1. Introduction to BEST Survey results 2015 Oslo, 8 th of February 2016

2. BEST Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport ”To be humble enough to admit that there is always something you can learn from others, and ambitious enough to believe that even the BEST can be improved” Page 2 BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

3. Steering committee: Nordic Directors Meeting (NDM) Chairman: Marit Elin Leite, Ruter Vice chair: Gylve A. Sandal, Ruter Planning committee: Gabriella Nilsson, SLL Antti Vuorela, HSL Peter Rosbak Juhl, Movia Permanent working groups: BEST Key figure database BEST Survey analysis group BEST Organisation Page 3BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

4. The BEST project BEST Survey Special survey topic Key figure database Work- shops Seminar 1. BEST Survey and Special Survey topic 2. BEST Key figure database 3. Workshops & BEST Seminar BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 4

5. 1.000 interviews with citizens aged 16+ per year A continuous web panel survey throughout the year (Jan – Dec), from Nov 2012 (except Geneva and parts of Helsinki) Before: A telephone survey conducted March every year from 2001 – 2012 Perceived quality – 10 dimensions (approx. 27 statements) Quality evaluated on a 5-point scale Special Survey Topic The Survey Page 5BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

6. Special survey topic 2015 What would make PT more interesting for car users? Page 6 BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

7. BEST Key figure database (total and per PT mode) 1.Statistical background information (population & surface) 2.Public transport system and capacity 3.Public transport demand 4.Financial key figures 5.Quality -------- Ratios ---------- 1.Supply & demand ratios 2.Financial ratios BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 7 Public transport system & capacity Route kilometers (million) Seat kilometers (million) Total number of departures (sum) per year (million) Number of routes Public transport demand Boardings (million) Boardings (average per weekday in October) Passenger kilometers (in millions)

8. Current key figure database BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 8

9. BEST Seminar Once a year Exchange of experiences & networking Discussing in “islands” the material presented: –Results of the survey, special survey topics, key figures –Presentations of projects and news from other BEST cities Colleagues dinner Page 9BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

10. BEST Seminar 2015 - program Page 10 BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

11. BEST Seminar 2016 Date: Monday 25th and Tuesday 26th of April 2016 Place: Den Haag BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 11

12. BEST work shops 2015 WG 1: BEST Key figure database, Oslo, April 16 WS 1: Traffic planning: Forecasting and evaluation of effects of changes in traffic plans, Stockholm, November 4 WS 2: How to forecast changes in demand and estimate ticket revenue? Helsinki, November 24 WS 3: Citizen Involvement when planning new services, Oslo, November 26 Topics 2015: One day in-depth discussion Topics suggested at Seminar, could also be linked to Special Topic All participating cities makes a presentation Work shops: Page 12BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

13. WS 1: Traffic planning: Forecasting and evaluation of effects of changes in traffic plans, Stockholm, November 4 Topics presented: 1.The Transport administration and Stockholm County Council in brief 2.The national negotiation of housing (Sweden) 3.Traffic Counselling and Traffic Planning in Movia. Focus on challenges regarding redesign of the bus network in the Greater Copenhagen area 4.Creating a traffic plan to the west corridor (Oslo area) 5.Forecasting and evaluation of effects of traffic plans (Helsinki) BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 13

14. WS 2: How to forecast changes in demand and estimate ticket revenue? Helsinki, November 24 Public transport fare elasticity in HRT 2014 Price elasticity in public transport refers to responsiveness of demand for tickets to (small) changes in their prices. Direct elasticity affects same ticket type and cross elasticity affects other ticket types or modes of transport. In literature rule of thumb is -0.3 (10% upcharge leads 3% deduction in demand). Based on data from 2005-2013 in HRT area price elasticity coefficient for seasonal ticket is -0.36. Ticket survey – the way to share the costs of PT for HSL’s member municipalities HSL’s operating expenses are allocated to member municipalities based on the use of the services: operating costs on the basis of passenger kilometers, other costs on the basis of boardings. The demand data used in the allocation are mainly based on ticket surveys and Travel Card system data. The presentation summarizes the method of ticket survey and gives a few examples how the results are used. BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 14

15. WS 3: Citizen Involvement when planning new services, Oslo, November 26 1.Customer involvement in service development 2.Engaging people in the future of public transport 3.Citizen participation in the West Metro Bus route plan 2014 4.Operational Research - making it digital 5.Workshop with active citizen involvement - The String Game Mobile data collection methods All presentations are available for download from the BEST web site (www.best2005.net)www.best2005.net BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 15

16. Workshops and special survey topic 2016 BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 16 Workshop 1 - 2016: Related to BEST special survey topic: What would make PT more interesting for car users? March 15th, 2016. Stockholm Workshop 2 – 2016: Mobility – trends and lessons to be learned. September 2016, Copenhagen Workshop 3 – 2016: How to develop new sources of revenue. October 2016, Oslo Workshop 4 – 2016: How the brand strategy can increase attractiveness of public transport, November 2016, Helsinki Special survey topic 2016: Mobility

17. Dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used Main occupation Gender Age Post code (geography) 10. Loyalty 8. Value for money 7. Social image 9. Satisfaction 1.Traffic Supply 2.Reliability 3.Information 4.Staff behaviour 5.Personal security/safety 6.Comfort Ridership BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 17

18. BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 18 BEST Survey results 2015 1.000 interviews with citizens aged 16+ per year Approx. 27 statements, 10 quality dimensions Overall satisfaction with PT (2015) Development in overall satisfaction

19. Biggest negative changes in citizens satisfaction score (%-points) CityChange from last year (2014 to 2015)%- point change BergenPT fares are reasonable-10 % StockholmPT mostly runs on schedule-8 % BergenPT gives value for money-7 % GenevaPT is good for trips outside the city centre-6 % StockholmI am satisfied with the number of departures-4 % StockholmPT is good for trips outside the city centre-4 % GenevaTravelling with PT is comfortable-4 % BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 19

20. Biggest positive changes in citizens satisfaction score (%-points) BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 20 CityChange from last year (2014 to 2015) %- point change GenevaPT fares are reasonable 20 % GenevaPT gives value for money 15 % GenevaHow satisfied are you with PT in general? 11 % BergenThe information is good in stops and terminals 11 % BergenIt is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip 8 % CopenhagenI am satisfied with the number of departures 8 % CopenhagenWaiting time is short at transfers 8 % CopenhagenTravelling with PT is comfortable 8 % OsloI am satisfied with the number of departures 8 % OsloWaiting time is short at transfers 7 % OsloThe busses and trains are modern 6 % CopenhagenTransfers are easy 6 % BergenThe busses and trains are modern 6 % CopenhagenI feel secure on board busses and trains 6 % HelsinkiThe staff answers my questions correctly 6 %

21. Relative score compared with BEST average 2015 Deviation from BEST averageCity 2015StockholmOsloHelsinkiCopenhagenGenevaBergen Traffic supply PT is good for work/school trips-6 % 6 % 12 %-16 % PT is good for trips e.g. shopping, leisure etc 9 %12 %-10 %-9 %-14 % PT is good for trips in the city centre -16 % PT is good for trips outside the city centre 11 %6 %-12 %-19 % Nearest stop is close to where I live -7 % Travel time on PT is reasonable 7 % -11 % Waiting time is short at transfers 10 % -15 % I am satisfied with the number of departures-6 % 7 % 6 %-20 % ReliabilityPT mostly runs on schedule-18 % 8 % Information Easy to get info needed when planning a trip 6 % -8 % The info is good when traffic problems occur-7 % 14 %-19 % The information is good in stops and terminals-6 %10 % -7 %12 % Staff behaviour The staff answers my questions correctly -6 % 12 % The staff behaves nicely and correctly-9 % 6 % BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 21

22. Relative score compared with BEST average 2015 Deviation from BEST average - 2015StockholmOsloHelsinkiCopenhagenGenevaBergen Security and safety I feel secure at stations and bus stops-12 %10 % -6 %12 % I feel secure on board busses and trains-6 %5 % 7 % I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT-7 % Comfort Travelling with PT is comfortable 6 % 7 %-6 % Transfers are easy 7 % -14 % The busses and trains are modern-11 % 9 % The busses and trains are clean-7 % 10 %7 % I normally get a seat when I travel with PT -7 %16 % -23 % Social image More people will travel with PT in the future 9 % -20 % PT is good for the environment PT is beneficial to society -7 % Value for money PT gives value for money-17 % 15 %-19 %11 %-7 % PT fares are reasonable-7 % 10 %-15 %14 %-9 % LoyaltyI gladly recommend travelling with PT-10 % 12 %-16 %9 %-8 % Overall satisfact.How satisfied are you with PT in general? 10 %-13 %15 %-22 % BEST Survey 2015 results - introductionPage 22