BEST. Results of the 2010 survey. Helsinki. Oslo. Stockholm. Copenhagen. Vienna. Geneva. Manchester. Berlin. Barcelona

Transcription

1 BEST Results of the 2010 survey Stockholm Manchester Copenhagen Berlin Barcelona BEST Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport

2

3 Index 1 Foreword BEST Scores Index scores for all quality dimensions in Citizens satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Personal security and safety Comfort Social image Value for money Loyalty Summary per city Copenhagen Stockholm Web reports Importance which improvements matters most Background information About the survey Weighting The questionnaire Fieldwork Response rates Definition of response rates Margin of error BEST Report 2010 Page 3 of 25

4

5 1 Foreword This report presents the results from the 2010 Survey. For each of the 10 dimensions of quality the share of satisfied citizens are presented in diagrams. In addition this document includes a: Summary of the most important drivers for satisfaction in each of the participating cities Summary report with some of the main results per city A brief description of the changes in the web reporting solution More detailed results per city or subgroups are presented in several other reports. They are all available as downloads from the BEST website to BEST members, or you could access our online web reporting solution. Each year the BEST Survey includes a special topic of interest to the BEST cities. In 2010 the special topic was transfers. The results are presented in a separate report that can be downloaded from the BEST web site We hope that you will find the information in this report useful. Copenhagen, May 2010 Per Gellert BEST Chairman Kjetil Vrenne Project Manager Participating companies/authorities 2010: Movia, Copenhagen, Denmark Region Transport, HSL,, Finland Ruter As,, Norway AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, SL, Stockholm, Sweden Wiener Linien,, Austria Verkehrsverbund Ostregion (VOR),, Austria Office cantonal de la mobilité / Unireso,, Switzerland BEST Report 2010 Page 5 of 25

6 2 BEST Scores 2010 Below the BEST scores are presented for each of the dimensions of quality used in the survey. The graph shows 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. Figure 1: BEST performing city per index Citizen satisfaction Citizen satisfaction (77) (84) (78) (80) (81) Traffic supply Traffic supply (68) (71) Berlin (86) Berlin (84) Berlin (70) Reliability Reliability (73) (76) Berlin (84) Berlin (84) (79) Information Information (71) (75) (71) (71) (66) Staff behaviour Staff behaviour (74) (78) (74) (75) (76) Security and safety Security and safety (84) (82) (82) (87) (81) Comfort Comfort (67) (71) Berlin (78) Berlin (77) (67) Value for for money money (51) (51) Berlin (56) (53) (50) Social image Social image (90) (90) (87) (89) (85) Loyalty Loyalty (80) (81) (80) (81) (75) Hardly/Don't agree at all Partly/Fully agree 2.1 Index scores for all quality dimensions in 2010 The table below shows index scores for all the quality dimensions included in the survey in The scores are colour coded the green boxes indicate high scores and the red boxes low scores. INDEX 2010 Stockholm Copenhagen Citizen satisfaction Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security & safety Comfort Value for money Social image Loyalty BEST Report 2010 Page 6 of 25

7 2.2 Citizens satisfaction Citizens satisfaction: A measure that describes citizens satisfaction with public transport in general. How satisfied are you with public transport in general? Figure 2: Citizens Satisfaction BEST Report 2010 Page 7 of 25

8 2.3 Traffic supply Traffic supply index Public transport is good for work/school trips Public transport is good for trips e.g. shopping, leisure etc Public transport is good for trips in the city centre Public transport is good for trips outside the city centre Nearest stop is close to where I live Travel time on public transport is reasonable Waiting time is short at transfers I am satisfied with the number of departures Figure 3: Traffic Supply Stockholm Copenhagen Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Traffic supply quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Traffic Supply Stockholm Copenhagen Public transport is good for work/school trips 54 % 50 % 63 % 54 % 71 % 75 % Public transport is good for trips e.g. shopping, leisure etc Public transport is good for trips in the city centre Public transport is good for trips outside the city centre 56 % 54 % 66 % 40 % 51 % 55 % 76 % 74 % 83 % 81 % 87 % 90 % 39 % 32 % 55 % 40 % 52 % 42 % Nearest stop is close to where I live 85 % 85 % 85 % 83 % 74 % 87 % Travel time on public transport is reasonable 68 % 64 % 70 % 55 % 68 % 71 % Waiting time is short at transfers 44 % 50 % 50 % 37 % 52 % 55 % I am satisfied with the number of departures 54 % 54 % 63 % 55 % 56 % 65 % BEST Report 2010 Page 8 of 25

9 2.4 Reliability Reliability index Public transport mostly runs on schedule Figure 4: Reliability Copenhagen Stockholm Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree Reliability quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Reliability Stockholm Copenhagen Public transport mostly runs on schedule 40 % 39 % 56 % 43 % 53 % 73 % BEST Report 2010 Page 9 of 25

10 2.5 Information Information index It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip The information is good when traffic problems occur The information is good in stops and terminals (NEW from 2007) Figure 5: Information Copenhagen Stockholm Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Information quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Information Stockholm Copenhagen It is easy to get the information needed when planning a trip The information is good when traffic problems occur 69 % 67 % 78 % 71 % 62 % 75 % 15 % 19 % 24 % 26 % 40 % 54 % The information is good in stops and terminals 35 % 45 % 35 % 37 % 57 % 84 % BEST Report 2010 Page 10 of 25

11 2.6 Staff behaviour Staff behaviour index The staff answers my questions correctly The staff behaves nicely and correctly Figure 6: Staff Behaviour Copenhagen Stockholm Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Staff behaviour quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Staff behaviour Stockholm Copenhagen The staff answers my questions correctly 51 % 63 % 51 % 57 % 58 % 76 % The staff behaves nicely and correctly 58 % 71 % 66 % 73 % 54 % 73 % BEST Report 2010 Page 11 of 25

12 2.7 Personal security and safety Personal security and safety index 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 public transport Figure 7: Personal Security and Safety Copenhagen Stockholm Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Personal security and safety quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Personal security & safety Stockholm Copenhagen I feel secure at stations and bus stops 59 % 79 % 69 % 58 % 64 % 58 % I feel secure on board busses and trains 69 % 86 % 74 % 73 % 73 % 76 % I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 79 % 86 % 86 % 84 % 85 % 89 % BEST Report 2010 Page 12 of 25

13 2.8 Comfort Comfort index Travelling with public transport is comfortable Transfers are easy The busses and trains are modern The busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport Figure 8: Comfort Stockholm Copenhagen Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Comfort quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Comfort Stockholm Copenhagen Travelling with public transport is comfortable 60 % 58 % 63 % 55 % 64 % 71 % Transfers are easy 59 % 62 % 60 % 56 % 66 % 76 % The busses and trains are modern 58 % 55 % 66 % 66 % 66 % 80 % The busses and trains are clean 38 % 50 % 40 % 39 % 51 % 62 % I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport 70 % 58 % 81 % 65 % 55 % 46 % BEST Report 2010 Page 13 of 25

14 2.9 Social image Social image Index More people will travel with public transport in the future Public transport is good for the environment Public transport is beneficial to society Figure 9: Social Image Stockholm Copenhagen Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Social image quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Social image Stockholm Copenhagen More people will travel with public transport in the future 75 % 74 % 75 % 47 % 66 % 78 % Public transport is good for the environment 86 % 94 % 92 % 81 % 87 % 87 % Public transport is beneficial to society 93 % 94 % 93 % 84 % 89 % 95 % BEST Report 2010 Page 14 of 25

15 2.10 Value for money Value for money Index Public transport gives value for money Public transport fares are reasonable Figure 10: Value for money Stockholm Copenhagen Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Value for money quality elements The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high satisfaction score, and the red boxes the lowest satisfaction scores. Value for money Stockholm Copenhagen Public transport gives value for money 42 % 47 % 61 % 34 % 44 % 46 % Public transport fares are reasonable 36 % 27 % 42 % 21 % 40 % 26 % BEST Report 2010 Page 15 of 25

16 2.11 Loyalty Loyalty Index I gladly recommend travelling with public transport to others Figure 11: Loyalty Stockholm Copenhagen Hardly/Don't agree at all Partially/Fully agree TOTAL BASE: Replied grade Loyalty The scores are colour coded per quality element. Green boxes indicate a high loyalty score, and the red boxes the lowest loyalty scores. Loyalty Stockholm Copenhagen I gladly recommend travelling with public transport to others 62 % 60 % 80 % 47 % 72 % 75 % BEST Report 2010 Page 16 of 25

17 3 Summary per city To make it easier to see the most important results per city, a table that summarizes some of the main results have been made. The table shows: 1. Which items the city achieves above average, average and below average results compared with other BEST cities. 2. The change in index results from last year 3. The top 5 drivers of satisfaction, compared with how many other BEST cities that has the same driver among its top 5 The summary for each city is presented in the following chapters. 3.1 Copenhagen Figure 12: Summary 2010 Copenhagen SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - increase in satisfaction %-points change in 2010 Top five drivers of satisfaction areas The staff behaves nicely and correctly 7 % Citizen satisfaction 4 I am satisfied with the number of departures 6 Security & safety 3 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 5 Waiting time is short at transfers 4 Transfers are easy 2 On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction %-points The staff answers my questions correctly 1 I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport 3 % scores at the same level change in 2010 The busses and trains are modern 1 % Traffic supply 1 It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip 1 % Reliability 0 Nearest stop is close to where I live -1 % Loyalty 0 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT -1 % Information -1 The staff answers my questions correctly -3 % Value for money -1 I feel secure on board busses and trains -3 % Comfort -2 I am satisfied with the number of departures -3 % Social image -2 The information is good when traffic problems occur -4 % Compared to BEST Index - lower satisfaction %-points scores change in 2010 Below average - compared with other BEST cities Staff behaviour -3 I feel secure at stations and bus stops -6 % Transfers are easy -7 % Public transport mostly runs on schedule -7 % The busses and trains are clean -8 % Waiting time is short at transfers -11 % Public transport gives value for money -11 % The information is good in stops and terminals -12 % CPH 2010 BEST Report 2010 Page 17 of 25

18 3.2 Figure 13: Summary 2010 SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - increase in satisfaction %-points change in 2010 Top five drivers of satisfaction areas The information is good in stops and terminals 35 % I am satisfied with the number of departures 6 The info is good when traffic problems occur 24 % Waiting time is short at transfers 4 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 22 % I normally get a seat when I travel with PT 1 The staff answers my questions correctly 17 % The info is good when traffic problems occur 1 The busses and trains are clean 15 % The staff behaves nicely and correctly 2 The busses and trains are modern 15 % Index - satisfaction %-points Transfers are easy 13 % scores at the same level change in 2010 I am satisfied with the number of departures 8 % Loyalty 0 Waiting time is short at transfers 7 % The staff behaves nicely and correctly 7 % It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip 5 % I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 4 % Nearest stop is close to where I live 4 % Index - lower satisfaction %-points scores change in 2010 Compared to BEST Traffic supply -3 On average - compared with other BEST cities Reliability -3 I feel secure on board busses and trains 1 % Staff behaviour -3 Public transport gives value for money 0 % Social image -3 Information -4 Comfort -4 Below average - compared with other BEST cities Value for money -4 I feel secure at stations and bus stops -7 % Security & safety -5 I normally get a seat when I travel with PT -16 % Citizen satisfaction -6 GVA Figure 14: Summary 2010 SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - increase in satisfaction %-points change in 2010 Top five drivers of satisfaction areas I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport 18 % Security & safety 3 I am satisfied with the number of departures 6 Public transport gives value for money 15 % Transfers are easy 2 It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip 8 % Public transport mostly runs on schedule 5 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 5 % I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using 2 I am satisfied with the number of departures 5 % PT I feel secure at stations and bus stops 4 % The busses and trains are clean 2 Compared to BEST On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction scores %-points change at the same level in 2010 Waiting time is short at transfers 2 % Staff behaviour 1 Nearest stop is close to where I live 2 % Comfort 0 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 2 % Value for money 0 The busses and trains are modern 1 % Traffic supply -1 The staff behaves nicely and correctly 0 % Loyalty -1 I feel secure on board busses and trains -1 % Social image -2 Below average - compared with other BEST cities Index - lower satisfaction scores %-points change in 2010 Transfers are easy -4 % Citizen satisfaction -4 The information is good when traffic problems occur -6 % Information -6 The busses and trains are clean -7 % Reliability -12 The staff answers my questions correctly -8 % The information is good in stops and terminals -14 % HEL 2010 BEST Report 2010 Page 18 of 25

19 3.4 Figure 15: Summary 2010 SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - increase in satisfaction %-points change in 2010 The staff answers my questions correctly 4 % The busses and trains are clean 3 % Traffic supply 2 Waiting time is short at transfers 2 % Security & safety 2 Nearest stop is close to where I live 2 % Reliability 0 Public transport gives value for money 1 % Social image 0 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 1 % Value for money -1 Transfers are easy -1 % Loyalty -1 I am satisfied with the number of departures -4 % Information -2 It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip -4 % The information is good in stops and terminals -4 % Index - lower satisfaction scores %-points change in 2010 Top five drivers of satisfaction I feel secure at stations and bus stops 15 % Comfort 3 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 5 I feel secure on board busses and trains 11 % I am satisfied with the number of departures 6 The staff behaves nicely and correctly 5 % I feel secure at stations and bus stops 1 The busses and trains are modern 1 Waiting time is short at transfers 4 On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction %-points scores at the same level change in 2010 Compared to BEST Below average - compared with other BEST cities Staff behaviour -4 I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport -5 % The busses and trains are modern -10 % The information is good when traffic problems occur -10 % Public transport mostly runs on schedule -12 % OSL Stockholm Figure 16: Summary 2010 Stockholm SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - increase in satisfaction %-points change in 2010 Top five drivers of satisfaction areas I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport 7 % Value for money 3 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 5 I am satisfied with the number of departures 6 On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction %-points The staff behaves nicely and correctly 2 scores at the same level change in 2010 Waiting time is short at transfers 4 Nearest stop is close to where I live 2 % Social image -1 The busses and trains are clean 2 It is easy to get the information needed when planning a -1 % Comfort -2 trip Public transport gives value for money -3 % Security & safety -2 I am satisfied with the number of departures -4 % Loyalty -2 Transfers are easy -4 % Waiting time is short at transfers -4 % Compared to BEST Below average - compared with other BEST cities Index - lower satisfaction scores %-points change in 2010 I feel secure at stations and bus stops -6 % Staff behaviour -3 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT -6 % Traffic supply -3 I feel secure on board busses and trains -7 % Citizen satisfaction -9 The busses and trains are modern -7 % Reliability -9 The staff behaves nicely and correctly -7 % Information -11 The staff answers my questions correctly -8 % The busses and trains are clean -9 % Public transport mostly runs on schedule -10 % The information is good in stops and terminals -14 % The information is good when traffic problems occur -15 % STO 2010 BEST Report 2010 Page 19 of 25

20 3.6 Figure 17: Summary 2010 SATISFACTION COMPARED WITH OTHER BEST CITIES SATISFACTION (INDEX) COMPARED WITH 2009 DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION Above average - compared with other BEST cities Index - positive development %-points change in 2010 Top five improvement areas The information is good when traffic problems occur 11 % Citizen satisfaction 11 I am satisfied with the number of departures 5 The information is good in stops and terminals 9 % Loyalty 7 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 6 Waiting time is short at transfers 4 % Nearest stop is close to where I live 1 The busses and trains are clean 4 % It's easy to get the info needed when planning 1 a trip Compared to BEST On average - compared with other BEST cities Index - satisfaction scores %-points change at the same level in 2010 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 2 Transfers are easy 3 % Security & safety 2 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 2 % Value for money 2 I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using PT 1 % Comfort -1 The busses and trains are modern 0 % I feel secure at stations and bus stops -1 % Public transport gives value for money -1 % The staff answers my questions correctly -2 % I am satisfied with the number of departures -2 % I feel secure on board busses and trains -2 % Below average - compared with other BEST cities Index - lower satisfaction scores %-points change in 2010 I normally get a seat when I travel with public transport -8 % Social image -3 It is easy to get the info needed when planning a trip -8 % Traffic supply -4 Nearest stop is close to where I live -9 % Staff behaviour -4 The staff behaves nicely and correctly -11 % Information -8 Reliability -13 VIE 2010 BEST Report 2010 Page 20 of 25

21 4 Web reports The web reports gives access to BEST Survey data from 2001 to 2010 for all cities, and the possibility to compare results for cities, subgroups in a variety of ways. The web report is located here Username and password to access to the web report can be obtained by contacting BEST Project Manager Kjetil Vrenne (kjetil.vrenne@vrenne enable.no). There are four main types of reports available: 1. Index comparisons 2. Quality elements comparisons 3. Subgroups comparisons o Index o Quality elements o Public transport mode 4. Tables It is now also possible to export results to Excel, making it easier to make you own graphs/tables or other presentation material based on the BEST data. You will find this feature if you go to the tab Tables in the web report. A draft version of a priority plan will also be made available in the web report. The priority plan shows which aspects one should improve, based on both the potential for improvement and the importance score. For some cities the priority plan is available for different geographical areas. The priority plan is an alternative way of looking at drivers of satisfaction (see chapter 5). BEST Report 2010 Page 21 of 25

22 5 Importance which improvements matters most The city and main report for 2010 include, as last year, an analysis of which improvements of the public transport service that matters most to BEST citizens. A stepwise regression was performed to identify which individual indicators that have the strongest impact on satisfaction. The table below shows which indicators that have been included. Indicators that measures citizens attitude towards PT in general have been excluded. When several indicators measure the same aspects only one of them is used in the analysis. Value for money has also been excluded from the analysis because we want to focus the analysis on characteristics of the public transport service. Figure 18: Indicators included in the analysis of importance 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 Overall satisfaction with PT 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 The results are presented as a score between 0 and 1 which shows its relative impact on overall satisfaction. In Figure 19: Drivers of satisfaction 2010, the five most important factors per city are presented. It shows that an increased number of departures are given the highest priority by most citizens although there are differences between BEST cities. In the city reports a more comprehensive list of importance scores per city are presented for each of the years from 2008 to 2010 (not only top five). Figure 19: Drivers of satisfaction 2010 Copenhagen I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,24 I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,24 I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,23 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 0,19 Waiting time is short at transfers 0,14 Transfers are easy 0,19 Waiting time is short at transfers Transfers are easy 0,13 0,12 I normally get a seat w hen I travel w ith public transport The information is good w hen traffic problems occur 0,12 0,12 Public transport mostly runs on schedule I am not afraid of traffic accidents w hen using public transport 0,14 0,10 The staff answers my questions correctly 0,10 The staff behaves nicely and correctly 0,11 The busses and trains are clean 0,08 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 0,30 Stockholm Public transport mostly runs on schedule 0,25 I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,20 I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,25 I am satisfied w ith the number of departures 0,17 Public transport mostly runs on schedule 0,11 I feel secure at stations and bus stops 0,10 The staff behaves nicely and correctly 0,17 Nearest stop is close to w here I live 0,10 The busses and trains are modern Waiting time is short at transfers 0,09 0,09 Waiting time is short at transfers The busses and trains are clean 0,12 0,15 It is easy to get the information needed w hen planning a trip I am not afraid of traffic accidents w hen using public transport 0,10 0,09 BEST Report 2010 Page 22 of 25

23 6 Background information The graphs below show travel frequency with public transport, life situation and age distribution for each participating region in the survey. The figures are weighted according to sex and age. Figure 20: Travel frequency with public transport Total Stockholm Daily A few times per week A few times per month Less than monthly Never Copenhagen Figure 21: Life Situation Total Stockholm Working, fulltime Working, part time Student Retired Others Copenhagen BEST Report 2010 Page 23 of 25

24 7 About the survey Synovate Temo was responsible for managing the survey in all participating regions from TNS Gallup has been responsible since The most important changes in the survey are outlined below. 7.1 Weighting The conducted interviews shall correspond with the demographic profile in each region according to sex and age. In all regions the results have been weighted according to the demographic profile for the region. This was introduced before the 2002 where profiles didn t match and implemented ever since. No weight matrix was used Since some differences in and were significant when comparing weighted and un weighted results, the results for 2001 were adjusted using the weighted results. 7.2 The questionnaire Since 2002, when some minor modifications were carried out, no changes have been done until In 2007 one new statement ( The information is good in stops and terminals ) and two new background questions ( region/geography and usage of different modes of public transport ) have been added. The local institutes have been responsible for the translation of the English questionnaire into the local language. The local public transport authorities have been given the possibility to go through the questionnaire to confirm that the content of the questionnaire is suitable for the local public transport authorities of the region. The scale in the English questionnaire has been translated into the most similar and suitable used scale for this kind of surveys in each region. 7.3 Fieldwork 2010 The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 14th Response rates The response rates are at the same level or higher as year, except. Stockholm has the highest response rate of the surveyed cities, 64 %. For a definition of how the response rates are calculated see chapter 7.5. Table 1: Response rates 2001 to 2010 YEAR Copenhagen 38 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 53 % 39 % 40 % 32 % 37 % 34 % 50 % 47 % 50 % 49 % 47 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 38 % 41 % 49 % 45 % 47 % 40 % 37 % 32 % 26 % 30 % 36 % 37 % 44 % 48 % 45 % 40 % 39 % 28 % 27 % 28 % 27 % Stockholm 50 % 64 % 56 % 60 % 56 % 50 % 64 % 51 % 62 % 64 % 39 % 57 % 58 % 61 % 58 % 58 % 54 % 46 % 43 % 16 % BEST Report 2010 Page 24 of 25

25 7.5 Definition of response rates In the BEST survey we have chosen to use the following definition of response rate: BEST Survey response rate = Number of completed interviews (Total sample telephone numbers not in use / not in target group) 7.6 Margin of error Margin of error, due to different proportions in answers 5 95% 10 90% 15 85% 20 80% 25 75% 30 70% 35 65% 40 60% 45 55% 50 50% 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 margins of errors. This means significant differences when the difference is approx 1,5 at the margin of error. For example, if you have 50% satisfied customers, you must reach almost 55% satisfied customer in the next survey to have a significant difference. BEST Report 2010 Page 25 of 25

26

27

28