Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public...
Transcript of Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public...
Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
SUYMarko Vihervuori
B: 6/2009
1Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Publisher DESCRIPTION
Date of publication
14.8.2009 (original 9.3.2009)
HELSINKI CITY TRANSPORTPlanning Unit
Author(s) Marko Vihervuori
Name of publicationPassengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
AbstractHelsinki City Transport constantly measures passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki with the help of questionnaires. In 2008 altogether 12,401 passengers were asked to evalu-ate different quality factors.
Respondents gave public transport an overall mark of 4.03, which was a lower than the year before (4.13). The scale varies from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent. The mark went down with regard to the service in all modes of transport, except for VR commuter trains.
2007 2008Tram passengers 4.12 4.02Bus passengers 4.09 3.98Metro passengers 4.22 4.12Commuter train passengers (VR) 4.01 4.04Total 4.13 4.03
In tram traffi c satisfaction with available room and fl uency of travelling were better marked than earlier. Satisfaction with driver’s information skills and driver’s customer service went down, compared to the previous year.
In bus traffi c passengers gave better marks for available room and driver’s manner of driving. Satisfac-tion with driver’s information skills and transfer conditions were lower than the year before.
In metro traffi c, improvements were observed in available room, fl uency of travelling and station clean-liness. Satisfaction with vehicle tidiness and functioning of indication signs were lower than the year before.
In commuter train service (operated by VR) satisfaction with public order and punctuality were bet-ter marked than earlier. Satisfaction with functioning of indication signs and station cleanliness went down, compared to the previous year.
Key wordsPublic transport, passengers’ satisfaction
Other informationLayout: Mirva Ilmoniemi, translation: Jarmo Kalanti
Series number ISSN-number ISBN-numberHKL series B: 6/2009 1459-725X 978-952-5640-22-9
Printing place and year Language Pages AppendicesHelsinki 2009 English 21 4
2 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
3Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
This publication contains the results of the survey measuring passengers’ satisfaction in 2008. The ave-rages of marks for quality factors have been calculated by line, by mode of public transport and, in the bus traffi c, by tender object and by operator.
The results will be exploited to develop public transport, in staff schooling, and in the calculation of bo-nuses for tendered operators. The survey also contains valuable information on passenger profi les.
The survey has been assisted by 4–6 students who have, on vehicles, distributed questionnaires to pas-sengers, and collected them fi lled in.
The fi eld work has been coordinated by research assistant Pirjo Pakonen. The results have been pro-cessed by system planner Esko Kokki. The report has been drawn up by head of traffi c research Marko Vihervuori. The report has been translated by Jarmo Kalanti and laid out by Mirva Ilmoniemi.
Further enquiries can be posed to the undersigned at tel. +358 9 310 35835.
Helsinki, 14 August 2009
Marko Vihervuori
Foreword
4 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Appendices
Appendix 1 Passangers’ satisfaction by line in 2008 23
Appendix 2 Passangers’ satisfaction by tender object in 2008 25
Appendix 3 Passangers’ satisfaction by operator in 2008 28
Appendix 4 Questionnaire 30
Contents
Foreword 3
1. Introduction 6
2. Sample structure 7
3. Frequency of free riding 8
4. Passengers’ overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 9
5. Passengers’ satisfaction with mode of public transport 10
5.1 Satisfaction with operator and with public transport system 10
5.2 Changes in different quality factors 12
6. Passengers’ satisfaction with different operators 16
7. Passengers’ marks by line-section and by line in bus service 19
5Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figures
Figure 1. Passengers’ overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki 2004–2008. 9Figure 2. Marks for operators, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004–2008. 11Figure 3. Marks for public transport system, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004–2008. 11Figure 4. Marks for different quality factors, by mode of transport, in 2007 and 2008. 12Figure 5: Marks for drivers’ performance in tram traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008. 13Figure 6: Marks for drivers’ performance in bus traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008. 14Figure 7: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in tram traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008. 14Figure 8: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in bus traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008. 14Figure 9: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in Metro traffi c, semi-annually
2004–2008. 15Figure 10: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in commuter train (VR) traffi c,
semi-annually 2004–2008. 15Figure 11: Marks for bus drivers’ customer service, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 16Figure 12: Marks for bus drivers’ information skills, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 17Figure 13: Marks for bus drivers’ manner of driving, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 17Figure 14: Marks for vehicle tidiness in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 17Figure 15: Marks for travel comfort (indoor fi ttings) in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 18Figure 16: Marks for public order on vehicle in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008. 18Figure 17. Number of customer feedback to bus operators per million passengers, by operator,
in 2005–2008. 19Figure 18: Changes in marks for bus line-sections 2007–2008, in percentage terms. 19Figure 19: Marks for operators of City Centre bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 20: Marks for public transport system in City Centre, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 21: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 22: Marks for public transport system in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 23: Marks for operators of bus lines in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 24: Marks for public transport system in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20Figure 25: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21Figure 26: Marks for public transport system in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21Figure 27: Marks for operators of bus lines in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21Figure 28: Marks for public transport system in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21Figure 29: Marks for operators of transverse bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. 21Figure 30. Marks for transverse public transport system, in 2007 ja 2008. 21
6 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
1. Introduction
Helsinki City Transport has measured passengers’ satisfaction with transport services in Helsinki sin-ce 1995. Questionnaires have been fi lled in on all tram routes, on the Metro, and on bus lines with at least 1,600 daily passengers. As for commuter trains (operated by VR), the interviews have been carried out at the stations of Malmi, Malminkarta-no and Puistola.
The objective is to get an opinion of approximate-ly 11,000 passengers annually. The survey activi-ty is going on throughout the year, except for the month of December. Passengers’ satisfaction is followed up with a quarterly output, and a report is published semi-annually. This report contains the results of the whole year 2008.
The passengers have been interviewed from Mon-day to Thursday between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., and on Friday between 6 a.m. and, at latest, 2 p.m. The number of chosen interviewees is determined by route quotas, and by morning peak, day time and evening peak-hours in relation to the distri-bution of passenger volumes. The objective is to get at least 100 opinions for each route annually. The most frequented lines have had larger samp-les. Passengers on neighbourhood bus lines were not interviewed.
On bus, tram and Metro an assistant has distri-buted passengers, chosen by random, a map
consisting of a questionnaire with pen and wri-ting pad. The passengers have been asked to evaluate different quality factors on the respecti-ve line and to return the questionnaire map to the assistant when exiting. As for commuter trains, the assistant has interviewed passengers at sta-tions. The assistant has completed every returned questionnaire with date, time and respective line number (or name of train station).
Since the beginning of the year 2008 the scale of passengers’ satisfaction has varied from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Earlier the scale varied from 4 (poor) to 10 (excellent). In this publication the data from the years 2004–2007 has been converted into the new scale by using coeffi cients resulting from different questions and line numbers. The conversion is not linear because of different va-riance within the scales, it is, for instance, “easier” to give the mark 4 in a scale 1–5 than to give 9 in a scale 4–10. The passengers may use the different scales with a different severity, so that time series on the marking of different factors are not always congruent.
The survey also contains information on passen-ger profi le and such questions as what kind of tickets the passengers use, whether they could have taken the journey on their own car, and in which city or commune they live in.
7Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical terms, because the age distribution of and other background information on passengers is impos-sible to get in advance. It is not possible that the assistant starts with asking a passenger on his or her background and then refuses to continue with unsuitable interviewees. This kind of proceeding
would irritate the passengers and delay the sur-vey. To minimize a possible bias in the results, the assistants have been instructed to pick up the in-terviewees so randomly as possible with regard to their background (age, sex etc.). The passenger profi le of the respondents was as follows.
2. Sample structure
Tram Bus Metro Train TotalRespondents: 2,075 8,549 1,025 752 12,401
Gender:– Male 31 % 28 % 32 % 28 % 29 %– Female 69 % 72 % 68 % 72 % 71 %
Age:– 15–19 5 % 8 % 5 % 5 % 7 %– 20–29 28 % 24 % 25 % 22 % 25 %– 30–44 28 % 27 % 33 % 29 % 28 %– 45–59 23 % 25 % 25 % 32 % 25 %– 60– 15 % 17 % 11 % 12 % 16 %
Ticket type:– Travel card period 70 % 78 % 74 % 75 % 76 %– Travel card value 18 % 14 % 16 % 15 % 15 %– Single ticket 7 % 5 % 7 % 5 % 5 %– Other 5 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 3 %
City of residence:– Helsinki 86 % 93 % 87 % 90 % 91 %– Espoo, Kauniainen 5 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 3 %– Vantaa 4 % 3 % 6 % 6 % 4 %– Elsewhere in Uusimaa and Itä-Uusimaa 2 % 1 % 3 % 2 % 2 %– Elsewhere in Finland 3 % 1 % 1 % 2 % 1 %
Travelling on this route:– At least 4 days a week 54 % 58 % 68 % 72 % 59 %– 2–3 days a week 23 % 21 % 17 % 14 % 20 %– One day a week 10 % 8 % 6 % 6 % 8 %– Rarely 14 % 13 % 9 % 8 % 13 %
Transfer of public vehicle:– Journey with 2 transfers or more 7 % 13 % 14 % 8 % 12 %– Journey with one transfer 40 % 42 % 48 % 47 % 42 %– Journey without transfer 52 % 45 % 38 % 45 % 45 %
Possibility to take the journey in one’s own car:– Possibility to take car 29 % 28 % 35 % 37 % 29 %– No possibility 71 % 72 % 65 % 63 % 71 %
8 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
3. Frequency of free riding
It is usual to ask a couple of variable questions not related to passengers’ satisfaction. In spring 2008 it was asked if the passenger had travelled wit-hout a ticket during the last 6 months. The same question was asked also in spring 2007.
Travelling without a ticket was signifi cantly more common among travellers on rail transport than among travellers on bus.
During the last six months had travelled without a ticket
Respondent travelled on Spring 2008 Spring 2007
tram 17 % 21 %
bus 10 % 10 %
metro 20 % 16 %
local train 13 % 22 %
All passangers 12 % 13 %
Travelling without a ticket was intentional
Respondent travelled on Spring 2008 Spring 2007
tram 34 % 54 %
bus 32 % 46 %
metro 30 % 29 %
local train 43 % 36 %
All passangers 33 % 45 %
The mode of transport in the table refers to the actual mode the respondent used. The distributi-on does not tell how often or in which mode of
transport the passengers have travelled without a ticket.
The share of those travelling without a ticket was a little lower and noticeably less intentional in spring 2008 than the previous year. This suggests that a
more intense ticket control and the publicity on it have had positive effects.
9Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
4. Passengers’ overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Respondents gave public transport an ove-rall mark of 4.03, which was signifi cantly lower than the year before, when it was 4.13. The ove-rall mark is the average of overall marks of each mode of public transport weighted by respecti-
ve passenger amounts. The overall marks by the passengers on internal lines of Helsinki were wor-se for all modes of transport than in the previous year. The overall mark for the commuter train ser-vice was slightly better than the year before.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Of passengers on tram 4.05 4.07 4.06 4.12 4.02
Of passengers on bus 4.06 4.09 4.07 4.09 3.98
Of passengers on Metro 4.18 4.20 4.20 4.22 4.12
Of passengers on train 4.13 4.22 4.17 4.01 4.04
Of passengers on tram, bus and metro
4.09 4.11 4.10 4.14 4.03
All passengers 4.09 4.11 4.11 4.13 4.03
Figure 1. Passengers’ overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki 2004–2008.
There was little difference between the residents of Helsinki and other passengers with regard to the overall mark. The residents of Helsinki were,
however, a little more satisfi ed with the Metro than others.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
TramBusMetroTrain
10 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
5. Passengers’ satisfaction with mode of public transport
5.1 Satisfaction with operator and with public transport system
Questions on different quality factors relate to the line on which the respondent was travelling. One part of the questions measures the opera-tors’ performance and another part the public transport system in Helsinki. Time table punctu-ality is involved in both parts, because it refers to the system in tram and bus traffi c, and in Metro and VR commuter train service punctuality refers to operators.
Factors measuring operator:- Drivers’ customer service - Drivers’ information skills
- Drivers’ manner of driving- Time table punctuality - Vehicle tidiness- Travel comfort (indoor fi ttings)- Public order and security on vehicle
Factors measuring public transport system:- Time table punctuality- Seat availability and room- Travel smoothness (speed)- Transfer conditions (from one vehicle into anot-
her)- Waiting conditions at stops
Marks for operators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2007–2008Tram service 3.99 3.98 3.99 4.00 3.81 -0.19Bus service 3.86 3.85 3.80 3.82 3.67 -0.15Metro service 4.33 4.30 4.27 4.25 4.09 -0.16Local train service 3.79 3.85 3.82 3.70 3.86 +0.16Tram, bus and Metro together 4.01 4.00 3.99 4.00 3.83 -0.17All together 4.00 4.00 3.99 3.99 3.83 -0.16
Marks for overall publictransport system serviceTram service 3.98 3.98 4.02 4.01 4.10 +0.09Bus service 4.12 4.15 4.12 4.12 4.16 +0.04Metro service 4.17 4.10 4.04 4.06 4.16 +0.10Local train service 3.74 3.81 3.70 3.68 4.01 +0.33Tram, bus and Metro together 4.09 4.09 4.07 4.07 4.14 +0.07All together 4.08 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.14 +0.08
The marks for operators went down, compared to the previous year, by -0.19 on tram routes and by -0.15 on bus routes, and by -0.16 on the Met-ro. The passengers’ satisfaction with commuter train operation improved by 0.16, so that it got the best mark since the introducing of the time series in 2004.
The public transport system mark for tram service improved by 0.09, for bus by 0.04, for the Met-ro by 0.10 and for VR commuter train service by 0.33.
11Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 2. Marks for operators, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 3. Marks for public transport system, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004–2008.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
TramBusMetroTrain
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
TramBusMetroTrain
12 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
5.2 Changes in different quality factors
Changes between 2007 and 2008
The most remarkable changes in the marks from the year 2007 to 2008occurred in the following quality factors. Changes in all quality factors can be seen in fi gure 4.
In tram service the most remarkably improved fac-tors were seating room and travel smoothness. The most remarkable negative changes occurred with dri-vers’ information skills as well as with drivers’ cus-tomer service. One third of the deterioration of custo-mer service results from a changed question of this factor.
In bus service the most re-markable change was the improvement of seating room and of drivers’ man-ner of driving. The most re-markable negative chan-ges occurred with drivers’ information skills and with transfer conditions
In Metro service the best improvers were seating room, travel smoothness and station tidiness. The biggest falls compared to the previous year were re-gistered in vehicle tidiness and functioning of informa-tion signals.
In commuter train service (VR) public order and pun-ctuality were remarkably better marked than in the previous year. Negative development was noticed in functioning of informa-tion signals and in station tidiness. Figure 4. Marks for different quality factors, by mode of transport, in 2007
and 2008.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Functioning ofinformation signals
Station tidiness
Order and safety on vehicle
Travel smoothness
Timetable suitability
Seat availability
Vehicle tidiness
Punctuality
Drivers’ manner of driving
LOCAL TRAIN SERVICE
Functioning ofinformation signals
Station tidiness
Order and safety on vehicle
Travel smoothness
Timetable suitability
Seat availability
Vehicle tidiness
Punctuality
Drivers’ manner of driving
M ETRO SERVICE
Waiting conditions
Public order on vehicle
Transfer conditions
Travel smoothness
Timetable suitability
Seat availability
Travel comfort(indoor fittings)
Vehicle tidiness
Punctuality
Drivers’ manner of driving
Drivers’ information skills
Drivers’ customer service
BUS SERVICE
Waiting conditions
Public order on vehicle
Transfer conditions
Travel smoothness
Timetable suitability
Seat availability
Travel comfort(indoor fittings)
Vehicle tidiness
Punctuality
Drivers’ manner of driving
Drivers’ information skills
Drivers’ customer service
TRAM SERVICE
2008
2007
13Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Development between 2004 and 2008
Figures 5–10 show the development of different quality factors since the year 2004, semi-annually. In tram and bus service the development of dri-vers’ performance is depicted. By drivers’ perfor-mance is meant drivers’ customer service, infor-mation skills and manner of driving. The develop-ment of marks for different quality factors of the public transport system is depicted as well.
The tram drivers’ performance has become wor-se especially with regard to information skills as well as to customer service, on the basis of the marks. A decreasing trend in terms of informa-tion skills can be noticed for some time, but in spring 2008 both marks fell remarkably, compa-red to earlier years. In tram service, a third of the deterioration in the mark results from a changed question of drivers’ customer service. Therefore, the time series is not quite congruent. The questi-on about drivers’ information skills remained prac-tically unchanged. In tram traffi c, the passengers have to deal with the driver only when buying a ticket or asking for information. This emphasizes the importance of being served, while in bus traf-fi c the passenger cannot avoid meeting the driver (except those boarding through the middle door with prams etc.). This explains also the fall of both marks in tram service, while in bus service such a fall is hardly noticeable.
In tram service, as a part of public transport sys-tem, transfer conditions, waiting conditions, seating room and travel smoothness got better marks, but punctuality was weaker than before. In tram service the fl uctuation of marks has been rather strong during recent years. A clear trend has been noticeable only with regard to time tab-le punctuality, with falling marks for a couple of years.
In bus service transfer conditions deteriorated compared to the previous year and a falling trend of punctuality has been noticeable already for about four years. Other marks have remained rat-her stable.
The marks for the Metro have remained high, ex-cept for punctuality, which was worse than the year before. The mark for station tidiness is signi-fi cantly lower than for other factors. However, this mark has slightly turned upwards.
In VR commuter train service the marks have been lower compared to corresponding fi gures of the Metro. Annual fl uctuations have accompanied the train service, so that no clear trend can be seen.
Figure 5: Marks for drivers’ performance in tram traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
Drivers’customer service
Drivers’information skills
Drivers’manner of driving
14 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 6: Marks for drivers’ performance in bus traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 7: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in tram traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 8: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in bus traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
Drivers’customer service
Drivers’information skills
Drivers’manner of driving
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04S-04K-05S-05K-06S-06K-07S-07K-08S-08
Semi-annual period
Punctuality
Seat availability
Travel smoothness
Transferconditions
Waiting conditions
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04S-04K-05S-05K-06S-06K-07S-07K-08S-08
Semi-annual period
Punctuality
Seat availability
Travel smoothness
Transferconditions
Waiting conditions
15Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 9: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in Metro traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 10: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in commuter train (VR) traffi c, semi-annually 2004–2008.
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04S-04K-05S-05K-06S-06K-07S-07K-08S-08
Semi-annual period
Punctuality
Seat availability
Travel smoothness
Station tidiness
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-04S-04K-05S-05K-06S-06K-07S-07K-08S-08
Semi-annual period
Punctuality
Seat availability
Travel smoothness
Station tidiness
16 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
6. Passengers’ satisfaction with different operators
In focus are bus operators Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (HelB), Concordia Bus, Pohjolan kaupunkilii-kenne (PKL) and Veolia Transport. Examined are the marks for the quality factors which the opera-tors can contribute to. The average mark of each operator for each quality factor is the result of the mark of a single route weighed by its weekday boardings.
The best mark for drivers’ customer service has mostly received the operator PKL. In 2008 the best mark received Veolia, which in a longer trend has been rather equal with HelB and Concordia.
Drivers’ information skills have downright col-lapsed for all operators, compared to the previo-us year. The trend has been downwards alrea-dy for a longer period, but, compared to autumn 2007, there is a signifi cant fall in the marks. The fall seems to even out for most of the operators, but only PKL has succeeded in turning the mark into a slight upwards direction.
As for drivers’ manner of driving the lines opera-ted by PKL were marked best. PKL has improved this mark for a couple of years. HelB and Concor-dia have been rather stable, Veolia has experien-ced more fl uctuations.
The difference in marks between operators forvehicle tidiness has varied rather signifi cantly. Passengers have been most satisfi ed with the buses of PKL for years. The lowest mark recei-ved Concordia, HelB and Veolia were a little bet-ter marked.
The best mark for travel comfort (indoor fi ttings) has received PKL already for years, Veolia went down most, and others went down less remar-kably. Public order on vehicle got a grade around 4.5 for all operators, which is a very good mark. Veolia improved, others remained approximately on their previous levels.
Figure 11: Marks for bus drivers’ customer service, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
HelB
Concordia
PKL
Veolia
17Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 12: Marks for bus drivers’ information skills, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 14: Marks for vehicle tidiness in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 13: Marks for bus drivers’ manner of driving, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
HelBConcordiaPKLVeolia
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
HelBConcordiaPKLVeolia
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08Semi-annual period
HelBConcordiaPKLVeolia
18 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 16: Marks for public order on vehicle in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Figure 15: Marks for travel comfort (indoor fi ttings) in bus traffi c, by operator, semi-annually 2004–2008.
Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services is also monitored with the help of se-parate passenger feedbacks. The objective is to use them as complementary signals to passen-ger surveys. The majority of feedbacks are comp-laints on a service factor, such as time table, ope-ration, staff behaviour, tariffs etc. The number of customer feedback to bus operators, per one million passengers, by month, during the period 1.1.2005 - 31.12.2008 is shown below. Because feedback mostly concerns a single line, the ope-rators are compared with each other, even if they have not always been able to have infl uence on the reason of a feedback.
The survey results for an operator are mostly sup-ported by the separate passenger feedback.
Number of passenger feedbacks 2008
HKL as operatorTram 1,400Metro 500
Other feedback to HKL 5,200HKL, in total 7,100
Bus operators 8,300of which service lines 200
Other partners 100
Total 15,400
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
HelBConcordiaPKLVeolia
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08
Semi-annual period
HelBConcordiaPKLVeolia
19Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 17. Number of customer feedback to bus operators per million passengers, by operator, in 2005–2008.
7. Passengers’ marks by line-section and by line in bus service
The bus routes are divided into sections on the basis of which part of the city they serve. A divisi-on into six sections of Helsinki is commonly used: City Centre bus lines, North-Western, Northern, North-Eastern, Eastern, and transverse bus lines.
The operator’s performance was best marked on transverse bus lines, with 3.73, and worst on Eas-tern bus lines, with 3.61. The best mark, 4.22, for the public transport system was given to transver-se bus service, and the worst mark, 4.12, for City Centre bus service. The general enforcement of
transverse public transport and the popularity of line 550 (“Jokeri”) may be visible in these marks, although the respondents are asked to evaluate only the line they are travelling on.
The marks for both the operator and the public transport system decreased, compared to the year before. The marks for the transport system decreased clearly less than for the operator. The weakening of driver’s information skills explains most of the decrease.
Figure 18: Changes in marks for bus line-sections 2007–2008, in percentage terms.
0
50
100
150
200
1/20
05
3/20
05
5/20
05
7/20
05
9/20
05
11/20
05
1/20
06
3/20
06
5/20
06
7/20
06
9/20
06
11/20
06
1/20
07
3/20
07
5/20
07
7/20
07
9/20
07
11/20
07
1/20
08
3/20
08
5/20
08
7/20
08
9/20
08
11/20
08
feed
back
/ m
illion
pas
sang
ers
HelB
Concordia
Veolia
PKL
Change 2007 - 2008
-6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0%
Transverse lines
Eastern lines
North-Eastern lines
Northern lines
North-Western lines
City centre lines
TransportsystemOperator
20 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
55,A
23
22
21V
20
18
17
16
15,A
14B
14
Line
Mark
2008
2007
In the following are fi gured the marks for ope-rators of each line-section, by line, in 2007 and
2008. Only the lines are shown of which there are observations in both periods of comparison.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
55,A
23
22
21V
20
18
17
16
15,A
14B
14
Line
Mark
20072008
Figure 19: Marks for operators of City Centre bus lines, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 20: Marks for public transport system in City Centre, in 2007 and 2008.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
47
45
43
42
41
40
39
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
47
45
43
42
41
40
39
Line
Mark
20072008
Figure 21: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 22: Marks for public transport system in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
67
66A
65A
64
63
62
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
67
66A
65A
64
63
62
Line
Mark
20072008
Figure 23: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-ern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 24: Marks for public transport system in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
21Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Figure 25: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 26: Marks for public transport system in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
77A
77
76A,B
75A
75
74
73
72
71V
71
70V
70T
69
68,X
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
77A
77
76A,B
75A
75
74
73
72
71V
71
70V
70T
69
68,X
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
98
97,V
96
95
94B
94A
94,V
92
90
89
88
86
85
84
83
82
81,B
80
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
98
97,V
96
95
94B
94A
94,V
92
90
89
88
86
85
84
83
82
81,B
80
Line
Mark
20072008
Figure 27: Marks for operators of bus lines in East-ern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 28: Marks for public transport system in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
79
78
59
58,B
57
54
53
52V
52A
52
51
50
Line
Mark
20072008
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
79
78
59
58,B
57
54
53
52V
52A
52
51
50
Line
Mark
20072008
Figure 29: Marks for operators of transverse bus lines, in 2007 and 2008.
Figure 30. Marks for transverse public transport sys-tem, in 2007 ja 2008.
22 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
APPENDICES
23Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Appendix 1 Passangers’ satisfaction by line in 2008H
KL
Pla
nnin
g un
it1
6.7.
2009
EK
PA
SS
EN
GE
RS
' S
ATI
SF
AC
TIO
N B
Y L
INE
IN
20
08
Line
1. D
river
s'2.
Driv
ers'
3. D
river
s'4.
Pun
ctua
lity
5. V
ehic
le6.
Tra
vel
8. S
eat
9. T
imet
able
1
0. T
rave
l1
1. T
rans
fer
12.
Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14.
Info
rm.
17.
Sta
tion
18.
Fun
ctio
ning
To
tal
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skills
way
of d
rivin
gtid
ines
sco
mfo
rtav
aila
bilit
ysu
itabi
lity
smoo
thne
ssco
nditi
ons
safe
tyco
nditi
ons
avai
libilit
ytid
ines
sof
info
rmat
ion
Ope
rato
rS
yste
mT r
amB
oard
ings
N1
,A1
0 89
61
384,
013,
883,
943,
683,
653,
754,
404,
354,
074,
15
3,99
3,77
4,08
3,8
54
,06
3B,T
46 6
2554
73,
843,
893,
793,
543,
363,
714,
11
4,46
4,06
4,1
93,
903,
734,
223
,72
4,0
3
4,T
32 8
7237
33,
853,
893,
813,
973,
703,
803,
744,
554,
234,
214,
233,
934,
243
,81
4,1
4
620
100
171
3,89
3,96
3,88
3,89
3,72
3,90
3,99
4,63
4,07
4,27
3,90
3,72
4,32
3,8
74
,10
7A,B
32 5
8233
13,
873,
943,
903,
583,
623,
754,
064,
514,
16
4,1
34,
073,
734,
203
,82
4,0
6
81
7 1
781
643,
863,
863,
903,
763,
733,
984,
254,
584,
244,
213,
863,
814,
303
,87
4,1
3
97
382
483,
753,
733,
623,
703,
924,
044,
424,
524,
264,
264,
043,
814,
13
3,8
14
,14
10
34 5
7130
33,
963,
903,
894,
083,
683,
814,
024,
634,
244,
294,
213,
874,
18
3,8
54
,19
Tram
tota
l20
2 20
62
075
3,8
83
,90
3,8
53
,78
3,6
23
,80
4,0
54
,54
4,1
64
,21
4,0
43
,80
4,2
23
,81
4,1
0
Bu
s1
48
257
140
3,77
3,74
3,61
3,72
3,78
3,67
4,01
4,46
3,84
4,1
74,
503,
774,
353
,71
4,1
0
14B
2 42
11
213,
773,
713,
673,
853,
853,
784,
304,
594,
16
4,1
74,
443,
754,
343
,76
4,2
0
15,
A1
633
11
53,
873,
663,
713,
893,
953,
894,
584,
454,
384,
364,
293,
794,
303
,82
4,2
6
16
2 58
21
203,
773,
383,
563,
313,
843,
834,
764,
474,
054,
10
4,53
3,50
4,24
3,6
84
,12
17
5 1
14
723,
993,
643,
703,
574,
073,
904,
674,
463,
994,
10
4,62
3,46
4,1
73
,86
4,1
3
18
8 28
71
793,
813,
783,
683,
383,
953,
964,
344,
413,
714,
044,
593,
884,
343
,84
4,0
9
206
571
121
3,80
3,76
3,47
3,48
3,76
3,85
4,40
4,42
3,91
4,09
4,56
3,86
4,29
3,7
34
,13
21V
4 37
51
773,
623,
453,
373,
583,
583,
444,
504,
503,
934,
054,
633,
864,
12
3,4
94
,15
222
238
128
3,84
3,80
3,67
3,57
3,63
3,65
4,77
4,57
4,08
4,1
34,
633,
484,
283
,72
4,1
9
235
532
120
3,83
3,67
3,64
3,1
33,
693,
674,
354,
363,
944,
11
4,41
3,53
4,28
3,7
04
,01
395
911
11
43,
713,
643,
603,
533,
603,
574,
354,
403,
833,
914,
613,
714,
323
,62
4,0
8
404
308
11
93,
913,
643,
633,
973,
964,
004,
494,
504,
16
4,1
74,
513,
984,
243
,83
4,2
5
413
677
125
3,88
3,65
3,69
3,97
3,72
3,71
4,56
4,58
4,1
24,
204,
573,
754,
363
,73
4,2
6
423
730
120
3,84
3,65
3,56
3,58
3,64
3,71
4,60
4,51
4,05
4,1
54,
423,
874,
223
,68
4,1
8
435
571
121
3,69
3,32
3,52
3,69
3,68
3,71
4,44
4,48
3,91
4,1
44,
483,
764,
313
,58
4,1
5
452
913
120
3,72
3,46
3,67
3,84
3,86
3,88
4,39
4,45
3,96
4,27
4,42
3,72
4,41
3,7
24
,18
4785
21
18
3,81
3,46
3,70
3,59
3,70
3,59
4,56
4,54
4,22
4,20
4,70
3,62
4,38
3,6
54
,23
503
912
120
3,77
3,76
3,66
3,67
4,06
3,91
4,59
4,63
4,08
4,23
4,69
3,79
4,34
3,8
34
,25
514
435
120
3,86
3,64
3,79
3,71
3,75
3,64
4,76
4,46
4,03
4,06
4,59
3,85
4,26
3,7
44
,22
523
787
130
3,80
3,55
3,65
3,1
83,
743,
654,
754,
473,
974,
004,
533,
984,
353
,68
4,1
5
52A
1 0
7454
3,88
3,35
3,69
3,87
3,38
3,23
4,83
4,58
4,46
3,88
4,59
3,52
4,33
3,5
14
,26
52V
705
503,
833,
713,
833,
773,
963,
564,
774,
444,
354,
264,
743,
864,
243
,78
4,3
0
5341
261
4,1
24,
19
4,01
4,24
4,1
94,
19
4,98
4,82
4,58
4,33
4,82
4,02
4,43
4,1
44
,53
543
282
175
3,75
3,59
3,64
3,81
3,64
3,61
4,47
4,45
4,22
4,00
4,56
3,72
4,31
3,6
54
,19
55,A
4 27
11
18
3,87
3,67
3,68
3,56
3,98
4,01
4,38
4,46
3,98
4,20
4,49
3,84
4,24
3,8
44
,14
574
438
123
3,83
3,74
3,74
3,86
3,86
3,73
4,85
4,52
4,1
54,
004,
653,
904,
413
,78
4,2
9
58,B
9 1
531
293,
933,
623,
723,
904,
083,
994,
214,
504,
034,
17
4,63
3,73
4,36
3,8
74
,19
592
547
123
3,92
3,65
3,85
4,08
4,1
54,
064,
584,
654,
384,
324,
763,
764,
403
,93
4,3
7
621
987
11
83,
633,
403,
623,
683,
683,
444,
644,
294,
044,
024,
353,
724,
213
,55
4,1
2
635
303
133
3,76
3,54
3,72
3,70
3,83
3,76
4,51
4,51
4,08
4,28
4,57
4,06
4,31
3,7
24
,25
644
862
126
3,99
3,80
3,89
4,09
4,07
4,02
4,66
4,47
4,1
64,
16
4,50
4,07
4,35
3,9
54
,31
24 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
65A
11
387
723,
753,
753,
583,
17
3,75
3,74
4,20
4,43
3,83
4,25
4,63
3,80
4,31
3,7
14
,08
65B
3 94
01
093,
623,
473,
383,
313,
803,
874,
604,
383,
804,
11
4,46
3,96
4,28
3,6
34
,11
65X
5 01
31
083,
553,
453,
403,
723,
703,
484,
474,
14
3,98
3,86
4,63
3,90
4,26
3,5
24
,12
66A
8 49
073
3,49
3,38
3,28
3,35
3,49
3,42
4,1
34,
383,
694,
294,
473,
604,
14
3,4
14
,01
66B
2 05
31
083,
693,
533,
573,
773,
713,
744,
564,
494,
004,
13
4,58
4,06
4,28
3,6
54
,23
676
573
126
3,66
3,38
3,55
3,93
3,67
3,59
4,1
74,
483,
944,
12
4,38
3,79
4,29
3,5
74
,14
68, X
3 78
91
213,
853,
533,
643,
873,
843,
824,
704,
454,
084,
074,
573,
934,
533
,74
4,2
8
696
077
131
3,78
3,59
3,65
3,59
3,79
3,80
4,61
4,56
4,00
4,02
4,45
3,83
4,26
3,7
24
,17
70T
6 37
01
203,
853,
663,
663,
483,
683,
704,
574,
403,
883,
954,
533,
944,
323
,71
4,1
3
70V
4 28
11
213,
713,
493,
543,
623,
663,
454,
254,
503,
994,
094,
513,
894,
383
,57
4,1
5
717
917
108
3,70
3,63
3,60
3,90
3,82
3,74
4,36
4,52
4,1
64,
234,
413,
994,
453
,70
4,2
5
71V
901
633,
783,
643,
524,
043,
623,
564,
554,
534,
17
3,88
4,61
3,73
4,40
3,6
24
,24
726
980
120
3,81
3,68
3,61
3,39
3,59
3,59
4,28
4,43
4,02
4,02
4,46
3,79
4,20
3,6
64
,07
735
830
131
3,65
3,31
3,43
3,54
3,42
3,44
4,40
4,31
3,96
3,99
4,33
3,72
4,36
3,4
54
,08
741
931
120
3,70
3,56
3,55
3,72
3,63
3,60
4,48
4,24
3,91
3,98
4,44
3,60
4,40
3,6
14
,10
755
878
120
3,67
3,75
3,54
3,69
3,77
3,72
4,47
4,48
4,00
3,93
4,45
3,75
4,1
73
,69
4,1
2
75A
1 0
831
093,
653,
533,
723,
903,
783,
744,
804,
384,
434,
084,
493,
674,
213
,68
4,2
5
76A
,B2
995
129
3,80
3,50
3,58
4,03
3,65
3,65
4,76
4,43
4,38
3,81
4,49
3,74
4,20
3,6
44
,23
774
630
137
3,81
3,59
3,66
3,75
3,64
3,71
4,44
4,40
4,27
4,09
4,24
3,98
4,23
3,6
84
,18
77A
3 54
21
443,
843,
673,
703,
773,
523,
634,
604,
364,
284,
074,
323,
574,
13
3,6
74
,14
785
126
120
3,61
3,45
3,50
3,71
3,52
3,57
4,65
4,52
4,21
4,1
44,
313,
714,
203
,53
4,1
8
797
676
133
3,79
3,63
3,61
3,78
3,53
3,60
4,44
4,51
4,1
64,
13
4,30
3,72
4,41
3,6
34
,18
805
427
122
3,66
3,68
3,62
3,77
3,66
3,77
4,41
4,39
4,28
4,1
84,
333,
734,
18
3,6
84
,16
81,B
4 1
831
863,
813,
613,
513,
983,
553,
614,
724,
544,
464,
314,
403,
664,
283
,62
4,2
9
825
360
125
3,69
3,58
3,46
3,73
3,57
3,61
4,47
4,52
4,36
4,26
4,1
73,
804,
253
,58
4,2
0
831
399
126
4,1
43,
604,
044,
18
4,34
4,1
94,
844,
364,
464,
17
4,56
3,83
4,27
4,0
64
,33
843
545
120
3,77
3,42
3,51
4,00
3,53
3,55
4,28
4,40
4,1
04,
13
4,1
73,
794,
213
,56
4,1
4
854
881
126
3,59
3,33
3,59
3,78
3,68
3,70
4,36
4,20
4,1
04,
11
4,42
3,83
4,26
3,5
84
,13
864
925
11
43,
643,
593,
703,
793,
583,
424,
484,
424,
354,
254,
403,
874,
343
,59
4,2
4
881
679
122
3,69
3,53
3,54
4,03
3,79
3,77
4,64
4,45
4,41
4,26
4,62
3,80
4,21
3,6
64
,30
891
496
128
3,73
3,56
3,52
4,1
63,
673,
784,
734,
594,
604,
244,
533,
824,
203
,65
4,3
6
902
588
124
3,79
3,64
3,83
4,02
3,73
3,92
4,77
4,56
4,50
4,06
4,43
3,87
4,20
3,7
84
,30
923
732
121
3,68
3,47
3,50
3,64
3,47
3,61
4,40
4,27
4,32
4,1
04,
223,
564,
15
3,5
54
,08
94,V
4 33
11
293,
723,
523,
663,
703,
393,
544,
404,
384,
203,
974,
313,
714,
16
3,5
74
,10
94A
3 30
01
17
3,63
3,47
3,58
3,84
3,67
3,56
4,69
4,48
4,41
4,09
4,25
4,03
4,1
03
,58
4,2
4
94B
3 1
8548
3,67
3,39
3,56
4,00
3,77
3,68
4,71
4,38
4,50
3,94
4,27
3,46
4,06
3,6
14
,17
952
465
122
3,87
3,63
3,61
3,54
3,48
3,58
4,30
4,26
4,1
54,
024,
253,
544,
12
3,6
34
,02
965
11
71
223,
763,
463,
513,
973,
463,
624,
354,
244,
333,
984,
17
3,74
4,1
43
,56
4,1
2
97,V
2 78
724
63,
673,
363,
603,
833,
533,
534,
604,
284,
16
4,1
44,
17
3,65
4,27
3,5
44
,14
981
527
11
83,
763,
633,
593,
973,
533,
654,
604,
374,
254,
094,
293,
804,
253
,63
4,2
0
Bus
tota
l29
8 52
98
549
3,7
63
,59
3,6
03
,68
3,7
23
,70
4,4
64
,44
4,0
74
,11
4,4
63
,79
4,2
8
3,6
74
,16
Met
ro1
92 0
001
025
4,3
74
,45
3,4
34
,29
4,5
54
,63
3,9
14
,12
3,4
64
,09
4,0
94
,16
Loca
l tra
in1
7 1
0075
24
,28
3,8
33
,39
3,7
84
,41
4,4
44
,09
4,3
53
,01
3,9
43
,86
4,0
1
T , B
, M
692
735
11
649
3,8
13
,71
3,8
93
,92
3,6
13
,74
4,2
94
,50
4,2
54
,15
4,1
93
,79
4,2
23
,83
4,1
4
H
KL
(T,
M)
394
206
3 1
004
,10
4,1
03
,52
4,1
74
,54
4,3
93
,98
4,1
73
,94
4,1
3
Tota
l70
9 83
51
2 40
13
,81
3,7
13
,90
3,9
23
,60
3,7
44
,28
4,5
04
,26
4,1
54
,18
3,7
94
,22
3,8
34
,14
25Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Appendix 2 Passangers’ satisfaction by tender object in 2008
HK
L P
lann
ing
unit
EK
PA
SS
EN
GE
RS
' S
ATI
SF
AC
TIO
N B
Y T
EN
DE
R O
BJE
CT
IN 2
00
8
1. D
river
s'2.
Driv
ers'
3. D
river
s'4.
Pun
ctua
lity
5. V
ehic
le6.
Tra
vel
8. S
eat
9. T
imet
able
1
0. T
rave
l1
1. T
rans
fer
12.
Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14.
Info
rmat
ion
To
tal
Ob
ject
Line
Boa
rdin
gsN
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skw
ay o
f driv
ing
tidin
ess
com
fort
avai
labi
lity
suita
bilit
ysm
ooth
ness
cond
ition
ssa
fety
cond
ition
sav
ailib
ility
Ope
rato
rS
yste
m
29
514
435
120
3,86
3,64
3,79
3,71
3,75
3,64
4,76
4,46
4,03
4,06
4,59
3,85
4,26
3,7
44
,22
523
787
130
3,80
3,55
3,65
3,1
83,
743,
654,
754,
473,
974,
004,
533,
984,
353
,68
4,1
5
52A
1 0
7454
3,88
3,35
3,69
3,87
3,38
3,23
4,83
4,58
4,46
3,88
4,59
3,52
4,33
3,5
14
,26
52V
705
503,
833,
713,
833,
773,
963,
564,
774,
444,
354,
264,
743,
864,
243
,78
4,3
0
To
tal
3,8
43
,58
3,7
33
,53
3,7
23
,59
4,7
64
,48
4,0
84
,03
4,5
83
,86
4,3
03
,69
4,2
0
30
574
438
123
3,83
3,74
3,74
3,86
3,86
3,73
4,85
4,52
4,1
54,
004,
653,
904,
413
,78
4,2
9
797
676
133
3,79
3,63
3,61
3,78
3,53
3,60
4,44
4,51
4,1
64,
13
4,30
3,72
4,41
3,6
34
,18
To
tal
3,8
03
,67
3,6
63
,81
3,6
53
,65
4,5
94
,51
4,1
64
,08
4,4
33
,79
4,4
13
,69
4,2
2
33
14
8 25
71
403,
773,
743,
613,
723,
783,
674,
014,
463,
844,
17
4,50
3,77
4,35
3,7
14
,10
14B
2 42
11
213,
773,
713,
673,
853,
853,
784,
304,
594,
16
4,1
74,
443,
754,
343
,76
4,2
0
To
tal
3,7
73
,73
3,6
23
,75
3,8
03
,69
4,0
84
,49
3,9
14
,17
4,4
93
,77
4,3
53
,72
4,1
2
35
21V
4 37
51
773,
623,
453,
373,
583,
583,
444,
504,
503,
934,
054,
633,
864,
12
3,4
94
,15
65A
11
387
723,
753,
753,
583,
17
3,75
3,74
4,20
4,43
3,83
4,25
4,63
3,80
4,31
3,7
14
,08
65B
3 94
01
093,
623,
473,
383,
313,
803,
874,
604,
383,
804,
11
4,46
3,96
4,28
3,6
34
,11
65X
5 01
31
083,
553,
453,
403,
723,
703,
484,
474,
14
3,98
3,86
4,63
3,90
4,26
3,5
24
,12
66A
8 49
073
3,49
3,38
3,28
3,35
3,49
3,42
4,1
34,
383,
694,
294,
473,
604,
14
3,4
14
,01
66B
2 05
31
083,
693,
533,
573,
773,
713,
744,
564,
494,
004,
13
4,58
4,06
4,28
3,6
54
,23
To
tal
3,6
23
,54
3,4
33
,39
3,6
63
,60
4,3
24
,38
3,8
44
,16
4,5
73
,81
4,2
33
,57
4,0
9
41
785
126
120
3,61
3,45
3,50
3,71
3,52
3,57
4,65
4,52
4,21
4,1
44,
313,
714,
203
,53
4,1
8
902
588
124
3,79
3,64
3,83
4,02
3,73
3,92
4,77
4,56
4,50
4,06
4,43
3,87
4,20
3,7
84
,30
965
11
71
223,
763,
463,
513,
973,
463,
624,
354,
244,
333,
984,
17
3,74
4,1
43
,56
4,1
2
981
527
11
83,
763,
633,
593,
973,
533,
654,
604,
374,
254,
094,
293,
804,
253
,63
4,2
0
To
tal
3,7
13
,51
3,5
73
,89
3,5
43
,66
4,5
64
,41
4,3
14
,06
4,2
83
,76
4,1
83
,60
4,1
8
42
235
532
120
3,83
3,67
3,64
3,1
33,
693,
674,
354,
363,
944,
11
4,41
3,53
4,28
3,7
04
,01
To
tal
3,8
33
,67
3,6
43
,13
3,6
93
,67
4,3
54
,36
3,9
44
,11
4,4
13
,53
4,2
83
,70
4,0
1
43
676
573
126
3,66
3,38
3,55
3,93
3,67
3,59
4,1
74,
483,
944,
12
4,38
3,79
4,29
3,5
74
,14
To
tal
3
,66
3,3
83
,55
3,9
33
,67
3,5
94
,17
4,4
83
,94
4,1
24
,38
3,7
94
,29
3,5
74
,14
44
70T
6 37
01
203,
853,
663,
663,
483,
683,
704,
574,
403,
883,
954,
533,
944,
323
,71
4,1
3
70V
4 28
11
213,
713,
493,
543,
623,
663,
454,
254,
503,
994,
094,
513,
894,
383
,57
4,1
5
To
tal
3,7
93
,59
3,6
13
,54
3,6
73
,60
4,4
44
,44
3,9
24
,01
4,5
23
,92
4,3
43
,65
4,1
4
45
726
980
120
3,81
3,68
3,61
3,39
3,59
3,59
4,28
4,43
4,02
4,02
4,46
3,79
4,20
3,6
64
,07
To
tal
3
,81
3,6
83
,61
3,3
93
,59
3,5
94
,28
4,4
34
,02
4,0
24
,46
3,7
94
,20
3,6
64
,07
46
222
238
128
3,84
3,80
3,67
3,57
3,63
3,65
4,77
4,57
4,08
4,1
34,
633,
484,
283
,72
4,1
9
To
tal
3,8
43
,80
3,6
73
,57
3,6
33
,65
4,7
74
,57
4,0
84
,13
4,6
33
,48
4,2
83
,72
4,1
9
26 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
1. D
river
s'2.
Driv
ers'
3. D
river
s'4.
Pun
ctua
lity
5. V
ehic
le6.
Tra
vel
8. S
eat
9. T
imet
able
1
0. T
rave
l1
1. T
rans
fer
12.
Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14.
Info
rmat
ion
To
tal
Ob
ject
Line
Boa
rdin
gsN
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skw
ay o
f driv
ing
tidin
ess
com
fort
avai
labi
lity
suita
bilit
ysm
ooth
ness
cond
ition
ssa
fety
cond
ition
sav
ailib
ility
Ope
rato
rS
yste
m
47
621
987
11
83,
633,
403,
623,
683,
683,
444,
644,
294,
044,
024,
353,
724,
213
,55
4,1
2
To
tal
3
,63
3,4
03
,62
3,6
83
,68
3,4
44
,64
4,2
94
,04
4,0
24
,35
3,7
24
,21
3,5
54
,12
51
17
5 1
14
723,
993,
643,
703,
574,
073,
904,
674,
463,
994,
10
4,62
3,46
4,1
73
,86
4,1
3
To
tal
3
,99
3,6
43
,70
3,5
74
,07
3,9
04
,67
4,4
63
,99
4,1
04
,62
3,4
64
,17
3,8
64
,13
52
503
912
120
3,77
3,76
3,66
3,67
4,06
3,91
4,59
4,63
4,08
4,23
4,69
3,79
4,34
3,8
34
,25
58,B
9 1
531
293,
933,
623,
723,
904,
083,
994,
214,
504,
034,
17
4,63
3,73
4,36
3,8
74
,19
592
547
123
3,92
3,65
3,85
4,08
4,1
54,
064,
584,
654,
384,
324,
763,
764,
403
,93
4,3
7
To
tal
3,8
93
,66
3,7
33
,87
4,0
93
,98
4,3
74
,56
4,1
04
,21
4,6
73
,75
4,3
63
,87
4,2
4
53
644
862
126
3,99
3,80
3,89
4,09
4,07
4,02
4,66
4,47
4,1
64,
16
4,50
4,07
4,35
3,9
54
,31
To
tal
3
,99
3,8
03
,89
4,0
94
,07
4,0
24
,66
4,4
74
,16
4,1
64
,50
4,0
74
,35
3,9
54
,31
54
843
545
120
3,77
3,42
3,51
4,00
3,53
3,55
4,28
4,40
4,1
04,
13
4,1
73,
794,
213
,56
4,1
4
854
881
126
3,59
3,33
3,59
3,78
3,68
3,70
4,36
4,20
4,1
04,
11
4,42
3,83
4,26
3,5
84
,13
864
925
11
43,
643,
593,
703,
793,
583,
424,
484,
424,
354,
254,
403,
874,
343
,59
4,2
4
881
679
122
3,69
3,53
3,54
4,03
3,79
3,77
4,64
4,45
4,41
4,26
4,62
3,80
4,21
3,6
64
,30
891
496
128
3,73
3,56
3,52
4,1
63,
673,
784,
734,
594,
604,
244,
533,
824,
203
,65
4,3
6
To
tal
3,6
73
,47
3,5
93
,89
3,6
33
,60
4,4
44
,37
4,2
54
,18
4,3
93
,83
4,2
63
,59
4,2
0
55
15,
A1
633
11
53,
873,
663,
713,
893,
953,
894,
584,
454,
384,
364,
293,
794,
303
,82
4,2
6
To
tal
3,8
73
,66
3,7
13
,89
3,9
53
,89
4,5
84
,45
4,3
84
,36
4,2
93
,79
4,3
03
,82
4,2
6
56
206
571
121
3,80
3,76
3,47
3,48
3,76
3,85
4,40
4,42
3,91
4,09
4,56
3,86
4,29
3,7
34
,13
423
730
120
3,84
3,65
3,56
3,58
3,64
3,71
4,60
4,51
4,05
4,1
54,
423,
874,
223
,68
4,1
8
To
tal
3,8
13
,72
3,5
03
,52
3,7
23
,80
4,4
74
,45
3,9
64
,11
4,5
13
,86
4,2
63
,71
4,1
4
57
395
911
11
43,
713,
643,
603,
533,
603,
574,
354,
403,
833,
914,
613,
714,
323
,62
4,0
8
452
913
120
3,72
3,46
3,67
3,84
3,86
3,88
4,39
4,45
3,96
4,27
4,42
3,72
4,41
3,7
24
,18
To
tal
3,7
13
,58
3,6
23
,63
3,6
93
,67
4,3
64
,42
3,8
74
,03
4,5
53
,71
4,3
53
,66
4,1
2
58
404
308
11
93,
913,
643,
633,
973,
964,
004,
494,
504,
16
4,1
74,
513,
984,
243
,83
4,2
5
To
tal
3,9
13
,64
3,6
33
,97
3,9
64
,00
4,4
94
,50
4,1
64
,17
4,5
13
,98
4,2
43
,83
4,2
5
60
735
830
131
3,65
3,31
3,43
3,54
3,42
3,44
4,40
4,31
3,96
3,99
4,33
3,72
4,36
3,4
54
,08
To
tal
3,6
53
,31
3,4
33
,54
3,4
23
,44
4,4
04
,31
3,9
63
,99
4,3
33
,72
4,3
63
,45
4,0
8
61
741
931
120
3,70
3,56
3,55
3,72
3,63
3,60
4,48
4,24
3,91
3,98
4,44
3,60
4,40
3,6
14
,10
To
tal
3,7
03
,56
3,5
53
,72
3,6
33
,60
4,4
84
,24
3,9
13
,98
4,4
43
,60
4,4
03
,61
4,1
0
62
75A
1 0
831
093,
653,
533,
723,
903,
783,
744,
804,
384,
434,
084,
493,
674,
213
,68
4,2
5
76A
,B2
995
129
3,80
3,50
3,58
4,03
3,65
3,65
4,76
4,43
4,38
3,81
4,49
3,74
4,20
3,6
44
,23
77A
3 54
21
443,
843,
673,
703,
773,
523,
634,
604,
364,
284,
074,
323,
574,
13
3,6
74
,14
To
tal
3,8
03
,58
3,6
63
,89
3,6
13
,65
4,6
94
,39
4,3
43
,97
4,4
13
,65
4,1
73
,66
4,1
9
63
805
427
122
3,66
3,68
3,62
3,77
3,66
3,77
4,41
4,39
4,28
4,1
84,
333,
734,
18
3,6
84
,16
81,B
4 1
831
863,
813,
613,
513,
983,
553,
614,
724,
544,
464,
314,
403,
664,
283
,62
4,2
9
825
360
125
3,69
3,58
3,46
3,73
3,57
3,61
4,47
4,52
4,36
4,26
4,1
73,
804,
253
,58
4,2
0
To
tal
3,7
13
,62
3,5
33
,81
3,6
03
,67
4,5
24
,48
4,3
64
,24
4,2
93
,74
4,2
33
,63
4,2
1
27Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
1. D
river
s'2.
Driv
ers'
3. D
river
s'4.
Pun
ctua
lity
5. V
ehic
le6.
Tra
vel
8. S
eat
9. T
imet
able
1
0. T
rave
l1
1. T
rans
fer
12.
Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14.
Info
rmat
ion
To
tal
Ob
ject
Line
Boa
rdin
gsN
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skw
ay o
f driv
ing
tidin
ess
com
fort
avai
labi
lity
suita
bilit
ysm
ooth
ness
cond
ition
ssa
fety
cond
ition
sav
ailib
ility
Ope
rato
rS
yste
m
64
5341
261
4,1
24,
19
4,01
4,24
4,1
94,
19
4,98
4,82
4,58
4,33
4,82
4,02
4,43
4,1
44
,53
To
tal
4,1
24
,19
4,0
14
,24
4,1
94
,19
4,9
84
,82
4,5
84
,33
4,8
24
,02
4,4
34
,14
4,5
3
65
543
282
175
3,75
3,59
3,64
3,81
3,64
3,61
4,47
4,45
4,22
4,00
4,56
3,72
4,31
3,6
54
,19
To
tal
3
,75
3,5
93
,64
3,8
13
,64
3,6
14
,47
4,4
54
,22
4,0
04
,56
3,7
24
,31
3,6
54
,19
66
413
677
125
3,88
3,65
3,69
3,97
3,72
3,71
4,56
4,58
4,1
24,
204,
573,
754,
363
,73
4,2
6
435
571
121
3,69
3,32
3,52
3,69
3,68
3,71
4,44
4,48
3,91
4,1
44,
483,
764,
313
,58
4,1
5
4785
21
18
3,81
3,46
3,70
3,59
3,70
3,59
4,56
4,54
4,22
4,20
4,70
3,62
4,38
3,6
54
,23
To
tal
3,7
73
,45
3,6
03
,78
3,7
03
,70
4,4
94
,52
4,0
14
,17
4,5
33
,74
4,3
33
,64
4,2
0
67
696
077
131
3,78
3,59
3,65
3,59
3,79
3,80
4,61
4,56
4,00
4,02
4,45
3,83
4,26
3,7
24
,17
To
tal
3,7
83
,59
3,6
53
,59
3,7
93
,80
4,6
14
,56
4,0
04
,02
4,4
53
,83
4,2
63
,72
4,1
7
68
755
878
120
3,67
3,75
3,54
3,69
3,77
3,72
4,47
4,48
4,00
3,93
4,45
3,75
4,1
73
,69
4,1
2
774
630
137
3,81
3,59
3,66
3,75
3,64
3,71
4,44
4,40
4,27
4,09
4,24
3,98
4,23
3,6
84
,18
To
tal
3,7
33
,68
3,5
93
,72
3,7
13
,72
4,4
64
,44
4,1
24
,00
4,3
63
,85
4,2
03
,69
4,1
4
69
16
2 58
21
203,
773,
383,
563,
313,
843,
834,
764,
474,
054,
10
4,53
3,50
4,24
3,6
84
,12
To
tal
3,7
73
,38
3,5
63
,31
3,8
43
,83
4,7
64
,47
4,0
54
,10
4,5
33
,50
4,2
43
,68
4,1
2
70
55,A
4 27
11
18
3,87
3,67
3,68
3,56
3,98
4,01
4,38
4,46
3,98
4,20
4,49
3,84
4,24
3,8
44
,14
To
tal
3,8
73
,67
3,6
83
,56
3,9
84
,01
4,3
84
,46
3,9
84
,20
4,4
93
,84
4,2
43
,84
4,1
4
71
18
8 28
71
793,
813,
783,
683,
383,
953,
964,
344,
413,
714,
044,
593,
884,
343
,84
4,0
9
To
tal
3,8
13
,78
3,6
83
,38
3,9
53
,96
4,3
44
,41
3,7
14
,04
4,5
93
,88
4,3
43
,84
4,0
9
72
831
399
126
4,1
43,
604,
044,
18
4,34
4,1
94,
844,
364,
464,
17
4,56
3,83
4,27
4,0
64
,33
To
tal
4,1
43
,60
4,0
44
,18
4,3
44
,19
4,8
44
,36
4,4
64
,17
4,5
63
,83
4,2
74
,06
4,3
3
73
923
732
121
3,68
3,47
3,50
3,64
3,47
3,61
4,40
4,27
4,32
4,1
04,
223,
564,
15
3,5
54
,08
94,V
4 33
11
293,
723,
523,
663,
703,
393,
544,
404,
384,
203,
974,
313,
714,
16
3,5
74
,10
94A
3 30
01
17
3,63
3,47
3,58
3,84
3,67
3,56
4,69
4,48
4,41
4,09
4,25
4,03
4,1
03
,58
4,2
4
94B
3 1
8548
3,67
3,39
3,56
4,00
3,77
3,68
4,71
4,38
4,50
3,94
4,27
3,46
4,06
3,6
14
,17
952
465
122
3,87
3,63
3,61
3,54
3,48
3,58
4,30
4,26
4,1
54,
024,
253,
544,
12
3,6
34
,02
97,V
2 78
724
63,
673,
363,
603,
833,
533,
534,
604,
284,
16
4,1
44,
17
3,65
4,27
3,5
44
,14
To
tal
3,7
03
,47
3,5
93
,76
3,5
43
,58
4,5
14
,35
4,2
94
,04
4,2
53
,67
4,1
43
,58
4,1
3
74
635
303
133
3,76
3,54
3,72
3,70
3,83
3,76
4,51
4,51
4,08
4,28
4,57
4,06
4,31
3,7
24
,25
To
tal
3,7
63
,54
3,7
23
,70
3,8
33
,76
4,5
14
,51
4,0
84
,28
4,5
74
,06
4,3
13
,72
4,2
5
75
68,X
3 78
91
213,
853,
533,
643,
873,
843,
824,
704,
454,
084,
074,
573,
934,
533
,74
4,2
8
717
917
108
3,70
3,63
3,60
3,90
3,82
3,74
4,36
4,52
4,1
64,
234,
413,
994,
453
,70
4,2
5
71V
901
633,
783,
643,
524,
043,
623,
564,
554,
534,
17
3,88
4,61
3,73
4,40
3,6
24
,24
To
tal
3,7
53
,60
3,6
13
,90
3,8
13
,75
4,4
84
,50
4,1
44
,16
4,4
73
,95
4,4
73
,70
4,2
6
28 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Appendix 3 Passangers’ satisfaction by operator in 2008
HK
L P
lann
ing
unit
EK
PA
SS
ENG
ERS
' SA
TIS
FAC
TIO
N B
Y O
PER
ATO
R IN
200
8
Line
1. D
rive
rs'
2. D
river
s'3.
Driv
ers'
4. P
unct
uality
5. V
ehi
cle
6. T
rave
l 8.
Sea
t9.
Tim
etab
le 1
0. T
rave
l11
. Tra
nsfe
r 12
. Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14. I
nfor
m.
17.
Sta
tion
18. F
unct
ioni
ng
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skills
way
of d
rivin
gtid
ines
sco
mfo
rtav
aila
bilit
ysu
itabi
litysm
ooth
ness
cond
ition
ssa
fety
cond
ition
sav
ailib
ility
tidin
ess
of i
nfo
rmat
ion
Ope
rato
rS
yste
mTr
amB
oard
ings
N1
,A1
0 89
6
Tota
l
138
4,01
3,88
3,94
3,68
3,65
3,75
4,40
4,35
4,07
4,1
53,
993,
774,
083
,85
4,0
63B
,T46
625
547
3,84
3,89
3,79
3,54
3,36
3,71
4,1
14,
464,
064,
19
3,90
3,73
4,22
3,7
24
,03
4,T
32 8
7237
33,
853,
893,
813,
973,
703,
803,
744,
554,
234,
214,
233,
934,
243
,81
4,1
46
20 1
001
713,
893,
963,
883,
893,
723,
903,
994,
634,
074,
273,
903,
724,
323
,87
4,1
07A
,B32
582
331
3,87
3,94
3,90
3,58
3,62
3,75
4,06
4,51
4,1
64,
13
4,07
3,73
4,20
3,8
24
,06
81
7 1
781
643,
863,
863,
903,
763,
733,
984,
254,
584,
244,
213,
863,
814,
303
,87
4,1
39
7 38
248
3,75
3,73
3,62
3,70
3,92
4,04
4,42
4,52
4,26
4,26
4,04
3,81
4,1
33
,81
4,1
41
034
571
303
3,96
3,90
3,89
4,08
3,68
3,81
4,02
4,63
4,24
4,29
4,21
3,87
4,1
83
,85
4,1
9T
ram
tota
l20
2 20
62
075
3,8
83
,90
3,8
53
,78
3,6
23
,80
4,0
54
,54
4,1
64
,21
4,0
43
,80
4,2
23
,81
4,1
0
Hel
sing
in B
ussi
liike
nne
(Hel
B)
14
8 25
71
403,
773,
743,
613,
723,
783,
674,
014,
463,
844,
17
4,50
3,77
4,35
3,7
14
,10
14B
2 42
11
213,
773,
713,
673,
853,
853,
784,
304,
594,
16
4,1
74,
443,
754,
343
,76
4,2
01
88
287
179
3,81
3,78
3,68
3,38
3,95
3,96
4,34
4,41
3,71
4,04
4,59
3,88
4,34
3,8
44
,09
206
571
121
3,80
3,76
3,47
3,48
3,76
3,85
4,40
4,42
3,91
4,09
4,56
3,86
4,29
3,7
34
,13
21V
4 37
51
773,
623,
453,
373,
583,
583,
444,
504,
503,
934,
054,
633,
864,
12
3,4
94
,15
222
238
128
3,84
3,80
3,67
3,57
3,63
3,65
4,77
4,57
4,08
4,1
34,
633,
484,
283
,72
4,1
923
5 53
21
203,
833,
673,
643,
13
3,69
3,67
4,35
4,36
3,94
4,1
14,
413,
534,
283
,70
4,0
139
5 91
11
14
3,71
3,64
3,60
3,53
3,60
3,57
4,35
4,40
3,83
3,91
4,61
3,71
4,32
3,6
24
,08
413
677
125
3,88
3,65
3,69
3,97
3,72
3,71
4,56
4,58
4,1
24,
204,
573,
754,
363
,73
4,2
642
3 73
01
203,
843,
653,
563,
583,
643,
714,
604,
514,
054,
15
4,42
3,87
4,22
3,6
84
,18
435
571
121
3,69
3,32
3,52
3,69
3,68
3,71
4,44
4,48
3,91
4,1
44,
483,
764,
313
,58
4,1
545
2 91
31
203,
723,
463,
673,
843,
863,
884,
394,
453,
964,
274,
423,
724,
413
,72
4,1
847
852
11
83,
813,
463,
703,
593,
703,
594,
564,
544,
224,
204,
703,
624,
383
,65
4,2
354
3 28
21
753,
753,
593,
643,
813,
643,
614,
474,
454,
224,
004,
563,
724,
313
,65
4,1
957
4 43
81
233,
833,
743,
743,
863,
863,
734,
854,
524,
15
4,00
4,65
3,90
4,41
3,7
84
,29
621
987
11
83,
633,
403,
623,
683,
683,
444,
644,
294,
044,
024,
353,
724,
213
,55
4,1
263
5 30
31
333,
763,
543,
723,
703,
833,
764,
514,
514,
084,
284,
574,
064,
313
,72
4,2
565
A1
1 3
8772
3,75
3,75
3,58
3,1
73,
753,
744,
204,
433,
834,
254,
633,
804,
313
,71
4,0
865
B3
940
109
3,62
3,47
3,38
3,31
3,80
3,87
4,60
4,38
3,80
4,1
14,
463,
964,
283
,63
4,1
165
X5
013
108
3,55
3,45
3,40
3,72
3,70
3,48
4,47
4,1
43,
983,
864,
633,
904,
263
,52
4,1
266
A8
490
733,
493,
383,
283,
353,
493,
424,
13
4,38
3,69
4,29
4,47
3,60
4,1
43
,41
4,0
166
B2
053
108
3,69
3,53
3,57
3,77
3,71
3,74
4,56
4,49
4,00
4,1
34,
584,
064,
283
,65
4,2
367
6 57
31
263,
663,
383,
553,
933,
673,
594,
17
4,48
3,94
4,1
24,
383,
794,
293
,57
4,1
468
,X3
789
121
3,85
3,53
3,64
3,87
3,84
3,82
4,70
4,45
4,08
4,07
4,57
3,93
4,53
3,7
44
,28
696
077
131
3,78
3,59
3,65
3,59
3,79
3,80
4,61
4,56
4,00
4,02
4,45
3,83
4,26
3,7
24
,17
70T
6 37
01
203,
853,
663,
663,
483,
683,
704,
574,
403,
883,
954,
533,
944,
323
,71
4,1
370
V4
281
121
3,71
3,49
3,54
3,62
3,66
3,45
4,25
4,50
3,99
4,09
4,51
3,89
4,38
3,5
74
,15
717
917
108
3,70
3,63
3,60
3,90
3,82
3,74
4,36
4,52
4,1
64,
234,
413,
994,
453
,70
4,2
571
V90
163
3,78
3,64
3,52
4,04
3,62
3,56
4,55
4,53
4,1
73,
884,
613,
734,
403
,62
4,2
474
1 9
311
203,
703,
563,
553,
723,
633,
604,
484,
243,
913,
984,
443,
604,
403
,61
4,1
075
5 87
81
203,
673,
753,
543,
693,
773,
724,
474,
484,
003,
934,
453,
754,
17
3,6
94
,12
774
630
137
3,81
3,59
3,66
3,75
3,64
3,71
4,44
4,40
4,27
4,09
4,24
3,98
4,23
3,6
84
,18
785
126
120
3,61
3,45
3,50
3,71
3,52
3,57
4,65
4,52
4,21
4,1
44,
313,
714,
203
,53
4,1
879
7 67
61
333,
793,
633,
613,
783,
533,
604,
444,
514,
16
4,1
34,
303,
724,
413
,63
4,1
880
5 42
71
223,
663,
683,
623,
773,
663,
774,
414,
394,
284,
18
4,33
3,73
4,1
83
,68
4,1
681
,B4
183
186
3,81
3,61
3,51
3,98
3,55
3,61
4,72
4,54
4,46
4,31
4,40
3,66
4,28
3,6
24
,29
825
360
125
3,69
3,58
3,46
3,73
3,57
3,61
4,47
4,52
4,36
4,26
4,1
73,
804,
253
,58
4,2
084
3 54
51
203,
773,
423,
514,
003,
533,
554,
284,
404,
10
4,1
34,
17
3,79
4,21
3,5
64
,14
854
881
126
3,59
3,33
3,59
3,78
3,68
3,70
4,36
4,20
4,1
04,
11
4,42
3,83
4,26
3,5
84
,13
864
925
11
43,
643,
593,
703,
793,
583,
424,
484,
424,
354,
254,
403,
874,
343
,59
4,2
488
1 6
791
223,
693,
533,
544,
033,
793,
774,
644,
454,
414,
264,
623,
804,
213
,66
4,3
089
1 4
961
283,
733,
563,
524,
16
3,67
3,78
4,73
4,59
4,60
4,24
4,53
3,82
4,20
3,6
54
,36
902
588
124
3,79
3,64
3,83
4,02
3,73
3,92
4,77
4,56
4,50
4,06
4,43
3,87
4,20
3,7
84
,30
965
11
71
223,
763,
463,
513,
973,
463,
624,
354,
244,
333,
984,
17
3,74
4,1
43
,56
4,1
298
1 5
271
18
3,76
3,63
3,59
3,97
3,53
3,65
4,60
4,37
4,25
4,09
4,29
3,80
4,25
3,6
34
,20
To
tal
208
105
5 55
03
,73
3,5
93
,57
3,6
73
,69
3,6
74
,43
4,4
44
,04
4,1
24
,46
3,8
04
,29
3,6
54
,16
29Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Con
cord
ia
15,
A1
633
11
53,
873,
663,
713,
893,
953,
894,
584,
454,
384,
364,
293,
794,
303
,82
4,2
61
62
582
120
3,77
3,38
3,56
3,31
3,84
3,83
4,76
4,47
4,05
4,1
04,
533,
504,
243
,68
4,1
255
,A4
271
11
83,
873,
673,
683,
563,
984,
014,
384,
463,
984,
204,
493,
844,
243
,84
4,1
472
6 98
01
203,
813,
683,
613,
393,
593,
594,
284,
434,
024,
024,
463,
794,
203
,66
4,0
773
5 83
01
313,
653,
313,
433,
543,
423,
444,
404,
313,
963,
994,
333,
724,
363
,45
4,0
875
A1
083
109
3,65
3,53
3,72
3,90
3,78
3,74
4,80
4,38
4,43
4,08
4,49
3,67
4,21
3,6
84
,25
76A
,B2
995
129
3,80
3,50
3,58
4,03
3,65
3,65
4,76
4,43
4,38
3,81
4,49
3,74
4,20
3,6
44
,23
77A
3 54
21
443,
843,
673,
703,
773,
523,
634,
604,
364,
284,
074,
323,
574,
13
3,6
74
,14
923
732
121
3,68
3,47
3,50
3,64
3,47
3,61
4,40
4,27
4,32
4,1
04,
223,
564,
15
3,5
54
,08
94,V
4 33
11
293,
723,
523,
663,
703,
393,
544,
404,
384,
203,
974,
313,
714,
16
3,5
74
,10
94A
3 30
01
17
3,63
3,47
3,58
3,84
3,67
3,56
4,69
4,48
4,41
4,09
4,25
4,03
4,1
03
,58
4,2
494
B3
185
483,
673,
393,
564,
003,
773,
684,
714,
384,
503,
944,
273,
464,
063
,61
4,1
795
2 46
51
223,
873,
633,
613,
543,
483,
584,
304,
264,
15
4,02
4,25
3,54
4,1
23
,63
4,0
297
,V2
787
246
3,67
3,36
3,60
3,83
3,53
3,53
4,60
4,28
4,1
64,
14
4,1
73,
654,
273
,54
4,1
4T
ota
l48
71
61
769
3,7
53
,52
3,5
93
,66
3,6
13
,64
4,5
04
,38
4,1
84
,05
4,3
53
,70
4,2
03
,62
4,1
3
Poh
jola
n ka
upun
kilii
kenn
e
17
5 1
14
723,
993,
643,
703,
574,
073,
904,
674,
463,
994,
10
4,62
3,46
4,1
73
,86
4,1
340
4 30
81
19
3,91
3,64
3,63
3,97
3,96
4,00
4,49
4,50
4,1
64,
17
4,51
3,98
4,24
3,8
34
,25
503
912
120
3,77
3,76
3,66
3,67
4,06
3,91
4,59
4,63
4,08
4,23
4,69
3,79
4,34
3,8
34
,25
58,B
9 1
531
293,
933,
623,
723,
904,
083,
994,
214,
504,
034,
17
4,63
3,73
4,36
3,8
74
,19
592
547
123
3,92
3,65
3,85
4,08
4,1
54,
064,
584,
654,
384,
324,
763,
764,
403
,93
4,3
764
4 86
21
263,
993,
803,
894,
094,
074,
024,
664,
474,
16
4,1
64,
504,
074,
353
,95
4,3
183
1 3
991
264,
14
3,60
4,04
4,1
84,
344,
19
4,84
4,36
4,46
4,1
74,
563,
834,
274
,06
4,3
3T
ota
l31
295
815
3,9
33
,67
3,7
53
,88
4,0
83
,99
4,5
04
,51
4,1
24
,18
4,6
13
,79
4,3
13
,88
4,2
4
Veo
lia T
rans
port 51
4 43
51
203,
863,
643,
793,
713,
753,
644,
764,
464,
034,
064,
593,
854,
263
,74
4,2
252
3 78
71
303,
803,
553,
653,
18
3,74
3,65
4,75
4,47
3,97
4,00
4,53
3,98
4,35
3,6
84
,15
52A
1 0
7454
3,88
3,35
3,69
3,87
3,38
3,23
4,83
4,58
4,46
3,88
4,59
3,52
4,33
3,5
14
,26
52V
705
503,
833,
713,
833,
773,
963,
564,
774,
444,
354,
264,
743,
864,
243
,78
4,3
0T
ota
l1
0 00
135
43
,84
3,5
83
,73
3,5
33
,72
3,5
94
,76
4,4
84
,08
4,0
34
,58
3,8
64
,30
3,6
94
,20
Etel
ä-S
uom
en L
inja
liike
nne
5341
261
4,1
24,
19
4,01
4,24
4,1
94,
19
4,98
4,82
4,58
4,33
4,82
4,02
4,43
4,1
44
,53
To
tal
412
614
,12
4,1
94
,01
4,2
44
,19
4,1
94
,98
4,8
24
,58
4,3
34
,82
4,0
24
,43
4,1
44
,53
Bus
tota
l29
8 52
98
549
3,7
63
,59
3,6
03
,68
3,7
23
,70
4,4
64
,44
4,0
74
,11
4,4
63
,79
4,2
83
,67
4,1
6
Me
tro
192
000
1 0
254
,37
4,4
53
,43
4,2
94
,55
4,6
33
,91
4,1
23
,46
4,0
94
,09
4,1
6
Loc
al t
rain
17
100
752
4,2
83
,83
3,3
93
,78
4,4
14
,44
4,0
94
,35
3,0
13
,94
3,8
64
,01
T,
B,
M3
,83
4,1
4
HK
L's
own
prod
uctio
n (tr
am,
met
ro)
3,9
44
,13
Line
1. D
rive
rs'
2. D
river
s'3.
Driv
ers'
4. P
unct
uality
5. V
ehi
cle
6. T
rave
l 8.
Sea
t9.
Tim
etab
le 1
0. T
rave
l11
. Tra
nsfe
r 12
. Ord
er,
13.
Wai
ting
14. I
nfor
m.
17.
Sta
tion
18. F
unct
ioni
ng
serv
ice
info
rmat
ion
skills
way
of d
rivin
gtid
ines
sco
mfo
rtav
aila
bilit
ysu
itabi
litysm
ooth
ness
cond
ition
ssa
fety
cond
ition
sav
ailib
ility
tidin
ess
of i
nfo
rmat
ion
Ope
rato
rS
yste
mTo
tal
30 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Appendix 4 Questionnaire
HKL passenger survey, autumn 2008Please select the most suitable answer by checking a box.In the following questions, please evaluate only the route that you are travelling on whenresponding to this survey. Please return this questionnaire to the research assistant.
A. To what extent do the below-mentioned characteristics fit the service on this route?
(1) Very
poorly
(2)
Somewhat poorly
(3)Passably(4) Quite
well(5) Very
well (0) Can't say
1. Drivers' customer service is friendly
2. Drivers are able to provide travel-related advice3. Drivers drive in a comfortable and smooth manner
4. Trams keep to schedule on this route
5. Trams are tidy
6. Travel comfort is good (indoor fittings)
(1) Very
poor
(2) Quite
poor(3) Passable
(4) Quite
good
(5) Very
good(0) Can't say
B. 7. Overall mark for the operator for managing this route
C. To what extent do the below-mentioned characteristics fit this route?
(1) Very
poorly
(2)
Somewhat poorly
(3)Passably(4) Quite
well(5) Very
well (0) Can't say
8. Seats are available on this route at this time of day
9. The route suits my travel needs well
10. Travelling is fast and easy
11. It's easy to switch from one mode of public transport to another
12. Public order disturbances do not occur
13. Waiting at stops is comfortable
Please evaluate Helsinki's public transport services more generally in the following questions.
D. To what extent does the following claim fit Helsinki's public transport service ?
(1) Very
poorly
(2)
Somewhat poorly
(3)Passably(4) Quite
well(5) Very
well (0) Can't say
14. Information on timetables and routes is readily available
15. Ticket inspectors carry out their duties courteously and appropriately
(1) Very
poor
(2) Quite
poor(3) Passable
(4) Quite
good
(5) Very
good(0) Can't say
E. Overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki
F. Which form of public transport do you prefer most? Why?
Continued on the reverse side…
31Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
Background information on the respondent
GenderOn average, how often do you travelon this route? 1 female1 at least four days a week 2 male2 2 - 3 days a week3 one day a week4 rarely
Year of birth: __________________
Usually, when you travel on this route…1 over half of the seats are vacant2 some seats are vacant Which of the following best describes you?3 no seats are vacant 1 employee4 many passengers have to stand 2 official
3 manager / entrepreneur4 student / pupil
The primary purpose of this journey is... 5 homemaker / on parental leave1 work-related 6 pensioner2 school-related 7 other3 shopping/personal business4 recreational
Will/did you switch from one mode of public transport to another on this journey?
Could you have taken this journey in 1 yes, onceyour own car? 2 yes, twice or more1 yes 3 no2 no
If your reply was yes to the previous question:Municipality of residence:________________________ What kind of public transport are you using
during this trip?
What type of ticket are you using 1 bus, line:____on this journey? 2 tram, line:____1 travel period loaded on Travel Card 3 metro2 value loaded on TC 4 train3 single ticket 5 ferry4 other
Other comments:
WISHING YOU MANY PLEASANT TRIPS WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP
This part is filled in by the interviewer:Vaunu nro:______ Päivämäärä:______ Klo:____
Linjan nro:______ Suunta:_______ Vaunun täyttöaste:___( 1- 4) Sää: Sateinen (1)/ Pouta (2)Haastattelija:____________
32 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
HELSINGIN KAUPUNGIN HKL -LIIKELAITOS
www.hkl.fi
HKL series B, ISSN 1459-725X
B: 6/2009 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008
B: 5/2009 Pääkaupunkiseudun joukkoliikenteen BEST-tutkimusten arviointi
B: 4/2009 Helsingin joukkoliikenne kansainvälisessä BEST-tutkimuksessa 2009
B: 3/2009 Östersundomin joukkoliikennekokemukset
B: 2/2009 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2008
B: 1/2009 Joukkoliikenteen laaturaportti: syksy 2008
B: 6/2008 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2007
B: 5/2008 Joukkoliikenteen kulkumuoto-osuuden ja asiakastyytyväisyyden kehitys
Vuosaaressa metroradan käyttöönoton jälkeen
B: 4/2008 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin keväällä 2008
B: 3/2008 Helsingin joukkoliikenne kansainvälisessä BEST-tutkimuksessa 2008
B: 2/2008 Tariffi politiikan vaikutukset liikkujaryhmiin
B: 1/2008 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2007
B: 4/2007 Ruuhkan vaikutus bussiliikenteen matka-aikoihin Helsingissä
B: 3/2007 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin keväällä 2007
B: 2/2007 Helsingin joukkoliikenne kansainvälisessä BEST-tutkimuksessa 2007
B: 1/2007 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2006
B: 3/2006 Matkustajakysely ihmisten kokemasta turvattomuudesta Helsingin metrossa
B: 2/2006 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin keväällä 2006
B: 1/2006 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2005
B: 4/2005 Helsingin joukkoliikenne kansainvälisessä vertailussa 2002–2005
B: 3/2005 Helsingin palvelulinjat: suunnitelma ja toteutus
B: 2/2005 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin keväällä 2005
B: 1/2005 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2004
B: 5/2004 Helsingin joukkoliikenne kansainvälisessä vertailussa 2001–2004
B: 4/2004 Liikennehäiriöiden tunnistaminen pääkaupunkiseudun bussiliikenteessä
B: 3/2004 Metron kuormitukset arkena 2003
B: 2/2004 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin keväällä 2004
B: 1/2004 Matkustajien tyytyväisyys Helsingin joukkoliikennepalveluihin vuonna 2003
B: 1/2003 Raitiolinjojen kuormitukset ja nopeudet arkena 2002