Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey.
-
Upload
caren-french -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
4
Transcript of Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey.
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST)
Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey
BEST 2010
BEST City report 20102
Content
1. About the survey
2. How to read the graphs
3. Main results Best performing city/region per index Results per index and city/region in 2010,
2009, 2008 and 2007
4. Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction 2010
5. Main results per city from 2005 to 2010 Overall citizen satisfaction
Satisfaction per city/region with:
Traffic supply Reliability Information Staff behaviour Security and safety Comfort
Perception of social image 2005 - 2010
Perception of value for money 2005 - 2010
Citizens stated loyalty to public transport from 2005 to 2010
6. Background information Gender Age Life situation PT travel frequency
BEST 2010
3
About the survey
The following cities participated in the BEST 2010 survey:
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki (with additional questions)
Copenhagen
Vienna
Geneva (with additional questions)
For all cities 1.000 residents in defined areas have been interviewed. An additional 600 interviews where conducted in Helsinki in 2010. All interviews have been done by telephone.
The fieldwork was conducted between March 1st and March 14th 2010.
Results from the survey have been weighted with respect to sex and age to match the profile in each area.
In 2010 the special topic was transfers. Five questions related to this topic was added to the questionnaire. The results is to be found in a separate report.
BEST City report 2010
BEST 2010
BEST City report 20104
Eight dimensions believed to affect satisfaction included in the survey
Background variables: Travel frequency by public transport PT modes most often used Main occupation Sex Age Post code (geography)
Loyalty
8. Value for money
7. Social image
Satisfaction
1. Traffic Supply2. Reliability3. Information4. Staff behaviour5. Personal security/safety6. Comfort
Ridership
BEST 2010
BEST City report 2010
Response rates
Response rates are calculated as follows:
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Copenhagen 38 % 54 % 55 % 56 % 53 % 39 % 40 % 32 % 37 % 34 %
Geneva 50 % 47 % 50 % 49 % 47 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 38 %
Helsinki 41 % 49 % 45 % 47 % 40 % 37 % 32 % 26 % 30 % 36 %
Oslo 37 % 44 % 48 % 45 % 40 % 39 % 28 % 27 % 28 % 27 %
Stockholm 50 % 64 % 56 % 60 % 56 % 50 % 64 % 51 % 62 % 64 %
Vienna 39 % 57 % 58 % 61 % 58 % 58 % 54 % 46 % 43 % 16 %
5
BEST Survey response rate =
Number of completed interviews
(Total sample ÷ telephone numbers not in use / not in target group)
BEST 2010
BEST City report 20106
Sampling Sampling procedures varies from country to country. In Norway, Denmark and Finland samples are drawn from
databases covering both mobile and fixed line telephones. In Sweden and Switzerland samples are drawn from fixed
line telephones. In all instances it is estimated that approximately 85-95%
of the adult population in all included countries can be reached by telephone.
The primary sampling unit varies across countries (see table on right hand side).
The secondary sampling unit for fixed line phone numbers are the person in the household who last had a birthday. For mobile telephone numbers the secondary sampling unit are the individuals uses the particular mobile phone.
There are no single, clear answer to what the best sampling method and procedure is. In case of the BEST survey there is little reason to believe that there should be a strong correlation between attitudes towards the public transport system and telephone usage, fixed line or mobile.
From Norway and other countries we know that there is a relatively strong correlation between age and mobile subscription. The younger people are the more likely they are to be using mobile telephones. In the BEST survey the completed data are weighted with respect to age, and hence adjusted for this possible skewness.
City Sample base and primary sampling unit
Stockholm Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
Oslo Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
HelsinkiFixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit, priority to mobile telephone numbers
Copenhagen Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
Vienna Fixed line and mobile sample, phone number primary sampling unit
Geneva Fixed line sample, household primary sampling unit
BEST 2010
BEST City report 20107
Mobile interviews*
City % mobile interviews 2008 % mobile interviews 2009 % mobile interviews 2010
Stockholm 2,5%** 2,3%** 2,1%**
Oslo 40% 39% 44%
Helsinki 82% 96% 98%
Copenhagen 25% 35% 36%
Vienna 7% 9% 44%
Geneva 0% 0% 0%
* Share of interviews conducted with respondents using a mobile phone
** If mobile callback requested by respondent only
BEST 2010
BEST City report 20108
How to read the graphs
Time series
4449 47
51
58 58
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
CITIZEN SATISFACTION
<TOTAL BASE: NNN>
The graphs show the proportion of the respondents who agrees (partially agrees or fully agrees) to the different statements in blue columns. The red columns shows the proportion who disagrees (hardly agrees or not agree at all) to the statements.
Respondents with a neutral position are not displayed in the graphs.
The graphs also include results from previous surveys, shown in the table to the right as the proportion of the respondents who agrees to the statement in question.
BEST 2006
10 Citizens Satisfaction Survey 2006
BEST Survey 2007Citizen satisfaction
80
79
76
73
67
66
58
-5
-3
-3
-6
-10
-10
-11
Vienna
Helsinki
Prague
Berlin
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all<TOTAL BASE: NNN>
5852585658
4751585866
6764666567
..637373
..80.76
8078768179
7875757480
20032004200520062007
Development per index in the different cities are also shown as time lines.
All graphs are standard PowerPoint-graphs where different categories can be hidden and value labels displayed at ones own preference.
BEST performing city/region perindex 2006 - 2010
BEST 2010
Citizen satisfaction
Traffic supply
Reliability
Information
Staff behaviour
Security and safety
Comfort
Value for money
Social image
Loyalty
-6
-15
-11
-11
-7
-5
-11
-24
-4
-6
77
68
73
71
74
84
67
51
88
80
Partly/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Citizen satisfaction Helsinki (77)
Geneva (84)
Geneva(78)
Vienna(80)
Helsinki(81)
Traffic supply Geneva (68)
Geneva (71)
Berlin(86)
Berlin(84)
Berlin(70)
Reliability Geneva (73)
Geneva (76)
Berlin(84)
Berlin(84)
Geneva(79)
Information Geneva (71)
Geneva (75)
Geneva(71)
Geneva(71)
Geneva(66)
Staff behaviour Geneva (74)
Geneva (78)
Geneva(74)
Geneva(75)
Geneva(76)
Security and safety Oslo (84)
Oslo (82)
Oslo(82)
Vienna(87)
Vienna(81)
Comfort Geneva (67)
Geneva (71)
Berlin(78)
Berlin(77)
Geneva(67)
Value for money Helsinki (51)
Helsinki (51)
Berlin(56)
Vienna(53)
Helsinki(50)
Social image Oslo(90)
Geneva (90)
Oslo(87)
Oslo(89)
Geneva(85)
Loyalty Helsinki (80)
Helsinki (81)
Helsinki(80)
Vienna(81)
Vienna(75)
Best performing city per index
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 10
Results per index and city/region
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region in 2010
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 72 77 77 67 60 60
Traffic supply 64 67 68 60 59 56
Reliability 53 56 73 40 39 43
Information 53 46 71 40 44 45
Staff behaviour 56 59 74 55 67 65
Security & safety 74 76 74 69 84 71
Comfort 60 62 67 57 56 56
Social image 81 87 87 85 88 71
Value for money 42 51 36 39 37 28
Loyalty 72 80 75 62 60 47
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 12
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region in 2009
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 61 82 84 76 62 56
Traffic supply 68 68 71 63 57 54
Reliability 65 68 76 50 39 43
Information 61 52 75 52 46 46
Staff behaviour 60 58 78 58 71 68
Security & safety 72 74 79 70 82 68
Comfort 61 62 71 59 53 58
Social image 84 89 90 86 88 73
Value for money 40 51 40 36 38 28
Loyalty 65 81 75 63 61 47
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 13
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region in 2008
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Berlin Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 68 76 78 73 64 62 50
Traffic supply 60 65 68 86 59 59 55
Reliability 56 64 79 84 41 48 41
Information 54 49 71 70 48 46 48
Staff behaviour 54 54 74 72 54 69 65
Security & safety 76 72 77 68 64 82 69
Comfort 60 63 68 78 56 52 55
Social image 79 84 86 80 80 87 69
Value for money 33 47 33 56 26 38 27
Loyalty 70 80 73 75 56 63 42
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 14
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region in 2007
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Berlin Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 80 79 79 73 67 66 58
Traffic supply 72 66 69 84 58 62 57
Reliability 72 64 83 84 36 52 40
Information 64 48 71 67 49 47 43
Staff behaviour 71 57 75 71 55 74 66
Security & safety 87 71 80 72 65 83 70
Comfort 69 63 71 77 55 54 54
Social image 85 86 87 80 80 89 70
Value for money 53 49 31 53 46 34 35
Loyalty 81 78 75 71 61 65 49
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 15
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region – change from 2009 to 2010
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction 11 -4 -6 -9 -2 4
Traffic supply -4 -1 -3 -3 2 1
Reliability -13 -12 -3 -9 0 0
Information -8 -6 -4 -11 -2 -1
Staff behaviour -4 1 -3 -3 -4 -3
Security & safety 2 3 -5 -2 2 3
Comfort -1 0 -4 -2 3 -2
Social image -3 -2 -3 -1 0 -2
Value for money 2 0 -4 3 -1 -1
Loyalty 7 -1 0 -2 -1 0
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 16
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region – change from 2008 to 2009
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction -6 6 6 13 -1 6
Traffic supply 8 3 3 4 -2 -1
Reliability 9 4 -3 9 -9 2
Information 8 3 4 4 1 -2
Staff behaviour 6 3 4 4 3 3
Security & safety -3 2 2 7 0 -1
Comfort 1 -1 3 4 1 3
Social image 4 4 4 6 0 4
Value for money 7 4 8 10 0 1
Loyalty -5 1 3 8 -1 5
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 17
BEST 2010
Results per index and city/region – change from 2007 to 2008
Vienna Helsinki Geneva Berlin Stockholm Oslo Copenhagen
Citizen satisfaction -12 -3 -1 0 -3 -4 -8
Traffic supply -12 -1 -1 2 1 -3 -2
Reliability -16 0 -4 0 5 -4 1
Information -10 1 0 3 -1 -1 5
Staff behaviour -17 -3 -1 1 -1 -5 -1
Security & safety -11 1 -3 -4 -1 -1 -1
Comfort -9 0 -3 1 1 -2 1
Social image -6 -2 -1 0 0 -2 -1
Value for money -20 -2 2 3 -20 4 -8
Loyalty -11 2 -2 4 -5 -2 -7
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 18
Which improvements matter most?
Quality indicators impact on overall citizen satisfaction
BEST 2010
How is the most important areas for improvements determined?
Traffic supply Nearest stop is close to where I live Waiting time is short at transfers I am satisfied with the number of departures
Reliability Capability to run on schedule
Information It is easy to get the information needed when
planning a trip Information is good when traffic problems occur
Staff behaviour Staff answers my questions correctly Staff behaves nicely and correctly
Security and safety I feel secure at stations and bus stops I feel secure on board busses and trains I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using
PT Comfort
Transfers are easy Busses and trains are modern Busses and trains are clean I normally get a seat when travel with PT
Description of the analysis: The indicators shown to the left have been
used to determine the impact they have on citizens over all satisfaction.
The selected indicators have been chosen as they are independent of each other and describes different phenomenon. I.e. ‘Travel time’ is not included as this element is a function of and covered through ‘Nearest stop is close to where I live’, ‘Number of departures’ and Waiting time is short at transfers’.
As such the indicators included are thought to be the ones who are possible to influence and describes the most concrete properties of the public transport system.
Price has not been included in this analysis, as the perception of price most often is a function of the perception of other properties.
A stepwise regression method has been used in the analysis.
On the following slide the five indicators with strongest significant impact on satisfaction are listed in ranked order for all participating cities in 2010.
Overall satisfaction
with PT
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 20
BEST 2010
I am satisfied with the number of departures
Public transport mostly runs on schedule
Waiting time is short at trans-fers
Transfers are easy
The staff answers my ques-tions correctly
0.24
0.19
0.13
0.12
0.10
CopenhagenI am satisfied with the number of departures
Waiting time is short at transfers
I normally get a seat when I travel with public trans-
port
The information is good when traffic problems
occur
The staff behaves nicely and correctly
0.24
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.11
GenevaI am satisfied with the number of departures
Transfers are easy
Public transport mostly runs on schedule
I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using
public transport
The busses and trains are clean
0.23
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.08
Helsinki
Public transport mostly runs on schedule
I am satisfied with the number of departures
I feel secure at stations and bus stops
The busses and trains are modern
Waiting time is short at trans-fers
0.30
0.25
0.10
0.09
0.09
OsloPublic transport mostly runs
on schedule
I am satisfied with the number of departures
The staff behaves nicely and correctly
Waiting time is short at trans-fers
The busses and trains are clean
0.25
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.12
StockholmI am satisfied with the number of departures
Public transport mostly runs on schedule
Nearest stop is close to where I live
It is easy to get the informa-tion needed when planning a
trip
I am not afraid of traffic accidents when using pub-
lic transport
0.20
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
Vienna
Which improvements of public transport will have the greatest impact on citizens overall satisfaction with public transport?
When studying these results please keep in mind that the internal ranking of the different elements in each city is of prime interest. Comparison of the estimated effects across cities must be done cautiously and interpreted as indications of differences.
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 21
Overall citizen satisfaction with public transport 2005 - 2010
BEST 2010
Overall citizen satisfaction
Helsinki
Geneva
Vienna
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Oslo
-6
-7
-6
-10
-13
-15
77
77
72
67
60
60
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
77 82 76 79 81
77 84 78 79 76
72 61 68 80 74
67 76 64 67 65
60 56 50 58 56
60 62 62 66 58
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 23
BEST 2010
Overall citizen satisfaction
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
% satisfied citizens
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 24
Satisfaction with traffic supply from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Traffic supply
Geneva
Helsinki
Vienna
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
-15
-12
-16
-16
-22
-21
68
67
64
60
59
56
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
68 71 68 69 68
67 68 65 66 67
64 68 60 72 66
60 63 59 58 57
59 57 59 62 55
56 54 55 57 56
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 26
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Traffic supply
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 27
Satisfaction with reliability from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Reliability
Geneva
Helsinki
Vienna
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Oslo
-11
-21
-19
-26
-29
-37
73
56
53
43
40
39
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
73 76 79 83 79
56 68 64 64 72
53 65 56 72 68
43 43 41 40 38
40 50 41 36 38
39 39 48 52 43
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 29
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Reliability
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 30
Satisfaction with information from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Information
Geneva
Vienna
Helsinki
Copenhagen
Oslo
Stockholm
-11
-20
-28
-27
-32
-33
71
53
46
45
44
40
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
71 75 71 71 66
53 61 54 64 64
46 52 49 48 57
45 46 48 43 48
44 46 46 47 42
40 52 58 49 51
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 32
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Information
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 33
Satisfaction with staff behaviour from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Staff behaviour
Geneva
Oslo
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Vienna
Stockholm
-7
-9
-8
-12
-11
-10
74
67
65
59
56
55
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
74 78 74 75 76
67 71 69 74 65
65 68 65 66 65
59 58 54 57 59
56 60 54 71 67
55 58 54 55 59
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 35
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Staff behaviour
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 36
Satisfaction with security and safety from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Security and safety
Oslo
Helsinki
Geneva
Vienna
Copenhagen
Stockholm
-5
-8
-10
-9
-10
-9
84
76
74
74
71
69
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
84 82 82 83 80
76 74 72 71 72
74 79 77 80 74
74 72 76 87 81
71 68 69 70 70
69 70 64 65 63
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 38
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Security and safety
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 39
Satisfaction with comfort from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Comfort
Geneva
Helsinki
Vienna
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
-11
-11
-10
-13
-15
-14
67
62
60
57
56
56
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
67 71 68 71 67
62 62 63 63 63
60 61 60 69 64
57 59 56 55 53
56 53 52 54 48
56 58 55 54 54
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 41
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Comfort
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 42
Citizens perception of the social image PT from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Social image
Oslo
Helsinki
Geneva
Stockholm
Vienna
Copenhagen
-4
-3
-3
-2
-5
-9
88
87
87
85
81
71
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
88 88 87 89 81
87 89 84 86 82
87 90 86 87 85
85 86 80 80 81
81 84 79 85 81
71 73 69 70 68
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 44
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Social image
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 45
Citizens’ perception of value for money from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Value for money
Helsinki
Vienna
Stockholm
Oslo
Geneva
Copenhagen
-24
-29
-29
-37
-39
-44
51
42
39
37
36
28
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
51 51 47 49 50
42 40 33 53 49
39 36 26 46 40
37 38 38 34 34
36 40 33 31 25
28 28 27 35 32
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 47
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Value for money
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 48
Citizens stated public transport loyalty from 2004 to 2010
BEST 2010
Loyalty
Helsinki
Geneva
Vienna
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
-6
-8
-7
-12
-17
-23
80
75
72
62
60
47
Partially/Fully agree Hardly/Don't agree at all TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
80 81 80 78 75
75 75 73 75 67
72 65 70 81 75
62 63 56 61 57
60 61 63 65 53
47 47 42 49 45
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 50
BEST 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
20
40
60
80
100
Copenhagen
Geneva
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Vienna
Loyalty
% satisfied citizens
TOTAL BASE: Replied grade
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 51
Background information
BEST 2010
Gender
Total
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copenhagen
Vienna
Geneva
48.4180022123591
49.3842332373874
48.4676979679708
47.5257509224384
48.2460763193953
49.4373762641506
47.0000742050901
51.5819977876382
50.6157667626122
51.5323020320295
52.474249077561
51.7539236806043
50.5626237358495
52.9999257949096
Man
Woman
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 53
BEST 2010
Life situation
Total
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copenhagen
Vienna
Geneva
52.9660971732981
64.272515264563
63.3224407233084
53.3863410070534
54.0319214489873
39.7498869888893
43.0760950201183
9.66567255013258
9.6605440887341
5.41173185899434
4.84301414196578
8.45183592432019
12.1156227359617
20.5327585472363
10.4115274998893
7.35408596446853
9.39008117157792
12.0926415469222
11.1294368096071
12.5434753269427
8.79674345660109
21.0669017714497
15.593098674877
18.4653939799513
22.8287879163589
21.4915376339934
26.3034176202166
20.4587934732322
5.72840102405961
3.11975600735736
3.23786316311156
6.73326916930523
4.89526818309182
8.99019966805159
6.73257185442918
Working, fulltime
Working, part time
Student
Retired
Others
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 54
BEST 2010
Public transport travel frequency
Total
Stockholm
Oslo
Helsinki
Copenhagen
Vienna
Geneva
34.5346378126786
34.756889607314
35.5540551189134
43.6056344502989
19.9213653866499
33.4170117356801
34.4639142245157
25.4307079660184
26.4350819727655
24.7148414828243
21.4480828836509
26.5433670382628
28.07432857083
27.9798194156118
21.8683620250321
20.4175254718945
23.2127592936516
21.0053535884956
26.2303445966877
18.0262670035138
22.5212749594622
16.025777972407
15.547145197583
14.6311039182596
12.3346838843125
24.0041972327383
18.6748991953525
13.2730205292082
2.05773183746442
2.72639817497174
1.78724070634833
1.5437842664548
3.3007257456608
1.68641843313859
1.64874310377691
Daily
A few times per week
A few times per month
Less than monthly
Never
BEST Survey 2010 – main report – page 55
For more information and other reports see our web site http://best2005.net or https://report.scandinfo.se/best/