Transcript Slide 1

Deliverable 2.3
Identification of user requirements concerning the definition of
variables to be measured by the METPEX tool
Publishable summary
Author:
Coordinator:
Professor Andree Woodcock, Coventry University
Dr, Yusak O. Susilo, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Tel.: +44 (0) 2476 158349 Email: [email protected]
tel.: +46(0)87909635, Email: [email protected]
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
Full-time employed workers
Regularly incur more temporal constraints than
monetary expenditures
Punctuality, reliability, cost
Female travellers
Travel shy, reassurance seeker and cautious
planner. Has a complex scheduling of activities
in both time and space and is likely to bring
luggage
Safe, reliable, affordable and
comprehensive access
Parents with small children
Likely to be a female than a male, travelling
with buggies and luggages
Accessible vehicle and station,
on-board space and supportive
attitudes
Low income travellers
Tend to be captive with the cheapest mode
alternative and spent a significant proportion
of his/her income for travel
Availability, adequacy, cost and
safety
Children and young travellers
Smaller children highly dependent on their
parents' decisions and preferences. For many
young teens, travel represents a gateway to
adulthood, enabling independence,
socialisation and a recognition of maturity.
Practicalities (such as cost and
speed of journey), flexibility and
safety
Needs for different groups of travellers
Groups
Elderly travellers
Disabled travellers
Tourists and unfamiliar
travellers
Special Characteristics
Tend to have more limited ability and
strength to move. The feeling of able to
travel independently is closely linked with
his/her sense of self-worth. They have
increased difficulty in identifying signs, in
reading timetables, listening to loudspeakers
and to execute responses.
Has physical or mental impairment which
has a substantial and long-term adverse
effect on his/her ability to travel. Lack
confidence when travelling, experience a
lack of flexibility in their travel choices and
difficult to be spontaneous.
Suffer lost-in-translation problem. Have a
high mobility needs, but limited spatial and
language knowledge
Main Important Factors
Physical and emotional barriers,
affordability, flexibility, reliability
and support facilities
Physical accessibility and
availability, support facilities
(including information
availabilities), cost, certainty and
security and supportive attitudes
A simpler system, more
information provisions and more
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.
Stakeholders Interviews
NonOthers (including
governmental’s
Different questions
valued differently
by different universities
classes of and
Cities
Operators were
Authorities
Total
special interest
national research
stakeholders.
groups
institutes)
Bucharest
2
1
1
4
Operators were
and concerned
about the impacts of
Coventry
6 mostly interested
3
2
11
related
variables1 on passenger experience, whilst
Dublindetailed level-of-service
1
1
3
Grevena
1 urban
1
the planning authorities were more interested with wider general
Rome and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel
1 patterns.
1
Stockholm
2
1
2
2
7
Turin
3
3
2
The special interest
groups
were understandably more interested
with their 8
Valencia
2
1
3
detailed
constituent’s
interests,
where
as
the
government’s
research
Vilnius
1
2
1
4
institutes
were
interested
with
more
detailed
trip
patterns
and
behavioural
Zurich
1
1
2
variables
that
underlie
the
travellers’
decision
making
processes.
EDF (Brussels)
1
1
Total
17
12
9
7
45
Variables valued most by stakeholders
Operator
Subjective Well-Being
Authorities
Special Needs Groups
Other
Subjective Well-Being
Attitudes and opinions towards mode-specific preferences, social norm, transfer preference, traffic
congestions and pollutions and safe and secure feelings whilst travelling
The main purpose of the trip
Trip arrival constraint
The use of pre-trip information
Carrying heavy or bulk item whilst travelling
Familiarity with the trip
Detailed trip stages, including waiting and on-vehicle time and
speed, travel time, punctuality
Information acquisition
Time utilisation on-board and
at stops
Satisfaction level towards to the
current choice
The occurrence of disruption events and its impacts
Detailed trip stages, including
Detailed time reliability
waiting and on-vehicle time and
perception
speed, travel time, punctuality
Information acquisition
Time utilisation on-board and at
stops
Overall satisfaction in general and compared to the his/her
expectation and towards other mode alternatives and possible
modify the choice
Passenger satisfaction on: service availability (frequency and stop location), travel speed (both subjective and relative speeds),
Conclusions: The key variables that suggested to be
measured by the METPEX Tool
Variable
Travel time
Subjective travel
time
Station
environment
Personnel
Ease of
transferring
Physical design
Definition
Comments
Primary variables
Actual time components including
Could be measured directly from
access, waiting, in-vehicle/moving and traveller’s position data
egress times (as applicable).
Direct questioning could be contrasted
Perceived time components
against measured travel time
The appeal and safety of the physical
Relevant for public transport
Safety and security are particularly
waiting environment
relevant for women travellers
Availability and responsiveness of
Relevant for public transport
personnel at stops and on-board
Subjective satisfaction levels
Quality of interchange (coordination,
A complex notion that requires a more
transfer design, accessibility,
detailed investigation of interchange
connectivity)
quality factors
The presence of physical hindrances,
Relevant for active modes
appropriate and thoughtful design and Requires an inventory for classifying
the surface quality.
design quality
Variable
Information
Availability
Reliability
Comfort and appeal
Safety and security
Parking availability
Way-finding and
vehicle accessibility
Definition
Comments
Secondary variables
The availability and quality of pre-trip
Relevant for all modes except walking. Requires a
Conclusions:
The
key
variables
that suggested to be
careful classification of information sources (type,
and en-route information
measured by the METPEX
trip stage,Tool
comprehensiveness)
Service frequency and span, service
coverage
Service punctuality/regularity and travel
time predictability
Could be derived from the respective public
transport agencies and GIS analysis
Relevant for public transport and car
Could be derived empirically from data on travel
time distribution
Seat availability and comfort, availability Relevant for public transport
of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness
A combination of subjective satisfaction levels and
at stops and on-board and travel
an inventory of characteristics
sickness
The perceived risk of being exposed to
Relevant for all travel modes
traffic-related or an intentional act of
Subjective risk levels that could be contrasted
hostility
against reported safety and security incidents
Ease of finding an available parking
place
Relevant for car.
Could be measured empirically through the
parking search time.
Physical and mental barriers associated Relevant for special mobility groups
with travelling – in particular, vehicle
Accessibility could be checked against fleet
design (low floor, priority seat) and way- allocation and composition
finding (orientation)
Variable
Definition
Comments
Conclusions:
The keySecondary
variables
that
suggested to be
variables
The availability
and quality
pre-trip
Relevant for
all modes except walking. Requires a
Information
measured
byof the
METPEX
Tool
careful classification of information sources (type,
trip stage, comprehensiveness)
and en-route information
Availability
Reliability
Comfort and appeal
Safety and security
Service frequency and span, service
coverage
Service punctuality/regularity and travel
time predictability
Could be derived from the respective public
transport agencies and GIS analysis
Relevant for public transport and car
Could be derived empirically from data on travel
time distribution
Seat availability and comfort, availability Relevant for public transport
of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness
A combination of subjective satisfaction levels and
at stops and on-board and travel
an inventory of characteristics
sickness
The perceived risk of being exposed to
Relevant for all travel modes
traffic-related or an intentional act of
Subjective risk levels that could be contrasted
hostility
against reported safety and security incidents
Relevant for car.
Could be measured empirically through the
parking search time.
Way-finding and
Physical and mental barriers associated Relevant for special mobility groups
travelling – in particular,
vehicle
Accessibility
checked against
fleet
vehicle accessibility with
A MEasurement
Tool to determine
the
quality could
of thebePassenger
Experience
design (low floor, priority seat) and way- allocation and composition
D2.3finding
– Identification
of user requirements concerning the definition of variables to be measured
(orientation)
Parking availability
Ease of finding an available parking
place
by the METPEX tool