BEST Benchmarking European Service of public Transport. Marit Elin Leite, BEST Chair Gylve Aftret Sandal, Vice Chair Helsinki, June

Transcription

1 BEST Benchmarking European Service of public Transport Marit Elin Leite, BEST Chair Gylve Aftret Sandal, Vice Chair Helsinki, June Main results BEST Survey 2015

2 Strong Nordic Footprint The Survey BEST aims to strengthen focus on customers needs, demands and expectations. The main strategy is to establish a learning process among public transport professionals by comparing processes. A common survey focuses on public transport quality in relevant dimensions as perceived by the citizens of the region. Page 2 Main results BEST Survey 2015

3 3 Pillars of BEST BEST main parts BEST Survey The results from the BEST Survey are presented in reports which show the results for both the individual city region and for all participating BEST city regions. Combining soft and hard facts to create actionable insight for each city Creating a common arena for learning and sharing Seminars/ workshops Key figure database 1. Complement BEST Survey results - more complete picture 2. Provide easy access to time series for important key figures (Nordic cities / BEST members) 3. Identify similarities and differences between cities Main results BEST Survey 2015

4 BEST Survey results 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) Perceived quality 10 dimensions & approx. 27 statements Quality evaluated on a 5 point scale Special survey topic Overall satisfaction with Public Transport (2015) Development in overall satisfaction Page 4 NDM April 2016

5 KEY FIGURE DATABASE Change in population, boarding's & ticket revenue from 2014/2015 (%) 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% Population Boardings Ticket revenue 9,6 % 6,9 % 4,8 % 4,1 % 3,1 % 1,4 % 1,7 % 1,7 % 1,5 % 1,2 % 0,5 % 2014/ / / /2015 Helsinki Oslo Stockholm Copenhagen (Movia bus & train) 3,6 % 6% Main results BEST Survey

6 Special survey topic 2015: What would make PT more interesting for car users? 2008: Use of PT information channels 2009: How to finance PT service improvements 2010: Transfers 2011: Walking distance vs. frequency 2012: Comfort vs. travel time 2013: Ticket media & use of PT information channels 2014: Ticket media & tickets and tickets inspections 2015: What would make PT more interesting for car users? 2016: Mobility (Final results to be reported in February 2017) Page 6 Main results BEST Survey 2015

7 7 Using BEST Survey and Key Figure Data

8 Learning from each other Development in overall satisfaction with Public Transport 100% Geneva; 86% 90% 80% 70% 60% Helsinki; 81% Oslo; 72% Stockholm; 71% Copenhagen; 59% 50% Bergen; 50% 40% 30% 20%

9 Geneva and Oslo Region Development in overall satisfaction with Public Transport 100% 90% Geneva: Large change in the network (December 2011) Geneva: Large price reduction (December 2014) Geneva; 86% 80% 70% Oslo; 72% 60% 50% 40% 30% Ruter: Continuous improvements in PT offer and new Rolling Stock 20%

10 Highlighting the Positives Biggest positive changes in citizens satisfaction score (% points) City Change from last year (2014 to 2015) % point change Geneva PT fares are reasonable 20 % Geneva PT gives value for money 15 % Geneva How satisfied are you with PT in general? 11 % Bergen The information is good in stops and terminals 11 % It is easy to get the information needed when planning a Bergen trip 8 % Copenhagen I am satisfied with the number of departures 8 % Copenhagen Waiting time is short at transfers 8 % Copenhagen Travelling with PT is comfortable 8 % Oslo I am satisfied with the number of departures 8 % Oslo Waiting time is short at transfers 7 % Oslo The busses and trains are modern 6 % Copenhagen Transfers are easy 6 % Bergen The busses and trains are modern 6 % Copenhagen I feel secure on board busses and trains 6 % Helsinki The staff answers my questions correctly 6 % Page 10 BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

11 and the Negatives Biggest negative changes in citizens satisfaction score (% points) City Change from last year (2014 to 2015) % point change Bergen PT fares are reasonable 10 % Stockholm PT mostly runs on schedule 8 % Bergen PT gives value for money 7 % Geneva PT is good for trips outside the city centre 6 % Stockholm I am satisfied with the number of departures 4 % Stockholm PT is good for trips outside the city centre 4 % Geneva Travelling with PT is comfortable 4 % Page 11 BEST Survey 2015 results - introduction

12 1 2 BEST Practice

13 Example Ruter 50 % more PT trips since 2007 PT trips Akershus PT trips Oslo Vehicle kilometers Population growth Car journeys Akershus Car journeys Oslo

14 Population Growth is a main drivers Population growth in Nordic cities 2001 to ,30 1,27 1,25 1,20 1,15 1,10 1,05 1,00 1,25 1,25 1,23 1,23 1,22 1,21 1,21 1,20 1,20 1,19 1,18 1,16 1,16 1,16 1,15 1,14 1,14 1,12 1,12 1,11 1,10 1,10 1,09 1,07 1,08 1,07 1,06 1,06 1,06 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,04 1,04 1,04 1,04 1,03 1,03 1,03 1,03 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,01 1,01 1,00 1,00 1,01 1,01 1,01 1,01 1, Stockholm Helsinki Oslo Copenhagen Main results BEST Survey 2015 Page 14

15 Increase in Ridership and Ticket Revenue Main development trends: Results from BEST Key figure database 2014 to 2015 Population CPH 1,2 % HEL 1,4 % OSL 1,8 % STO 1,5 % Seat kilometers CPH 4,4 % CPH 0,1 % CPH 6,3 % Passenger km HEL 3,9 % Average seat (boardings x HEL 3,0 % HEL 0,8 % occupancy OSL 4,6 % average OSL 3,7 % rate OSL 0,9 % length in km) STO 1,1 % STO 1,1 % STO 2,2 % Total costs CPH 2,3 % CPH 3,6 % CPH 8,4 % HEL 3,2 % Ticket HEL 6,9 % HEL 3,0 % + Subsidy OSL 4,0 % revenue OSL 8,6 % OSL 2,2 % STO 5,6 % STO 4,1 % STO 6,9 % Page 15 NDM April 2016

16 CONTENT: 1. Statistical background information (4) 2. Public transport system and capacity (4) 3. Public transport demand (3) 4. Financial key figures (5) 5. Quality (4) 6. Supply & demand ratios (3) 7. Financial ratios (7) Key figures database STATUS: 1. Key figures for 5 cities in the database (Copenhagen, Helsinki, Geneva, Oslo and Stockholm) 2. Selected preliminary key figures for 2015 presented for NDM, Total: 20 Key figures and 10 ratios Page 16 Main results BEST Survey 2015

17 Putting the pieces together More people will travel with PT in the future Public transport is good for the environment Public transport is beneficial to society 1.Traffic Supply 2.Reliability 3.Information 4.Staff behaviour 5.Personal security/safety 6.Comfort 7. Social image 9. Satisfaction 8. Value for money 10. Loyalty Ridership Background variables: Travel frequency Transport alternative most often used Occupation Gender Page 17 Age Zip code

18 Identifying Areas for Improvement RUTER The PT offer is the most important factor for explaining satisfaction Satisfaction does not influence reputation, but reputation has almost as much influence on loyalty as satisfaction Value for money influence both satisfaction and loyalty. However, it may be discussed the time order of the link between value for money and satisfaction. The PT offer is important for Ruter s reputation and overall satisfaction. Loyalty is an important predictor for use and is stronger in Oslo than in the overall model. The results also suggests that information is not an important factor in Oslo.

19 A Priority Plan for Each City The example shows Ruter perfroms below its peers. Although the score has increased (+1,1) since 2014, further improvements will increase overall satisfiaction 1 9

20 What is path analysis? Path analysis is a straightforward extension of multiple regression. Its aim is to provide estimates of the magnitude and significance of hypothesised causal connections between sets of variables. This is best explained by considering a path diagram. 20

21 Join In! For more info see or Page 21 Main results BEST Survey 2015