BESTBenchmarking in EuropeanService of public Transport

Results of the 2002 survey

BarcelonaCopenhagen

GenevaManchester

LondonHelsinki

OsloStockholm

Vienna

1

Index

Foreword ......................................................................................................................2About the survey and the results...................................................................................3BEST Scores 2002 .......................................................................................................4Citizen’s Satisfaction.....................................................................................................6Traffic Supply................................................................................................................8Reliability .................................................................................................................... 10Information.................................................................................................................. 12Staff Behaviour ........................................................................................................... 14Personal Security and Safety...................................................................................... 16Comfort....................................................................................................................... 18Social Image............................................................................................................... 20Value for Money.......................................................................................................... 22Loyalty ........................................................................................................................ 24Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency ................................................................... 26Background information .............................................................................................. 30TEMO Summary - About the survey ........................................................................... 32TEMO Summary - General comments on the results .................................................. 34How to read the graphs............................................................................................... 35

2

ForewordThe third survey of BEST was conducted during March 2002 in nine European regions:Barcelona, Copenhagen, Geneva, Helsinki, London, Manchester, Oslo, Stockholm andVienna. 1000 telephone interviews concerning questions on perceived quality of thepublic transport of the region, was answered by the citizens of each region.

The results presented in this report offer a platform for our further process ofsystematic benchmarking. The objective is to identify role models, to decide onCommon Interest Groups (CIG) and to compare processes of work: ”how do youmanage to get such a high share of satisfied citizens?”

At the moment 5 CIGs are working in the following dimensions of public transportquality:- Integration of public transport and city planning- Complaint management- Enthusiastic staff and satisfied customers- Customer segmentation for increased demand and loyalty- Public transport and personal security

Whether the group of CIGs should be completed or not will be decided after theanalyses and discussions of the results of this years survey.

We believe that learning from colleagues is an efficient way of improving quality ofpublic transport services. We are also convinced that there is a positive relationbetween good quality and high demand – to increase travel with public transport is ourcommon task. To create a stimulating network of European public transport colleaguesis another goal for BEST. Communicating the process of BEST and its results inside aswell as outside our regions should be a positive promotion of public transport and ourefforts to improve ourselves to meet the challenges of the future.

This working paper contains the results from the common survey completed with shortcomments from each region. The paper will be used as our platform for externalcommunication. A short summary of the progress of the BEST process so far will beproduced to our seminar October 28-29th in Stockholm.

Stockholm 2002-08-23Bo TengbladChairmanBEST Organising Committee

Participating companies/authoritiesTransports de Barcelona, TMB, Barcelona, SpainGreater Copenhagen Authority, HUR, Copenhagen, DenmarkDSB S-tog and DSB Passagertog, Copenhagen, DenmarkHelsinki City Transport, HKL, Helsinki, FinlandOslo Public Transport Inc., OS, Oslo, NorwayGreater Oslo Public Transport, Oslo, NorwayAB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, SL, Stockholm, SwedenWiener Linien and Verkehrsverbund Ostregion (VOR), Vienna, AustriaOffice des Transports et de la Circulation, OTC, Geneva, SwitzerlandTransport for London, TfL, London, UKGreater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, GMPTE, Manchester, UK

3

About the survey and the resultsThe response rate of this survey is much more satisfying than last year’s. This is theresult of the thorough discussions we have had with TEMO, the organiser of the surveythat was conducted by local interviewing companies, after last year’s experiences. Themeans and measures taken has resulted in an increased response rate:

2001 2002Barcelona 23% 36 %Copenhagen 38 % 54 %Geneva 50 %Helsinki 41 % 49 %London 35 %Manchester 34 %Oslo 37 % 44 %Stockholm 50 % 64 %Vienna 39 % 57 %

This positive development may have a ”negative” effect on the results: the rate of non-frequent travellers has increased this year, which leads to more negative respondents.Last years results were generally a bit too good.

Saying this it is interesting to note the positive development of the results inCopenhagen and Oslo! See the comments from each region below!

This time the conducting of the interviews has been designed more strictly to avoidnon-relevant differences between the regions. Maybe that is the explanation to the factthat the citizens in Barcelona this year have used the grade ”3” which they to greatextent avoided last year?

For technical comments from TEMO see page 32.

BEST Scores 2002Below the BEST scores are presented for each of the parameters used in the survey.

Gero”wwhForeexvepo

GeindgovePDlinexbe

Ge

Ge

GeHefo� �

P

Cit

Parameters Best Scores

4

neral comments: In four of the ten measured dimensions of perceived quality thele model 2002 has more than 80% satisfied citizens, which must be regarded asorld class”. The lowest ”winning score” is found in ”value for money” and ”comfort”,ere two out of three citizens are satisfied.r the third year public transport in Helsinki shows a very positive picture of itslations to the citizens. Already in its first entry Geneva surprises (?) us with mostcellent results in six of the ten dimensions measured. Vienna continues to presentry impressing results concerning safety and personal security. Barcelona has thesition of role model concerning traffic supply.

neral comments from Barcelona: The global results of the survey BEST 2002icate a significant reduction of satisfaction of the Barcelona citizen. After the veryod results obtained by Barcelona on BEST 2001 the comment was that 2001 was ary ”sweet period” for Barcelona. (Fare integration, Director Plan of Infrastructure:I, that includes the creation of a new Metro line, some extensions, new tramway

es, the creation of exchange areas and the improvement of the railway, andtension of Metro Line 3, etc...) It was to be expected that the result of 2002 wouldn’t as good as 2001.

neral comments from Copenhagen: No comments.

neral comments from Geneva: No comments.

neral comments from Helsinki: The indexes have decreased 1-2 points inlsinki. There is no obvious reason for this tendency. If we want to speculate, the

llowing may affect to the results:higher prices of tickets in 2002 than in 2001change to Euro and the period in January-February when single tickets were notsold on trams

%

-6

-11

-5

-15

-4

-7

-11

-9

-19

-7

80

67

85

69

86

77

73

82

71

79

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Loyalty

Value for Money

Social Image

Comfort

ersonal Security

Staff Behaviour

Information

Reliability

Traffic Supply

izen Satisfaction

Hardly/Not at all agree Partially/Fully agree

Helsinki/Geneva

Barcelona

Geneva

Geneva

Geneva

Vienna

Geneva

Geneva

Helsinki

Helsinki

5

General comments from London: The 2002 London results were broadly comparablewith the results of a pilot survey carried out during 2001. Though London performsbelow average on most measures it is encouraging to see comparatively better resultsfor ‘Value for money’ and ‘Social image’.While the below average results for London are disappointing, the results should bebetter in the future. Responsibility for most transport services transferred to an electedMayor in July 2000. A Transport Strategy has been published and a business planagreed that will deliver transport improvements. We expect that these changes will leadto improvements in customer satisfaction.

General comments from Manchester:� Bus deregulation and privatisation – most services (85%) are determined by

commercial considerations of private bus operators. Note the contrast with theLondon situation, in which franchises are let for individual routes, with timetablesand fares determined by Transport for London. Bus is the dominant publictransport mode in Greater Manchester.

� Rail privatisation – franchises for services that cover Greater Manchester are let bythe Strategic Rail Authority, with limited GMPTE influence.

� Light rail – GMPTE lets the concession for light rail operations.� General – absence of integrated ticketing.� Polycentric conurbation – fewer than 10% of jobs in the main city centre.

General comments from Oslo: The BEST 2002 results show improvements in all ofthe ten topics for the Greater Oslo region. It is interesting to observe that the resultsfrom BEST 2002 are coherent with similar customer satisfaction surveys we conductedourselves, which also indicates a higher number of satisfied customers. Thisdevelopment is again seen in better satisfaction with the reliability and traffic supply.The Oslo metro, which has about one third of the customers in the region, has beenable to reduce the number of delays significantly from 2001. A reliability programstarted in fall 2001, which includes monthly registration of all departures that did not runon schedule. In the same period we also observed a drop in number of complaints.Another possible reason why a more positive attitude towards public transport inGreater Oslo is growing might be a more moderate criticism from major newspapers inOslo in 2002 compared to last year.Greater Oslo is two different regions where AS Oslo Sporveier (Oslo Public TransportInc.) serves the city of Oslo, while Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk AS (Greater Oslo PassengerTransport Ltd.) serves the suburban and more rural areas in the region.

General comments from Stockholm: No comments.

General comments from Vienna: All results are a little bit lower than last year. Themain reason is: There were rather intensive discussions and media campaigns aboutticket prices and level of service quality in March and April 2002, exactly during theperiod the BEST survey took place. We had to communicate and to argue increasingticket prices in June 2002 by 8,2% in average. This causes deteriorated figures ofnearly all characteristics by 1 up to 2% because of worse overall image.A second reason is the far better response rate in Vienna this year: 39% (2001), 57%(2002). This leads to more realistic but a bit lower results. (Wiener Linien)Values of the survey in the year 2002 are in general lower than in 2001 for the city ofVienna and the VOR region, with two exceptions: information and social image.However, according to the survey, Viennese customers still feel safest in publictransport vehicles compared to the other cities. Compared to the city of Vienna, thecustomer’s opinion in the VOR region is higher only concerning staff behaviour andcomfort. The other figures are of course higher in the city of Vienna due to the denserpublic transport net. (VOR).

6

Citizen’s Satisfaction

� A measurement that describes the satisfaction with public transport in general

General comments: ”Over all role models ” of 2002 are Helsinki and Geneva!

Barcelona: The data of the ISC (Customers’ satisfaction index) of Metro and busesindicate as well that the customers’ satisfaction index has decreased, referring mostlyto the aspects related to questions as travel time and those related to the personalsecurity of the customers.

Copenhagen: At the general level, Copenhagen has increased its number of satisfiedcitizens by 3 % points – from 60% in 2001 to 63% in 2002. This figure corresponds toHURs own on-board surveys made with the bus customers, where passengers areapproximately 2% point more satisfied than last year.Generally, Copenhagen has improved almost all parameters – except ”Value forMoney”. Simultaneously, the number of dissatisfied has decreased. We believe that thepresent picture is a more normalized picture of the citizens’ attitudes towards publictransport since we were largely touched by delays and cancellations on theØresundtrains during the period when last year’s survey was conducted. Generally, welook very much forward to seeing the results of the 2003 survey. The first step of theCopenhagen Metro will be inaugurated in October 2002, and at the same time HUR willintroduce the bus trunk line system – inspired by the Stockholm solution!

Geneva: Difficult to comment

Helsinki: Helsinki has developed public transport by new products: the modern metroand new metro stations, new bus and tram stops and new trams and buses. Peoplehave valued the development. In 2002 the index decreased from 83 to 79 and that wasprobably a consequence of higher fares, euro arrangements and temporaryarrangements on streets under construction.

London: Satisfaction with public transport is low, with only half of people saying theyare satisfied with the service provided. Young people (under 25) and elderly people (65or more) are the most satisfied. Older people are also the most satisfied on our modalsatisfaction surveys, showing that these results are consistent.

7

Manchester: Satisfaction with ”public transport in general” is weak in GreaterManchester, with only 50% saying that they are satisfied or very satisfied – in relationto 65% across all 9 regions. This gap versus other regions is revealed consistentlyacross all groups of traveller – from those that travel daily, to those that say they”never” use public transport.

Oslo: For 2002, 49 percent of the respondents are satisfied with public transport inGreater Oslo. This is up 6 percentage points compared to 2001, and indicates anoverall positive change in people’s attitude towards public transport. The positivechange in attitude is most apparent for those traveling a few times a week or less, whilethe attitude among daily travelers is unchanged. The most important part of thebenchmarking survey, we believe is to learn from the results and take action to bettersatisfy our customers. Even though the public transport in Greater Oslo do not have themost satisfied citizens in Europe, we have together with Copenhagen, improved themost compared to last year.

Stockholm: The decrease is biggest for those who travel a few times per month. Thereis no change for daily travellers. Compared to other surveys conducted in Stockholm62% satisfied citizens are about the true level nowadays, unfortunately.

Vienna: More or less same results as in 2001: 75% (2002), 76% (2001). If at allpossible to comment, this ”decrease” runs parallel to the decreased overall image levelbecause of the intensive media campaign about increasing ticket prices in Vienna.(Wiener Linien)

8

Traffic Supply

� Good for work/school trips and other trips e.g. shopping, leisure (2 questions)� Good for trips in and outside the city centre (2 questions)� Nearest stop close to home� Travel time� Waiting time at transfers� Frequency of departures

General comments: A rather low level of satisfaction among the citizens, which maybe alarming considering that these questions deal with our ”core business”.

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: Copenhagen has generally a higher level of satisfaction than last yearwhen it comes to the traffic supply. ”Nearest stop is close to where I live” is the top-score of all participating cities. DSB and HUR has done much to make access to thestations easier by opening new stair-cases at many stations. The figure may, however,deteriorate next year when the trunk line system is inaugurated in October 2002. HURgets fewer lines, but with a higher number of departures. Public transport is stillconsidered remarkably better within the inner-city than outside, though we haveimproved significantly on travels outside the city. Satisfaction with the length of thewaiting time is still too low – only 38% is satisfied whereas the top-scoring city has60%. The largest improvement within this parametre is concerning satisfaction with thenumber of departures. Compared to 2001, the image of public transport has improvedby virtue of the general improvement of the Øresundstrains who were touched by amassive number of cancellations and delays during early Spring 2001. This may haveinfluenced the low satisfaction level last year. Generally within this category, we lookvery much forward to the results of the 2003 survey, which will be conducted after theopening of the Copenhagen Metro and the Copenhagen trunk bus line system.

Geneva: According to our district PT law, one must find a PT stop within 300 meters inurban areas and 500 meters in the outskirts. Frequencies are also regulated: in urbanareas 7 minutes in peaks and in outskirts 30 minutes in peaks/60 minutes outside peakhours (Geneva district or "canton" in French, is mainly a city). This law has to be metby 2005. At present, it is almost met. The main PT operator has a "monopoly" (94% ofthe traffic contributions), and Authorities haven't asked for economical rationalisation.During the last 4 years we have had a left wing majority in our government. This canexplain the fact that the PT has financial means to offer good services. This PToperator is ISO 9000 and 14000 licensed. The "bad" result for accessibility ouside thecity is due to the law. To meet our law the PT offer outside the city is not sufficient.

9

Helsinki: The studies have given signals that more and more passengers have to usetwo or more modes on their trips. That affects the waiting times at transfers.

London: The majority of people (84%) agree that the nearest public transport stop isclose to where they live, which demonstrates the extent of the public transport systemin London. The poor results for ‘Trips outside the city centre’ are not surprising giventhe continued reliance on the car for trips outside central London. Transport forLondon is currently implementing more bus routes and light rail schemes outsideCentral London, which should reduce this reliance. The lowest level of satisfaction wasthe 29% score on ”waiting time is short at transfers”. As more reliability measures areimplemented, waiting times for services should decrease, thereby improving our resultsfor this measure and encouraging more multi-modal journeys.

Manchester: There is strong agreement with the statement that ”public transport isgood for trips in the city centre” (75%). Not only does this reflect the naturalconvergence of services in any city’s public transport system, but in central Manchesterlight rail provides a high level of accessibility. Smaller proportions of people feel thatpublic transport is good for work or school trips; although bus priority measures arebeing implemented gradually, services at the times when people wish to make this typeof trip are dogged by road congestion and exacerbated by the high proportion of cashfares that are handled in relation to pre-paid tickets. For trips outside the city centre,only 44% feel that the services available are reasonably good. For these, usually bus,services frequencies are relatively low and disparate travel patterns are relativelydifficult to provide services for. Although a large majority of those polled agreed that”the nearest stop is close to where I live” (78%), much lower levels of satisfaction wereexpressed regarding travel time (54%) and the number of departures (53%). Thelowest level of satisfaction, 31%, related to waiting time at transfers. Along with theabsence of integrated ticketing systems, this is a major deterrent to multi-leg journeys.

Oslo: Compared to the results of 2001 the average score increase 6 percentage pointsin 2002. In all of the 8 questions regarding Traffic Supply, except the question ”Neareststop is close to where I live”, Greater Oslo region experience a higher percentage ofsatisfied respondents this spring compared to last year. In respect to the question”Travel time on public transport is reasonable” Greater Oslo even rates higher than allregions average score. Evaluating Oslo and Akershus as two separate regions, it isapparent that the participants in the city of Oslo rate the Traffic Supply higher thaninhabitants in Akershus County. This is coherent with the fact that geographicallyAkershus County is far larger area than the city of Oslo, thus the city of Oslo hassignificantly higher traffic supply coverage per square kilometer. The city of Oslo scoreshigher in 5 of the 8 questions regarding Traffic Supply, and with a significant differenceon the question ” Public transport is good for trips e.g. shopping, leisure etc.”

Stockholm: We used to be very proud of our well spread and integrated supply. 88%still find there nearest stop close to where they live, but otherwise we can noticemarginal decreases in almost all questions, both ”good for trips in the city centre” (68%)and ”outside the city centre” (31%). Almost two out of three think travel time isreasonable and more than 50% of the citizens think the number of departuressatisfying but nearly one out of four do not agree that waiting time at transfers is short.The most important improvement of the supply is the building of the new light railaround the city centre. The parts already taken into operation are very muchappreciated and the next part will be opened the autumn 2002. A new generation ofmetro and commuter train vehicles, the modernisation of the bus fleet including theintroduction of City and regional ”trunk lines” and the refurbishment of many stationshopefully will increase the appreciation of our right now rather old and worn system.

Vienna: As to traffic supply, the figures between the city of Vienna and the VOR regiondiffer most (by 12%). The main reason for this is the less dense public transport net inthe VOR region and the reduction on several regional lines. (VOR)

10

Reliability

� Capability to run on schedule

General comments: A very clear difference between the highest and the lowestscores. Geneva’s 82% satisfied is worth a study!

Barcelona: The reliability has decreased 11 points, from 71 to 60:The great increase of the goods shiftings (small trucks and vans), owed to thestrengthening of the ”Just In Time” in the small stores, has a negative effect on thesurface network of the city, that explains, partly, the decrease of the satisfaction on thisaspect.

Copenhagen: The absolutely largest evolution this year exists within this category. In2001, Copenhagen had a rate of 31% satisfied citizens, - this year we have 54%. Lastyear, S-trains and HT-buses had high reliability levels, whereas the Øresundtrains tothe airport and Malmö suffered from severe delays and cancellations. These problemshave decreased remarkably during this year. Copenhagen is now at the average levelof all participating cities. On our own surveys concerning reliability on the buses,customers are also more satisfied than last year. We have experienced an increase of3% points.

Geneva: Due to our high frequencies and high density of PT (in urban areas), clientscannot easily notice delays. At present, we are not equipped to check carefully ifservices meet our standards. For the railways operator (National operator), the mainline linked to Geneva is extremely occupied, which obliged the operator to guaranteethe timetable. Geneva territory is small which allows a good picture of the PT offered. Ican say that Authorities are satisfied with services offered by the operators.

Helsinki: The studies point that the reliability has been quite high. It is possible that thetemporary arrangements in the city centre has decreased the index in 2002. The lackof drivers has also affected the development.

London: Only 28% of people agree that public transport is reliable, a reflection of thehigh levels of congestion on roads and on public transport in London, and a reflectionof past under investment in public transport infrastructure. Improvements should beseen when key new initiatives start to take effect, including massive investment in theUnderground, congestion charging in central London, and associated bus prioritymeasures.

11

Manchester: Consistent with ongoing traveller opinion surveys findings for GreaterManchester, more people disagree with the statement ”public transport mostly runs onschedule” than agree. The balance is 47% against, 36% for. Since the majority ofpublic transport capacity in the county is provided by bus, and there is only very limitedseparation from the effects of general road congestion, this finding is unsurprising.GMPTE is currently embarking on a major programme of investment in bus prioritymeasures, which will be introduced over the next 4 years.

Oslo: Compared to last year, Greater Oslo region scores considerably higher in 2002on the topic Reliability. The Oslo metro has been able to reduce the number of delayssignificantly from 2001, due to an ongoing program that started in fall 2001, with focuson safety, regularity and punctuality. This program includes monthly registration of alldelays on metro, trams and busses. The program continues this year, and then putspecial focus on reducing number of too early departures. In this period, the reliabilityon regional trains has shown a negative trend. Still, there are 15 percent more of therespondents living in the rural and suburban areas around Oslo who are satisfied withthe reliability compared to those living in the central city.

Stockholm: Services not perceived as reliable have lost their competitive ability. Ourmain problem since the summer of 1998 is the lack of reliability, due to technicalproblems with the signalling system of the metro and lack of personnel to drive thecommuter trains. These problems are now basically solved, but the bad reputation livesand the customer’s limit of tolerance is very much lower than it was before 1998. But41% dissatisfied with reliability means an alarming ”all-time-low”!Increased reliability is appointed one of the two highest priorities for 2002. Programmesto reduce technical as well as operational causes of disruptions are presented to theBoard of Directors and carried through all over the organisation. The following-up ofevery incident that makes a train not run as planned is most thorough. This extremefocus on reliability is supposed to bring positive results.

Vienna: The customer’s opinion concerning reliability is a little bit higher in the VORregion than in the city of Vienna, but both are almost equally as satisfying as in 2001.(VOR)

12

Information

� Access to information needed when planning a trip� Information during traffic interruptions

General comments: ”Information” has a substantial potential for improvement in mostof the regions. Is the culture of our business still, as it has been so long focused ontechnique and economy so that we forget to develop issues with focus on thecustomer: information, marketing, branding etc?

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: Information has traditionally been one of Copenhagen’s top-scoringcategories. We have significant improvements on the question of how easy it is to getinformation when planning the trip. This is due to the internet Travel-planner which hasbeen renewed recently. More people have surely also become internet users during thelast year, which could have improved our scores. Though we do not experience anydecreasing rate of satisfaction with information at traffic disruptions, this category is stillremarkably low. Only 38% agree on this question! Very low compared to the ”winningcity” – it could be interesting to learn from their good experience. DSB S-trains havetried to improve the information by introducing an automatic minute count-down atsome stations. HUR will also introduce some real-time information when the A-busesstart running in October 2002.

Geneva: Operators informs quickly on traffic problems. In Geneva, we experienced ourfirst PT strike last month! The operators have budgets for information. Occasionally theauthority participates in a campaign on communication.

Helsinki: Until now Helsinki has allocated only little money for information. Just nowHelsinki is allocating more resources for information.

London: The majority of people (57%) agree that it is ‘Easy to get information whenplanning a trip’. As in other regions, far less people (30%) agree with the statement‘Information is good when traffic problems occur’. Historically, our journey planninginformation has been well received. It continues to improve, as the informationprovided is more integrated with other modes of transport and accessible in other forms(including the greater use of the TfL website).

13

Manchester: There is a significant disparity between those who agree that it is easy toget information to plan a trip (54%) and the proportion of people who agree thatinformation is good when traffic problems occur (31%). Real time information systemsare currently proposed for certain bus corridors in Greater Manchester, but at presentdo not exist. Although some infrastructure for informing heavy and light rail passengersof delays does exist, it is rarely used in an effective way when disruption does occur.

Oslo: The result indicates that we are strong on ”planning the trip”, while ”immediateinformation during traffic interruptions” is considered weaker. However, the results in2002 are better than last years. There has been a greater focus on improving theInformation towards customers in Greater Oslo last fall, which has continued thisspring. This probably have had a positive influence on the results.

Stockholm: Only 39% think that information is good when traffic problems occur. Thisis a factor that is closely linked to the reliability of the traffic. Results from other surveysshows that when the citizens are dissatisfied with reliability the grade on informationalso drops. Citizens are more satisfied with ”planned information" though the resultsalso here indicate an important potential for development.Improved information together with increased reliability is appointed our highestpriorities this year. A wide project on ”Information at traffic disruptions” is carried outtogether with our 5 operators. Vast investments are planned to introduce real timeinformation in the whole system 2005. A combination of development of competenceand motivation by the staff that meets the customers and investments in newinformation technology is our strategy to solve these problems.

Vienna: The figures slightly increased due to the further development of the electronicschedule information system and the improvement of the departure boards at thestops. (VOR)

14

Staff Behaviour

� Ability to answer questions� General behaviour of staff

General comments: very few negative answers is encouraging!

Barcelona: The staff behaviour decreased 14 points, from 85 to 71: During the firstquarter of the year 2002 situations of labour dispute have taken place that produced abus strike during this month of May, in which we find ourselves today. This fact and thewide knowledge of the mass media could have had probably influenced in a negativeway in the perception of this aspect.

Copenhagen: Staff behaviour is another category where Copenhagen normally isplaced above average. We experience significant improvements on both questionswithin the category. 76% believe the staff behaves nicely and correctly, - animprovement of 6%-points from last year’s survey. In similar customer surveys, HUR’sdrivers have improved their ratings by 2% points during the last year. DSB hasintroduced more ticket inspectors on board all trains after 19.00 at night and at thelatest DSB S-train customer surveys, more than 50% believe safety has increased.Ticket inspectors are trained in conflict management and communication with the traindriver in case of traffic disruptions.It will be interesting to observe next year’s survey after the opening of the Metro. Allmetros will be manned by train stewards since the trains are driverless.

Geneva: It might be related to good working conditions for the conductors...

Helsinki: In this field Helsinki has very much to do. The problem is mainly aconsequence of the shortage of drivers, especially Finnish speaking drivers.

London: With increased staff training and better information available to staff toconvey to customers, this result should improve.

Manchester: In relation to the other survey attributes, staff helpfulness and behaviourproduces a high level of satisfaction, stronger for ”The staff behave nicely andcorrectly” (66%) than for ”The staff answer my questions correctly” (58%). The latterfinding may be a symptom of the fragmented system of transport provision (betweenmodes and, in the case of heavy rail and bus, within modes), where coordination ofinformation is extremely challenging!

15

Oslo: The positive tendency among respondents showing higher satisfaction with staffbehaviour continues this year. In terms of Staff Behavior, Greater Oslo scores higherthan all region average for this period on both questions. It is impressive how GreaterOslo is able to show good results in a time with reorganization of Oslo Public TransportInc., increased competition between bus operators in the Greater Oslo PassengerTransport Ltd.’s domain, and an ongoing discussion about tendering railway services.

Stockholm: Why the staff is answering questions less correctly is hard to understandas something else than a part of the general decrease of the results. On boardinterviews on buses and trains indicate a higher level of customer satisfaction with thestaff. This indicates that daily contacts with the staff influences the results in a positiveway.More staff and better trained staff in the system is our strategy to improve informationand personal security as well as to reduce fraud and vandalism. Incentives areincluded in our contracts with the operators to promote this development.

Vienna: The number of satisfied customers on ”staff behaviour” decreased from 71 to67%. This deterioration is mainly caused by worse results in ”staff answers myquestions correctly”: 76% (2001) – 69% (2002). In Vienna discussions about the futureof public transport, its ownership, financing and liberalisation towards a ”free market”have started. Because dramatic changes like this have something to do with staffgetting nervous and irritated these changes negatively influence staff motivation andidentification with the company. Of course there is a relationship between motivationand behaviour towards customers. (Wiener Linien)

In the VOR region this value is higher because passengers often know the drivers.(VOR)

16

Personal Security and Safety

� Safety at stations and bus stops� Safety on board buses and trains� Safe traffic

General comments: Vienna shows excellent results also for this year and we arelooking forward to the output form the actual CIG!

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: Copenhagen does not experience any significant improvements exceptthe question of being afraid of traffic accidents when using public transport. 84% agreethat they are not afraid of accidents. This is an improvement of 6 % points. We do notbelieve there has been made any particular improvements to explain this – except thatwe have not seen any large public transport accidents in the latest years.

Geneva: Security has become an important issue for PT, mainly in trains and late atnight. Special budgets have been supplied. We have also new complaints oncleanliness that is not satisfactory anymore. It can affect the feeling of personalsecurity.

Helsinki: In general, Helsinki is a safety city to travel in. The biggest problems areconnected with the personal safety at terminals and the rail traffic vehicles.

London: ”Security at stations and bus stops” scored poorly with only 37% agreeingthat they feel secure (only 31% for women). A low score is also seen for ”Safety fromaccident” – this is thought to be due to the major National Rail accidents that haveoccurred over the past few years. There are several initiatives to improve safety andsecurity including widespread introduction of CCTV, which should improve customersatisfaction results in the future.

Manchester: In common with the finding that reliability has an extremely low level ofsatisfaction accorded to it in other satisfaction surveys, personal safety, particularlywhile waiting for services, is extremely poor. 47% of those interviewed disagreed withthe statement that ”I feel secure at stations and bus stops”, with 36% agreeing. Thesesurvey results reflect a general problem of crime and fear of crime in society at large.To date, countermeasures on public transport have been limited (for example, themajority of rail stations do not have closed circuit television).

17

Oslo: The respondents in Greater Oslo feel very secure at stations and bus stops, andon board busses and trains, compared to all regions average score for 2002. There aretwo major explanations: First, few accidents and good security. Second, Greater Oslois considered a safe and peaceful area, even though major newspapers might give anopposite impression.

Stockholm: Our strategy since several years is to get more staff and better motivatedand trained staff into the system, for the benefit of security and a more humanenvironment, for better information, reduced fraud, decreased vandalism etc. Thismeans a significant increase of cost of operation, and we can so far notice only a slightpositive development concerning personal security at stations and bus stops.

Vienna: The results on ”I am afraid of traffic accidents when using PT” decreased from94% to 89%. Because of the horrible fire drama on the ”Kitzsteinhorn” in Austria both,media and public, are very sensible in case of fire accidents, especially in tunnels.Therefore every – even very small – fire alarm in metro tunnels, stations or vehicles isfollowed by press, radio or TV articles. This makes the inhabitants beeing aware ofincreased danger of fire although in fact we don´t have more fire accidents than before.(Wiener Linien)

The values in the city of Vienna and the VOR region are almost equally high. Thisreflects the people’s overall feeling of being safe in Vienna and the VOR region. (VOR)

18

Comfort

� Comfortable to travel with public transport� Easy to change routes� Modern busses and trains� Clean busses and trains� Access to a seat when travelling

General comments: Private car does have a competitive advantage here! Tomodernise the fleet of vehicles should have a positive effect (at a high cost) but”comfort” is a wide concept.

Barcelona: Referring to the comfort it has decreased 11 points, from 77 to 66. It is astrange result, but the only explanation, besides the increase of the requirements levelof the population, is that as a result of the implantation of fare integration there hasbeen a significant increase of journeys, increasing also the traffic jam of trains andbuses. Though since the beginning of the year a Plan of Improvement of the busnetwork has been initiated (100 more buses), which should have had a positiveincidence in the perception of that aspect.

Copenhagen: Travelling with public transport has become more comfortable accordingto this year’s survey. 57% agree this year, opposed to 49% last year. This is asignificant improvement. Likewise more people regard buses and trains to be modern.We believe these improvements to be due to the improvements in rolling stock. DSBhas introduced more new S-trains (19 new trains in 2001) and regional trains, whereasHUR has renewed the bus fleet and installed 13.7m airconditioned buses as well asdouble-deckers. Train stations have been renovated and accessibility has beenimproved. Also on-board our buses this increasing satisfaction can be measured.Comfort aspects have increased by more than 1% point in our customer surveys.

Geneva: Rolling material is not too old. We are in the process of changing rollingmaterial in urban public transport. The PT is responsible to renew vehicles. It is theirproperty. The process of changing rolling material started in 2001 and is supposed tocontinue. This process has been delayed due to the bad economic situation the last 10years. PT are congested in peaks hours in the neighbouring areas of the city centre:around 1,5 - 2,0 kilometres from the city centre. We try to increase traffic supply butcosts are high.

19

Helsinki: The studies point that the competition has affected positively to the level ofcomfort; the vehicles in Helsinki are quite new and modern. The cleanliness of vehiclesand terminals are most in need of improvement.

London: Low ratings are achieved for all the comfort measures, especially forcleanliness where only 26% of people agree that ‘Buses and Trains are clean’. Busquality contracts and the introduction of new low floor buses should lead to improvedscores in the future.

Manchester: Comfort is an area in which the survey results are rather mixed, rangingfrom high levels of satisfaction (e.g. ”I normally get a seat when I travel on publictransport”, 78%) to very low levels (e.g. ”The buses and trains are clean”). The findingthat only 44% of people feel that ”transfers are easy” is reflective of the situation thatmost physical infrastructure was created in times when interchange was not consideredto be a significant issue.

Oslo: As seen on the other topics of investigation, people in Greater Oslo consider thecomfort of traveling with public transport better than last year. Also this year,inhabitants in Greater Oslo Passenger Transport Ltd.’s domain, rate the comfort higherthan those living in the city of Oslo. This result might be the effect of an ongoingupgrading of busses in this area during the last year. The Oslo metro and the localtrains operate partially with transport equipment from 1965, with negative influence onthe result. Investment programs for new metro and railway cars are ongoing.

Stockholm: The effects of one new metro car per week and the on-goingmodernisation of the bus fleet can not be seen in these results. Maybe because thenon-users do not experience them and the reputation still tells that the system is an oldone - a lack of marketing! We work hard with incentives in the operator’s contracts tooffer a clean environment, and we have experienced some success stories that are notreflected in the results of the survey.

Vienna: A new free daily newspaper in metro-stations was introduced in 2001. Duringthe first months a lot of newspapers have been thrown away in vehicles and stations.Additional garbage cans were too small. This led to an impression of less clean metroservice. In the meantime main problems are solved. (Wiener Linien)

The figures are higher for the VOR region. This is caused in the increased usage ofnew busses and the new bi-level cars. (VOR)

20

Social Image

� Positive development of public transport� Good for the environment� Beneficial to society

General comments: A great majority believe in the benefits and the prosperous futureof public transport!

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: No significant improvements within this category. Public transport isgenerally conceived of as a low-status product. Via its marketing campaigns, HUR hasfocused on the youth in order to make the attitude shift. We are keen to learn from thetop-scoring city – in the category of more people wanting to travel with public transportin the future.

Geneva: difficult to comment.

Helsinki: People understand the correlation between environment and traffic. That’swhy public opinion is positive towards public transport. In Helsinki the market share ofrail traffic in public transport continues to grow and the number of low-emission busesis increasing.

London: 81% believe that ”public transport is good for the environment” and 87%believe that ”public transport is beneficial to society”. Overall, London ranks near theaverage for the group of cities. This reflects the generally positive view towards publictransport in London, even if satisfaction with the service provided is low.

Manchester: In keeping with results from consultation exercises, public transport has avery strong social image in Greater Manchester. This is particularly true in relation tothe statement ”Public transport is beneficial to society” (86% agree) and also in relationto the environment (76% agree). The lower level of support for the environmentalcontribution of public transport may reflect the mixed nature of the rail and bus fleet.The fleets contain many old vehicles with low levels of environmental performance) andthe low average load of buses in Greater Manchester (on average, around 8 people perbus).

21

The weaker support for the statement ”More people will travel on public transport in thefuture”, with 54% agreeing, suggests a lack of confidence that public transport will offera high quality, competitive service in relation to the private car in the future.

Oslo: According to the results, people in Greater Oslo are remarkably aware of thebenefits of public transport for the society. 94% of the respondents agree with thestatement ”Public transport is beneficial to society”. Saying that, it is somewhatalarming that only 50% say they agree with the statement ”More people will travel withpublic transport in the future”.

Stockholm: Constant, but at a not entirely satisfying level. Only 80% thinks publictransport is good for the environment – only a couple of years ago 85-90% gave apositive answer to this question. Lack of reliability in the core services influenceperceived quality in almost any other dimension. In combination with the fact that timinghas not been proper for some marketing activities beside straight information on thesupply the decrease in this category is understandable.

Vienna: 57% say that ”more people will travel with PT in the future”. This is in case ofVienna a quite satisfying figure because of existing high number of passengers andmarket share. (Wiener Linien)

The survey indicates that public transport in the VOR still has a largely positive and thatpeople can also relate to the environmental idea very well. (VOR)

22

Value for Money

� Public transport gives value for money� Public transport fares are reasonable

General comments: A discussion on ”strategies of pricing and quality” should be mostinteresting!

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: Decreasing number of people agreeing that public transport fares arereasonable – though this is not significant. This year we have experienced fares thathave been raised more than the general level of inflation.

Geneva: We have difficulties with PT tariffs. We have the feeling that single tickets arecheap and monthly/yearly tickets are expensive. The PT asks for tariff increases.According to Swiss standards, our tariffs are very low!!!. With one ticket you can travelon any PT. Tariffs are set according to duration: 60 minutes, 90 minutes, one day etcand the number of zones (1-4) you travel in.

Helsinki: The fares of public transport have been inexpensive compared to the use ofa private car in Helsinki. The fares remained on same level eight years to 2001 and thisreflected in the opinion of customers. After that the fares rose in 2002 and indexdecreased from 69 to 67.

London: London performs around average for Value for Money even though Londonhas relatively high fare levels, especially on the National Rail system. High ratings aregiven by those aged 65+, for whom travel is free, and by non-users of the publictransport system.

Manchester: Scores for both value for money and reasonableness of fares are weak –with 44% and 43% agreeing with these statements. They do, however, appear to be inline with the average findings for all nine regions. This is despite a greater emphasiswithin British fare setting regimes on commercial considerations and the absence ofintegrated ticketing systems outside London.

23

Oslo: This is our major challenge. We already know that Public Transport fares inGreater Oslo are relatively high compared to other participants in this year’s BESTsurvey. Additionally, the fares increased 7% during this period due to an investmentprogram. This will lead to better public transport in the future, but gives a quite negativeresult at the ”Value for money” topic this year. This result is coherent with similarstudies we have conducted ourselves.

Stockholm: A dramatic deterioration, but the general increase of the price last autumnwas not a very positive move, considering the problems of reliability we had had forsome years. The critics of SL did get new arguments on which it was easy to get mediaattention. In two years we have raised the price with 25%, when at the same time theprice of petrol has decreased. Traditionally the sensitivity of price is very low, but thatseems no longer to be the truth. Short trips are considered expensive due to a mainlyflat fare system in Stockholm.

Vienna: Because of media campaigns about increasing ticket prices exactly during thesurvey we see a deterioration in the satisfaction ratio ”PT gives value for money”: 45%(2002), 50% (2001). (Wiener Linien)

The survey’s results for the VOR region greatly increased since 2001, which is mostprobably due to the stability of tariffs in 2002. (VOR)

24

Loyalty

� Willingness to recommend others to use public transport

Barcelona: No comment.

Copenhagen: Within this category, Copenhagen is still quite low compared to thewinning city. Only 49% would recommend others to travel by public transport. BothDSB and HUR are currently working on improving their images. Interesting to observewhat happens when the metro opens.

Geneva: recommend travelling: It is correct that PT have a good image, even if carsare still very popular and streets congested.

Helsinki: No comment.

London: Support for the statement at 57% is a relatively strong result for London.Despite the difficulties experienced by public transport users, well over half are willingto recommend it.

Manchester: Support for the statement ”I gladly recommend travelling by publictransport to others” is moderate, with 51% of the sample concurring and 27%dissenting from this view. Once again, these findings contrast strongly with the degreeof support for public transport on social and environmental grounds.

Oslo: Both Oslo Public Transport Inc. and Greater Oslo Passenger Transport Ltd. haveinitiated customer loyalty programs with the intention of increasing the number of loyalcustomers in the future.

Stockholm: See comments on other dimensions of quality!

Vienna: This figure is in our opinion intensively and most of all correlating with pricesand value for money. Therefore we have to recognize a deterioration of 3%. (WienerLinien)

25

26

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel FrequencyThe graphs below shows the correlation between the citizen satisfaction and travelfrequency. Our hypothesis that satisfied citizen’s travel more with Public Transportseems to be correct. Those who travel most with public transport are less satisfied thanthose who are our customers a few times a week. The explanation is probably that thenumber of ”captive riders” (customers with no alternatives) are higher among the dailycustomers.

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – all regions

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Barcelona

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Copenhagen

2002 2002 2001

27

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Geneva

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Helsinki

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - London

28

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Manchester

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Oslo

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency - Stockholm

29

Citizen´s Satisfaction – Travel Frequency – Vienna

30

Background informationThe graphs below show travel frequency, life situation, age and sex distribution foreach participating region in the survey. The figures are weighted according to sex andage.

Travel Frequency

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Manchester

Copenhagen

Geneva

Oslo

Vienna

Barcelona

Helsinki

London

Stockholm

daily a few times/week or more seldom never

Stockholm and London have the most frequent travellers, almost 50 percent. Thefewest daily travellers are found in Manchester and Copenhagen according to thissurvey.

Life Situation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Barcelona

Vienna

Manchester

Geneva

London

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Stockholm

Oslo

work fulltime work part time student retired other dont know

The Nordic regions have a larger amount of people working full or part time than theother participating regions.

31

Age

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Barcelona

Manchester

Vienna

Geneva

Stockholm

Helsinki

Copenhagen

Oslo

London

16 - 24 25 - 44 45 - 64 65 - 79 80 + dont know

London, Oslo and Copenhagen have a higher percentage of people between ages 25and 44.

Sex

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Barcelona

Copenhagen

Manchester

Helsinki

Vienna

Geneva

Oslo

Stockholm

London

man woman

According to Scandinavian studies men are generally somewhat more demanding thanwomen.

32

TEMO Summary - About the surveyAs responsible for managing the survey in all participating regions we have outlined themost important actions taken compared to the 2001 survey.

� A more clarified selecting processThis is a citizen survey and in order to make as many as possible of the non travellersparticipate we have improved the selecting process in the questionnaire. In theintroduction the interviewers more clearly have explained that this is a citizen surveyand that the local authorities also are interested to find out what the non-travellingcitizen think about public transport. In general this action have small but negativeinfluence on the results, since there is a correlation between travel frequency andsatisfaction.

� Actions taken in handling the sampleIn order to improve the response rate the local institutes have received target levels forthe response rate and a more detailed plan how to work with the sample. The sampleused by the local institutes has been called through, i e the ambition has been toeliminate all ongoing contacts when reaching 1000 interviews. All numbers has beencalled 7 times before being classified as unavailable. Only Manchester and London hada few ongoing contacts left when the fieldwork was finished. In general we havereached our response rate target levels.

� If demographics differ from the region profile weighting has been doneThe conducted interviews shall correspond with the demographics in each regionaccording to sex and age. In all regions except Copenhagen (was not needed) theresults have been weighted according to the demographic profile for the region. ForStockholm it was only necessary to weight the material on sex.

No weight matrix was used 2001. If any region found any mismatch in demographics,they had the opportunity to get their results weighted after the fieldwork if they wantedto. Since we have discovered that the differencies in Helsinki and Vienna weresignificant when comparing weighted and unweighted results, we have adjusted theresults for 2001 using the weighted results.

� Drop out analysisIn BEST 2002 we have also asked those who did not want to participate in the surveyhow often they travel with public transport. The result shows that 10 % of the refusalstravel daily or a few times a week (where Helsinki, Barcelona and Vienna tend to havea higher share than other regions). 4 % travel a few times a month and 42 % less thanonce a month or never. 44 % of the refusals did not answer the question. Theconclusion is that the main part of the refusals does not travel regularly with publictransport.

� Back translation of questionnaire and scalesThe local institutes have been responsible for the translation of the Englishquestionnaire into the local language. For those institutes who participated duringspring 2001 the same questionnaire has been used with minor changes. Thequestionnaire has also been back translated (i.e. verified by a translation agency) inSweden by Temo. The local public transport authorities have been given the possibilityto go through the questionnaire to confirm that the content of the questionnaire issuitable for the local public transport authorities of the region. The scale in the Englishquestionnaire has been translated into the most similar and suitable used scale for thiskind of surveys in each region.

33

� FieldworkThe fieldwork was conducted from March 4 to March 24 2002. Most of the interviews(70-90%) have been conducted on weekdays (Monday through Friday) between 17.00and 21.00.

� Margin of errorMargin of error, due to different proportions in answers5-95% 10-90% 15-85% 20-80% 25-75% 30-70% 35-65% 40-60% 45-55% 50-50%

1000 int �1,4% �1,9 �2,3 �2,5 �2,7 �2,9 �3,0 �3,1 �3,1 �3,2

When comparing two surveys you have two margin of errors. This means significantdifferences when the difference is approx 1,5 at the margin of error. For example, if youhave 50% satisfied customers, you must reach almost 55% satisfied customer in thenext survey to have a significant difference.

34

TEMO Summary - General comments on the resultsThe results for Stockholm and Helsinki are quite stable compared with 2001. Oslo andCopenhagen have more satisfied citizen whereas Barcelona and Vienna have lesssatisfied citizens. Geneva, one of the new regions, has many satisfied citizens whereasthe results for London and Manchester reveal less satisfied citizens.

Barcelona: The overall result shows less satisfied citizens compared with 2001. Onelikely reason could be that a larger share of citizens who never travel with publictransport has participated in BEST 2002 in Barcelona. There is also a significantincrease in the reply ”neutral” for almost all questions. There are significantly lesssatisfied citizens in all question areas.

Copenhagen: The overall result is that Copenhagen has somewhat more satisfiedcitizens compared with 2001. Most interesting is that Reliability has increasedsignificantly, from 31 to 54% who agreed to the statement that public transport mostlyruns on schedule. Also Traffic Supply (good for trips shopping etc, close to where I live,number of departures) has somewhat more satisfied citizens. The result forCopenhagen is not weighted, since there was no need for that.

Geneva: BEST 2002 is the first time Geneva participates and the results show a greatdeal of satisfied citizens. Geneva has the highest score in 6 out of 10 question areas.The greatest gap to ”number 2” is in the question areas about Value for Money andInformation.

Helsinki: The overall results are quite stable compared with 2001. Helsinki is the onlyregion where the weighting has made a notable difference. Therefore we haveconducted a control where we also weighted the 2001 results. Taking this intoconsideration, the question areas that show significant less satisfied citizens are TrafficSupply (trips in the city, waiting time at transfers), Information (when traffic problemsoccur) and Social Image ( travel with the public transport in the future).

London: BEST 2002 is the first time London participates. The results show thatcitizens in London are less satisfied with public transport within many dimensionscompared with the average for the participating city regions.

Manchester: BEST 2002 is the first time Manchester participates. The results showthat citizens in Manchester are less satisfied with public transport within manydimensions compared with the average for the participating city regions.

Oslo: The overall result is that Oslo has more satisfied citizens compared with 2001.All question areas except Value for money and Loyalty show significantly better results.There is a higher share of travellers who travel more seldom in this year’s survey.

Stockholm: The overall result shows to some extent less satisfied citizens comparedwith 2001. The question areas Value for money and Reliability show significantly lesssatisfied respondents. There is a higher share of travellers who travel more seldom.

Vienna: The overall result shows less satisfied citizens compared with 2001. Here wecan see the same pattern as for Barcelona. There is a larger share of citizens whoseldom travel with public transport that have participated in BEST 2002 in Vienna.There is also a significant increase in the reply ”neutral” for many questions.

35

How to read the graphs-- How How to read the to read the graphsgraphs - -

Blue, Top-box =Grade 4 and 5-agree to thestatement

The Red, Bottom-box = grade 1 and 2, don’tagree to the statement ” in BEST 2002

Grade 3 is left out in all the graphs

Grey, Top-box =Grade 4 and 5from 2001 forthis region

Grey, Bottom -box =Grade 1 and 2 from2001 for this region

In this base the respondentsthat have answered ”don’tknow” are excluded