Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey.

Published byCaren French Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey."— Presentation transcript:

1 Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey

2 BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 Content 1.About the survey 2.How to read the graphs 3.Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 4.Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010 5.Main results per city from 2005 to 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction Satisfaction per city/region 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 from 2005 to 2010 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 BEST performing city/region per index 2006 - 2010

10 BEST 2010 20102009200820072006 Citizen satisfaction Helsinki (77) Geneva (84) Geneva (78) Vienna (80) Helsinki (81) Traffic supply Geneva (68) Geneva (71) Berlin (86) Berlin (84) Berlin (70) Reliability Geneva (73) Geneva (76) Berlin (84) Berlin (84) Geneva (79) Information Geneva (71) Geneva (75) Geneva (71) Geneva (71) Geneva (66) Staff behaviour Geneva (74) Geneva (78) Geneva (74) Geneva (75) Geneva (76) Security and safety Oslo (84) Oslo (82) Oslo (82) Vienna (87) Vienna (81) Comfort Geneva (67) Geneva (71) Berlin (78) Berlin (77) Geneva (67) Value for money Helsinki (51) Berlin (56) Vienna (53) Helsinki (50) Social image Oslo (90) Geneva (90) Oslo (87) Oslo (89) Geneva (85) Loyalty Helsinki (80) Helsinki (81) Helsinki (80) Vienna (81) Vienna (75) Best performing city per index BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 10

11 Results per index and city/region

12 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region in 2010 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction 7277 6760 Traffic supply 646768605956 Reliability 535673403943 Information 534671404445 Staff behaviour 565974556765 Security & safety 747674698471 Comfort 6062675756 Social image 8187 858871 Value for money 425136393728 Loyalty 728075626047 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 12

13 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region in 2009 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction 618284766256 Traffic supply 68 71635754 Reliability 656876503943 Information 6152755246 Staff behaviour 605878587168 Security & safety 727479708268 Comfort 616271595358 Social image 848990868873 Value for money 405140363828 Loyalty 658175636147 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 13

14 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region in 2008 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction68767873646250 Traffic supply6065688659 55 Reliability56647984414841 Information54497170484648 Staff behaviour54 7472546965 Security & safety76727768648269 Comfort60636878565255 Social image79848680 8769 Value for money33473356263827 Loyalty70807375566342 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 14

15 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region in 2007 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction8079 73676658 Traffic supply72666984586257 Reliability72648384365240 Information64487167494743 Staff behaviour71577571557466 Security & safety87718072658370 Comfort696371775554 Social image85868780 8970 Value for money53493153463435 Loyalty81787571616549 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 15

16 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction 11-4-6-9-24 Traffic supply -4-3 21 Reliability -13-12-3-900 Information -8-6-4-11-2 Staff behaviour -41-3 -4-3 Security & safety 23-5-223 Comfort 0-4-23 Social image -3-2-30-2 Value for money 20-43 Loyalty 70-20 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 16

17 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction -666136 Traffic supply 8334-2 Reliability 94-39-92 Information 83441-2 Staff behaviour 634433 Security & safety -32270 Comfort 13413 Social image 444604 Value for money 7481001 Loyalty -51385 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 17

18 BEST 2010 Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008 ViennaHelsinkiGenevaBerlinStockholmOsloCopenhagen Citizen satisfaction-12-30-3-4-8 Traffic supply-12 21-3-2 Reliability-160-405 1 Information-10103 5 Staff behaviour-17-31 -5 Security & safety-111-3-4 Comfort-90-311-21 Social image-6-200-2 Value for money-20-223-204-8 Loyalty-112-24-5-2-7 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 18

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

20 BEST 2010 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 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 20

21 BEST 2010 CopenhagenGenevaHelsinki OsloStockholmVienna Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport? 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 2010 – main report – page 21

22 Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2005 - 2010

23 BEST 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 7782767981 7784787976 7261688074 6776646765 6056505856 6062 6658 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 23

24 BEST 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction TOTAL BASE: Replied grade % satisfied citizens BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 24

25 Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2010

26 BEST 2010 Traffic supply TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 6871686968 6768656667 6468607266 6063595857 5957596255 5654555756 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 26

27 BEST 2010 Traffic supply % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 27

28 Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2010

29 BEST 2010 Reliability TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 7376798379 566864 72 5365567268 43 414038 4050413638 39 485243 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 29

30 BEST 2010 Reliability % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 30

31 Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2010

32 BEST 2010 Information TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 717571 66 53615464 4652494857 4546484348 4446 4742 4052584951 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 32

33 BEST 2010 Information % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 33

34 Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2010

35 BEST 2010 Staff behaviour TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 7478747576 6771697465 68656665 5958545759 5660547167 5558545559 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 35

36 BEST 2010 Staff behaviour % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 36

37 Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2010

38 BEST 2010 Security and safety TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 8482 8380 7674727172 7479778074 72768781 71686970 6970646563 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 38

39 BEST 2010 Security and safety % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 39

40 Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2010

41 BEST 2010 Comfort TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 6771687167 62 63 6061606964 5759565553 5653525448 56585554 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 41

42 BEST 2010 Comfort % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 42

43 Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2010

44 BEST 2010 Social image TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 88 878981 8789848682 8790868785 8680 81 84798581 7173697068 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 44

45 BEST 2010 Social image % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 45

46 Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2010

47 BEST 2010 Value for money TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 51 474950 4240335349 3936264640 3738 34 3640333125 28 273532 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 47

48 BEST 2010 Value for money % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 48

49 Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2010

50 BEST 2010 Loyalty TOTAL BASE: Replied grade 20102009200820072006 8081807875 737567 7265708175 6263566157 6061636553 47 424945 BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 50

51 BEST 2010 Loyalty % satisfied citizens TOTAL BASE: Replied grade BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 51

52 Background information

53 BEST 2010 Gender BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 53

54 BEST 2010 Life situation BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 54

55 BEST 2010 Public transport travel frequency BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 55

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

Download ppt "Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey."

Similar presentations

1 NEW YORK CHIGAGO DETROIT SAN FRANCISCO LONDON PARIS HAMBURG.

1 NEW YORK CHIGAGO DETROIT SAN FRANCISCO LONDON PARIS HAMBURG.
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.
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.
Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 1 Guidelines For Interpretation Of Results.

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 1 Guidelines For Interpretation Of Results.
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.
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.
European Immigration Classism: Attitudes toward “Good” and “Bad” Immigrants Dr. Rueyling Tzeng Research Fellow Institute of European and American Studies.

European Immigration Classism: Attitudes toward “Good” and “Bad” Immigrants Dr. Rueyling Tzeng Research Fellow Institute of European and American Studies.
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.
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.
AGA 2009 Tracking Survey Perceptions of Governmental Financial Management Prepared for the Association of Government Accountants December 29, 2009 © Harris.

AGA 2009 Tracking Survey Perceptions of Governmental Financial Management Prepared for the Association of Government Accountants December 29, 2009 © Harris.
Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.

Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google