Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public...

36
Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 SUY Marko Vihervuori B: 6/2009

Transcript of Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public...

Page 1: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

SUYMarko Vihervuori

B: 6/2009

Page 2: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical
Page 3: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 4: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

2 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Page 5: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 6: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 7: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 8: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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.

Page 9: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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 %

Page 10: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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.

Page 11: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 12: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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.

Page 13: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 14: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 15: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 16: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 17: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 18: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 19: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 20: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 21: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 22: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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.

Page 23: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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.

Page 24: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

22 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

APPENDICES

Page 25: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 26: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 27: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 28: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 29: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 30: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 31: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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

Page 32: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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…

Page 33: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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:____________

Page 34: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

32 Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Page 35: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical
Page 36: Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport …...Passengers’ satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7 The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical

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