1. BEST Survey 2010 City report: Copenhagen 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 Copenhagen

10. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 10 Copenhagen Indices 2010 20102009200820072006 6056505856 54555756 43 414038 4546484348 6568656665 71686970 56585554 7173697068 28 273532 47 424945

11. Copenhagen 2010 Quality dimensions

12. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 12 Copenhagen Traffic supply 20102009200820072006 5654555756 54 4956 4038394142 81 8081 40363841 8384 8583 5553505658 37 413739 5550535550

13. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 13 20102009200820072006 43 414038 Copenhagen Reliability

14. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 14 Copenhagen Information 20102009200820072006 4546484348 71 746970 26282927 3739 33-

15. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 15 Copenhagen Staff behaviour 20102009200820072006 6568656665 5760575857 73757273

16. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 16 Copenhagen Security and safety 20102009200820072006 71686970 5852565958 7368697170 8485837982

17. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 17 Copenhagen Comfort 20102009200820072006 56585554 5558555453 5657 5358 6667626359 394138 65676564

18. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 18 Copenhagen Social Image 20102009200820072006 7173697068 4749434642 8182777677 8487858683

19. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 19 Copenhagen Value for money 20102009200820072006 28 273532 34353239 2122 3025

20. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 20 20102009200820072006 47 424945 Copenhagen 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 - Copenhagen 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. Copenhagen 2010 Appendix

25. Copenhagen 2010 Citizen satisfaction in subgroups

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

27. Copenhagen 2010 Traffic supply in subgroups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 35 Copenhagen Waiting time is short at transfers - Subgroups

36. BEST 2010 BEST City report 2010 36 Copenhagen I am satisfied with the number of departures - Subgroups

37. Copenhagen 2010 Reliability in subgroups

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

39. Copenhagen 2010 Information in subgroups

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

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

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

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

44. Copenhagen 2010 Staff behaviour in subgroups

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

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

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

48. Copenhagen 2010 Security and safety in subgroups

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

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

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

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

53. Copenhagen 2010 Comfort in subgroups

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

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

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

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

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

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

60. Copenhagen 2010 Social image in subgroups

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

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

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

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

65. Copenhagen 2010 Value for money in subgroups

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

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

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

69. Copenhagen 2010 Loyalty in subgroups

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

71. Copenhagen 2010 Background information

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

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

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