Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee: 22 April 2013 Bus Passenger Survey - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation to: Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee: 22 April 2013 Bus Passenger Survey March 2013 results

Contact: Murray Leader, Research Team, Passenger Focus Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX Tel: 0300 123 0843 Email: murray.leader@passengerfocus.org.uk 22 April 2013

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Provenance of the Bus Passenger Survey

2

• Obtained bus remit formally in Feb 2010
• Represent passengers – evidence based
• Experienced utility of National Passenger Survey in rail passenger representation
• A key priority to establish a ‘sibling survey’ for bus
• Infused much NPS intellectual capital – but bus world has notable differences – more

local and more stakeholders

• Not an Official Statistic (unlike NPS) but managed in a similar way.

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Outline of survey structure

3

Key methodological points:

• Surveys journey experience – ‘that journey’
• sampling/representative at transport authority level
• Systematic sampling from universe of all timetables in authority area
• Methodology mature

Coverage:

• 2013 survey covered 20 transport authority areas
• Account for around two thirds of remit area journeys (England outside of London)
• Mix of repeats and new areas – included all 6 ITA/PTEs
• Obtained responses from around 20,000 passengers

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Coverage of PTEs

4

Metropolitan County area Response numbers 2012 buy in 2011 buy in Merseyside 1,254 Merseytravel Merseytravel Greater Manchester 680

• TfGM

First Group Tyne and Wear 1,589 Go North East Stagecoach North East

• South Yorkshire

1,669 SYPTE First Group SYPTE First Group West Yorkshire 1,639 SYPTE First Group SYPTE First Group West Midlands 3,623 Centro + Cov VMA Centro

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Overall satisfaction – all passengers

• Merseyside and Tyne

and Wear highest

• Merseyside has highest

proportion of very satisfied

• QP routes 2% higher
• PTE aggregate is 83%

down from 84% last year

48 46 42 38 46 41 35 38 43 42 46 41 44 44 9 7 10 9 8 10 13 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 Mersey (total) Mersey QP only South Yorks TfGM Tyne & Wear West Yorks West Midlands Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

% Satisfied.

Overall satisfaction – fare paying passengers only

• Mersey 4th of 6
• QP routes 4% higher
• Within satisfied, a higher

proportion are very satisfied than most PTEs

38 38 32 33 41 32 28 45 48 48 50 44 50 48 11 9 12 9 9 11 14 6 3 6 5 4 5 6 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 Mersey (total) Mersey QP only South Yorks TfGM Tyne & Wear West Yorks West Midlands

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % Satisfied. 82% 86% 80% 83% 85% 83% 76% 87% 89%

83% 84% 87% 85% 79%

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Value for money – all fare paying passengers

• Middling score on value

for money

• PTE aggregate is 54%

down from 57% last year

• QP routes 1% higher

24 24 26 20 24 21 20 31 32 33 32 35 34 30 19 16 17 18 16 16 19 16 21 15 17 16 18 16 10 8 9 12 9 11 14 Mersey (total) Mersey QP South Yorks TfGM Tyne & Wear West Yorks West Midlands Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

% Satisfied.

Value for money score for operators in Mersey

• VFM on Arriva lower than

Stagecoach

17 31 19 31 30 31 28 34 22 19 20 9 19 10 24 18 11 9 9 8 Arriva (total Mersey) n=284 S'coach (total Mersey) n=137 Arriva - QP n=96 Stagecoach QP n=86 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % Satisfied.

47% 62% 47% 65% 55% 56%

59% 53% 59% 55% 50%

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Punctuality – all passengers

• 2nd highest PTE
• QP has 1% uplift but also

2% lower dissatisfied

• Scores across whole

survey range from 57% to 83% (averaging 70%)

43 45 35 35 43 39 32 30 29 30 35 33 32 32 12 15 14 13 10 10 15 7 6 8 8 7 9 8 8 5 13 8 7 10 13 Mersey (total) Mersey QP South Yorks TfGM Tyne & Wear West Yorks West Midlands Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

% Satisfied.

On-board journey time

• Mersey 1st in PTEs
• QP routes 2% lower
• Scores across whole

survey range from 78% to 94% (averaging 85%).

60 56 53 50 54 50 46 30 31 32 32 33 36 35 7 8 9 9 7 9 11 2 3 4 6 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 Mersey (total) Mersey QP South Yorks TfGM Tyne & Wear West Yorks West Midlands Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

% Satisfied. 73% 74% 65% 70% 76% 70% 64% 90% 88% 85% 82% 87% 86% 81%

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Factors affecting journey length

25% (+) 22% 11% 11% 6% 6% 6% (+) 3% 8% 8% 21% 21% 2012 2011 18% 18% 10% 11% 4% (-) 5% 7% (+) 3% 6% (-) 7% 17% (-) 20% 19% (-) 23% 13% 10% 6% 7% 7% (+) 4% 6% 8% 22% 19%

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Anti-social behaviour

[n = 473] [n = 174] [n = 277] [n = 80] [n=144] [n=244]

* note small sample sizes

*

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Headline results [Merseytravel vs PTEs]

Year on year comparisons Overall satisfaction 2012 2011 Change Merseyside 87 86 = Greater Manchester 84 84 = South Yorkshire 83 86 ▼ Tyne and Wear 87 91 ▼ West Yorkshire 85 85 = West Midlands 79 81 ▼ Value for money 2012 2011 Change Merseyside 55 56 = Greater Manchester 53 60 ▼ South Yorkshire 59 65 ▼ Tyne and Wear 59 63 ▼ West Yorkshire 55 56 = West Midlands 50 51 =

Presentation to Merseytravel Scrutiny Committee 22nd April 2013

Conclusions

11

• Large survey of bus passenger experience
• Even playing field for comparisons across territories
• Independent