report 2011 Response rates Response rates are calculated as follows: 5 BEST Survey response rate = Number of completed interviews (Total sample ÷ telephone numbers not in use / not in target group) YEAR20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011 Copenhagen38 %54 %55 %56 %53 %39 %40 %32 %37 %34 %38% Geneva50 %47 %50 %49 %47 %56 %43 %40 %38 %37% Helsinki41 %49 %45 %47 %40 %37 %32 %26 %30 %36 %26% Oslo37 %44 %48 %45 %40 %39 %28 %27 %28 %27 % Stockholm50 %64 %56 %60 %56 %50 %64 %51 %62 %64 %51%

6 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 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 Geneva Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit

7 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 7 Mobile interviews* City2008200920102011 Stockholm2,5%**2,3%**2,1%**1,4%** Oslo40%39%44%48% Helsinki82%96%98%92% Copenhagen25%35%36%35% Geneva0% * Share of interviews conducted with respondents using a mobile phone ** If mobile callback requested by respondent only

8 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 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 2011 Stockholm

10 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 10 Stockholm Indices 2011 20112010200920082007 7267766467 6260635958 4140504136 4540524849 6355585455 7369706465 57 595655 85 8680 4439362646 6562635661

11 Stockholm 2011 Quality dimensions

12 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 12 Stockholm Traffic supply 20112010200920082007 6260635958 54 605453 6356575056 7876827976 39 3635 868586 85 7068726665 4544464339 5654565250

13 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 13 Stockholm Reliability 20112010200920082007 4140504136

14 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 14 Stockholm Information 20112010200920082007 4540524849 7469797879 2215272124 3735474240

15 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 15 Stockholm Staff behaviour 20112010200920082007 6355585455 6351595455 6258575355

16 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 16 Stockholm Security and safety 20112010200920082007 7369706465 6159 4854 7669726564 8179807876

17 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 17 Stockholm Comfort 20112010200920082007 57 595655 5960635956 6759635962 5558635752 4038393734 647067 68

18 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 18 Stockholm Social Image 20112010200920082007 85 8680 7775766564 8486878381 93 949192

19 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 19 Stockholm Value for money 20112010200920082007 4439362646 42412949 4236322344

20 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 20 Stockholm Loyalty 20112010200920082007 6562635661

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 2011 BEST City report 2011 23 Impact on satisfaction - Stockholm 2010 2011 2009 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 Stockholm 2011 Appendix

25 Stockholm 2011 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

26 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 26 Stockholm Citizen satisfaction - Subgroups

27 Stockholm 2011 Traffic supply in subgroups

28 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 28 Stockholm Traffic supply - Subgroups

29 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 29 Stockholm Good for work/school trips - Subgroups

30 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 30 Stockholm PT is good for leisure trips - Subgroups

31 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 31 Stockholm PT is good for trips in the city centre - Subgroups

32 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 32 Stockholm PT is good for trips outside the city centre - Subgroups

33 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 33 Stockholm Nearest stop is close to where I live - Subgroups

34 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 34 Stockholm Travel time on PT is reasonable - Subgroups

35 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 35 Stockholm I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups

36 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 36 Stockholm Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups

37 Stockholm 2011 Reliability in subgroups

38 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 38 Stockholm Reliability - Subgroups

39 Stockholm 2011 Information in subgroups

40 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 40 Stockholm Information - Subgroups

41 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 41 Stockholm It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip - Subgroups

42 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 42 Stockholm Information is good when traffic problems occure - Subgroups

43 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 43 Stockholm Information is good in stops and terminals - Subgroups

44 Stockholm 2011 Staff behaviour in subgroups

45 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 45 Stockholm Staff behaviour - Subgroups

46 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 46 Stockholm Staff answers my questions correctly - Subgroups

47 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 47 Stockholm Staff behaves nicely and correctly - Subgroups

48 Stockholm 2011 Security and safety in subgroups

49 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 49 Stockholm Security and safety - Subgroups

50 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 50 Stockholm I feel secure at stations and bus stops - Subgroups

51 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 51 Stockholm I feel secure on board busses and trains - Subgroups

52 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 52 Stockholm I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT - Subgroups

53 Stockholm 2011 Comfort in subgroups

54 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 54 Stockholm Comfort - Subgroups

55 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 55 Stockholm PT travel is comfortable - Subgroups

56 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 56 Stockholm Transfers are easy - Subgroups

57 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 57 Stockholm Busses and trains are modern - Subgroups

58 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 58 Stockholm Busses and trains are clean - Subgroups

59 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 59 Stockholm I normally get a seat when travel with PT - Subgroups

60 Stockholm 2011 Social image in subgroups

61 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 61 Stockholm Social image - Subgroups

62 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 62 Stockholm More people will travel with PT in the future - Subgroups

63 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 63 Stockholm PT is good for the environment - Subgroups

64 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 64 Stockholm PT is beneficial to society - Subgroups

65 Stockholm 2011 Value for money in subgroups

66 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 66 Stockholm Value for money - Subgroups

67 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 67 Stockholm PT gives good value for money - Subgroups

68 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 68 Stockholm PT fares are reasonable - Subgroups

69 Stockholm 2011 Loyalty in subgroups

70 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 70 Stockholm Loyalty - Subgroups

71 Stockholm 2011 Background information

72 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 72 Public transport travel frequency – Stockholm 2011

73 BEST 2011 BEST City report 2011 73 Life situation – Stockholm 2011

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

Download ppt "BEST Survey 2011 City report: Stockholm Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport."

Similar presentations

BEST 2014 BEST special topic 2013 Ticket media Kjetil Vrenne, BEST Project Manager 2014.

BEST 2014 BEST special topic 2013 Ticket media Kjetil Vrenne, BEST Project Manager 2014.
BEST 2014 BEST special topic 2013 Use of PT information channels Kjetil Vrenne, BEST Project Manager 2014.

BEST 2014 BEST special topic 2013 Use of PT information channels Kjetil Vrenne, BEST Project Manager 2014.
BEST Survey 2010 City report: Copenhagen Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.

BEST Survey 2010 City report: Copenhagen Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.
LIST QUESTIONS – COMPARISONS BETWEEN MODES AND WAVES Making Connections is a study of ten disadvantaged US urban communities, funded by the Annie E. Casey.

LIST QUESTIONS – COMPARISONS BETWEEN MODES AND WAVES Making Connections is a study of ten disadvantaged US urban communities, funded by the Annie E. Casey.
Prepared by Margo Eyeson-Annan New South Wales Health Survey Program, Centre for Epidemiology and Research New South Wales Department of Health March 2006.

Prepared by Margo Eyeson-Annan New South Wales Health Survey Program, Centre for Epidemiology and Research New South Wales Department of Health March 2006.
BEST 2014 BEST 2011 BEST 2014 BEST Survey results 2013.

BEST 2014 BEST 2011 BEST 2014 BEST Survey results 2013.
Consumers & Online Privacy: 2012. Agenda Background and objectives General attitudes to the internet Attitudes to online data and privacy Attitudes to.

Consumers & Online Privacy: Agenda Background and objectives General attitudes to the internet Attitudes to online data and privacy Attitudes to.
1,005 interviews were conducted by phone using a random digit dial sample to ensure all households, including ex-directory, are covered. Half of the respondents.

1,005 interviews were conducted by phone using a random digit dial sample to ensure all households, including ex-directory, are covered. Half of the respondents.
Chapter 11 Contingency Table Analysis. Nonparametric Systems Another method of examining the relationship between independent (X) and dependant (Y) variables.

Chapter 11 Contingency Table Analysis. Nonparametric Systems Another method of examining the relationship between independent (X) and dependant (Y) variables.
Going Grey in Mississauga Evaluating the Older Adult Plan using Quality of Life as a Measure of Success.

Going Grey in Mississauga Evaluating the Older Adult Plan using Quality of Life as a Measure of Success.
Ageing of population and changes in mobility of the elderly WG2 meeting of COST 355 Action Brno 24th of June 2005 Mgr. Alexandr Pešák

Ageing of population and changes in mobility of the elderly WG2 meeting of COST 355 Action Brno 24th of June 2005 Mgr. Alexandr Pešák
FINAL REPORT: OUTLINE & OVERVIEW OF SURVEY ERRORS

FINAL REPORT: OUTLINE & OVERVIEW OF SURVEY ERRORS
Attitudes to the private rented sector in Ireland: Landlord and tenant survey results ENHR, London March 2015 David Duffy, ESRI.

Attitudes to the private rented sector in Ireland: Landlord and tenant survey results ENHR, London March 2015 David Duffy, ESRI.
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP OF THE HOUSATONIC RAILROAD STUDY Presented by Julie Pokela, Ph.D. August, 2010.

PROJECTED RIDERSHIP OF THE HOUSATONIC RAILROAD STUDY Presented by Julie Pokela, Ph.D. August, 2010.
6th Biennial National Survey of U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Summer 2015 Ann S. Bisconti, PhD Bisconti Research, Inc.

6th Biennial National Survey of U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Summer 2015 Ann S. Bisconti, PhD Bisconti Research, Inc.
The following web site/s will give you more information about the issue assigned to your group. You can also search other internet sites, newspaper or.

The following web site/s will give you more information about the issue assigned to your group. You can also search other internet sites, newspaper or.
BEST 2014 BEST 2011 BEST 2014 BEST Survey results 2014.

BEST 2014 BEST 2011 BEST 2014 BEST Survey results 2014.
Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Mark McCourt &

Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Mark McCourt &
BEST Survey 2009 City report: Helsinki Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.

BEST Survey 2009 City report: Helsinki Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.
TOURISM DATA COLLECTION. Data collection Situational analyses – to perform situational analysis should be carried out marketing research to obtain quantitative.

TOURISM DATA COLLECTION. Data collection Situational analyses – to perform situational analysis should be carried out marketing research to obtain quantitative.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google