Deliverable 2.3 Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured by the METPEX tool Publishable summary Coordinator: Author: Professor Andree Woodcock, Coventry University Dr, Yusak O. Susilo, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Tel.: +44 (0) 2476 158349 Email: A.woodcock@coventry.ac.uk tel.: +46(0)87909635, Email: yusak.susilo@abe.kth.se Duration of Research: WEBSITE Project Duration Nov 2012 – October 2015 WWW.METPEX.EU Deliverable Duration : Feb 2013 – Aug 2013 Grant Agreement no: 314354 Project Full Title ‘A Measurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger Experience’
Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Desk study findings on travel needs of different groups of travellers 3. Experiment and survey design 4. Passenger survey and stakeholders interview results 5. Conclusions
Aims of the deliverable • To identify the variables which can be used to measure the whole journey passenger experience that will impact on increased acceptance and take-up of new terrestrial transport solutions and technologies, and a more inclusive terrestrial transport system with better access for all. • To involve cities/agencies/operators in the process by getting early feedback on the adequacy of the tools and how the information provided will inform sustainable transport policies. • To define the variables that will be measured by the METPEX Tool.
Who travelled in METPEX cities? Within the cities involved in METPEX: • A relatively balanced proportion of men and women, • A higher proportion of younger individuals, than national average, in Vilnius, Dublin and Coventry, • Coventry also has a higher proportion of minority groups, • Stockholm also has a higher proportion of cyclist than other observed cities, • Students and pupils are a significant part of the population, • Coventry and Valencia have a significant proportion of unemployed travellers, • Valencia and Rome have a significant proportion of tourists/unfamiliar travellers.
Needs for different groups of travellers Groups Special Characteristics Main Important Factors Regularly incur more temporal constraints than Full-time employed workers Punctuality, reliability, cost monetary expenditures Travel shy, reassurance seeker and cautious planner. Has a complex scheduling of activities Safe, reliable, affordable and Female travellers in both time and space and is likely to bring comprehensive access luggage Accessible vehicle and station, Likely to be a female than a male, travelling Parents with small children on-board space and supportive with buggies and luggages attitudes Tend to be captive with the cheapest mode Availability, adequacy, cost and Low income travellers alternative and spent a significant proportion safety of his/her income for travel Smaller children highly dependent on their parents' decisions and preferences. For many Practicalities (such as cost and Children and young travellers young teens, travel represents a gateway to speed of journey), flexibility and adulthood, enabling independence, safety socialisation and a recognition of maturity.
Needs for different groups of travellers Groups Special Characteristics Main Important Factors Tend to have more limited ability and strength to move. The feeling of able to travel independently is closely linked with Physical and emotional barriers, Elderly travellers his/her sense of self-worth. They have affordability, flexibility, reliability increased difficulty in identifying signs, in and support facilities reading timetables, listening to loudspeakers and to execute responses. Has physical or mental impairment which Physical accessibility and has a substantial and long-term adverse availability, support facilities effect on his/her ability to travel. Lack Disabled travellers (including information confidence when travelling, experience a availabilities), cost, certainty and lack of flexibility in their travel choices and security and supportive attitudes difficult to be spontaneous. Suffer lost-in-translation problem. Have a A simpler system, more Tourists and unfamiliar high mobility needs, but limited spatial and information provisions and more travellers language knowledge helpful and tolerant staff
The needs of experiment • There is a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different groups of travellers who used different travel modes. • There is a lack of studies that well integrated instrumental and non-instrumental variables and covered the whole (door-to-door) travellers journey. • On the other hand, it is impossible to incorporate all variables and factors of concern in measuring the existing level of service. • A mix of qualitative and quantitative experiment, that involves primary data collections and empirical data analysis, carried out. The variables that matters will be tested statistically, for different socio-demographic groups and travel modes.
Experiment and survey description • Experiment: questionnaire, consisted of five sections: • Individual attributes (socio-demographic, mobility behaviour) Attitudes (travel preferences, mobility-related opinions) • • Contextual variables (temporal, weather conditions, trip purpose, subjective well-being indices) • Underlying travel aspects (familiarity, adaptation, past experience) • Travel experience factors (availability, travel time components, information provision, reliability, way-finding, comfort, appeal, safety and security, customer care, price, connectivity, ride quality, environmental impact and travel time productivity as applicable) • The experiment were carried out at eight METPEX cities: Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia and Vilnius.
Experiment and survey description • To complement the designed questionnaire, a series of interviews with relevant stakeholders were held to discuss which variables are important from their perspectives and also to identify the variables that may be missed / unique from city to city throughout Europe. • The stakeholder interviews survey involved ten cities: Bucharest, Dublin, Grevena, Rome, Stockholm, Turin, Valencia, Coventry, Vilnius and Zurich, along with one European body: the European Disability Forum (see http://www.edf-feph.org/)
Passenger survey results • 554 participants, Men (56%); Women (44%) • Elderly and disabled travellers are underrepresented • Majority has access to car (64%), PT card (62%) and bike (61%) • PT travel frequency: daily (55%); 2-3 time a week (16%); seldom or never (13%) • 66% of all trips were multimodal, 2.44 trip stages on average
Passenger survey results • Average satisfaction (1-5 scale)
Waiting and transfer conditions more prominent than vehicle-related aspects Satisfaction with walking was weakly correlated with aspects included in the questionnaire
The primary trip stage is very strongly correlated with entire trip satisfaction. The impacts of access and egress trip stages is marginal, but each of them is strongly correlated with the satisfaction from the primary trip stage. Travellers that feel more passive are more likely to be satisfied with the service, giving everything else is the same. Current satisfaction is very strongly correlated with the elements of past experience. It is even strongly correlated with the assertion that the chosen mode is the best mean of connection based on traveller’s experience.
Salient findings from regression analyses • Past experience and travellers’ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience • Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience in most cases – with age and income being noticeable exceptions. • Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low income or unemployed travellers have distinctive determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various travel modes. • The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations.
Salient findings from regression analyses • Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated than the factors determining satisfaction on other transport modes. The variables included in this pilot study were not able to explain variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages. • Travellers’ emotional state is an important determinant of travel experience and satisfaction • Travellers’ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of travel satisfaction.
Recommend
More recommend
